§ Q2. Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if he will now disband the CPRS.
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir.
§ Mr. DalyellMay we be sure that the CPRS has not become something of a fifth wheel on the coach of Government?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir, I think it has not. I find the papers and submissions prepared by the CPRS extremely valuable as a commentary on the work of Departments. I think that its existence is certainly justified.
§ Mr. Hugh FraserWill the Prime Minister consider the whole question of scientific advice available to the Government, since this aspect of policy appears to have been put into cold storage, if not actually destroyed? Would it not be better to spend the money involved in the CPRS on ensuring that the Government are given much better central scientific advice?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. The organisation of scientific advice and its application to the work of Departments have concerned me. We reached the conclusion that it was a matter of organisation, but I do not know that there is a perfect answer. It would be better to appoint a chief scientist in each Department, geared into the machine of the Department, rather than to have one central chief scientist who would be responsible for operating over the whole area of activity. It is also intended—although agreement has not yet been reached—to recruit a scientist to the CPRS itself.
§ Mr. Christopher PriceIs the Prime Minister aware that if there are to be cuts in public expenditure, many Labour Members will expect them to come at 871 the top as well as at the bottom? It is felt that there are elements of the work of the CPRS, particularly in its rôle in reviewing the area of foreign affairs, in which one could save public expenditure by getting rid of those elements completely.
§ The Prime MinisterThat is a very prejudiced point of view. There are only 17 members of the CPRS. We shall not save much of the £1,000 million on them. In regard to their work on the Foreign Office review, I thought, when I examined the situation in another capacity, that they could make a valuable contribution. It has become fashionable to attack particular organs of government, but I have seen nothing of the work of the CPRS that leads me to believe that it has fallen away in quality. As one who has had the opportunity of seeing that body at work, I believe that it makes a valuable contribution.
§ Mr. David SteelSince the nuclear industry has not developed long-term methods for dealing with nuclear waste, and since there are wide safety and security implications in the wider use of uranium and plutonium, will the Prime Minister say whether the CPRS is involved in decision-making about the future nuclear power station programme of the Government, or is this being left to the Department of Energy? Are we to have more public debate on this matter?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is open to the CPRS to submit any paper it wishes on this nuclear aspect or on any other. Without notice, I cannot say whether it has already done so.