APPENDIX 1
Memorandum submitted by Mr Colin S J McCarthy
In general and without going into detail the
Strategy for Science Engineering and Technology, particularly
Technology Foresight, has made very good progress, but, it is
important when conducting an inquiry such as this to ask the correct
questions to the best people able to give an impartial and considered
view. It is increasingly apparent that objectivity has been lost
in a lot of Government surveys and the influence of the "London
in crowd" seems to be too strong. This can best be exemplified
using eg unemployment statistics, in regions outside London large
numbers of people (approximately three million looking for paid
employment) many who still want to work have been encouraged to
take early retirement or unpaid voluntary work, etc because they
are over 50 years old. Similary the under 50 year olds (again
approximately another three million looking for paid employment)
are hidden in training schemes, are in and out of short term contracts,
or just do not show up on any government statistics. The fact
that official Government figures show approximately one million
claiming benefits is contrary to the majority of the populations
experience, they therefore distrust all Government statistics—this
is very serious as large parts of the population lose trust in
the democratic process and it becomes difficult to conduct reasoned
scientific debate.
At the same time the dumbing down of the majority
of the British economy means that vacancies are often filled by
relatively less able people (often young people replacing older
more experienced workers who have been forced out) who are good
at boring repetitive tasks and also do not "rock the boat".
There is no place in an asset stripping short term share price
driven economy for innovators and companies that look to long-term
product development. Please do not consider the "dotcom"
company success? as a reason for optimism as the funds taken by
these, mostly unsustainable companies, are partly responsible
for the failures of more established companies (along with the
Pound and Euro problems).
I believe it is difficult to comment on the
many successes that came from "Realising our Potential"
such as "Foresight" because macroeconomic trends at
present seem so damaging to such processes. Why did the Government
give in to what to most people seems to be undue pressure by the
Welcome Trust to site the DIAMOND synchrotron radiation source
at the Rutherton Appleton Laboratory, Oxford. It is obvious to
most in the scientific community that DIAMOND should have been
sited at the Daresbury Laboratory near Manchester. The technical
arguments have been covered well by the media but the decision
gives the impression of big problems in Government. The decision
reinforces the impression of a North/South divide and will go
against plans to reduce housing demand and reduce traffic congestion
problems in the south. These negative factors may well cause losses
in excess of the £100 million to be provided by the Welcome
Trust.
There are lots of good things that could be
included in the "Call for Evidence" but unless the Science
and Technology Committee sorts out the issues I have highlighted
I believe these good points will be sidelined.
I have applied for paid employment, in the past,
at the Government Office of the West Midlands and other Government
organisations in Staffordshire and the West Midlands because the
problems are so complex and can not be solved just by consultation
exercises, but I have been unsuccessful in gaining paid employment.
Why is it so difficult to get paid employment
in the Staffordshire area, I am only 44 years old? Why do members
of the Government find it so hard to employ people who are resident
outside London?
Why do so many residents from the South East
have to commute to work in the North when there are very large
numbers having to commute from the North to work in the South
East? Why is London becoming a place where only people from highly
paid professions eg stockbrokers can afford to live?
Do the Science and Technology Committee accept
that undemocratic global companies have more influence on the
Government than is reasonable?
8 May 2000
| 
