-----
Original Message -----
From: dave.mortimer@tiscali.co.uk
To: starkeyp@miltonkeynes-sw.demon.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 11:40 AM
Subject: Early Interventions: The political risk
Dr
Phyllis Starkey MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
Phone: 01908 225522
Fax: 01908 312297
starkeyp@miltonkeynes-sw.demon.co.uk
http://www.phyllisstarkey.labour.co.uk/
Dear
Dr Starkey
Early
Interventions: The political risk
The
Management of Green Paper Family Policy
Thank
you so much for your letter of 21 September enclosing a reply
from Margaret Hodge.
I
wonder if you would do a reply?
I’m
afraid that something has gone dreadfully wrong in Whitehall.
The intended reform project - on which the Green Paper is based
- has been deliberately destroyed, swapped for a Civil Service
spoiler. They’ve been working on the wrong project. This
is well known outside the Department. It is bound to become a
major bone of contention over the coming months. I’ve enclosed
a draft letter you might consider as the basis for a reply. Anything
along these lines would do.
Yours
sincerely,
David
Mortimer
SUGGESTED
REPLY TO MARGARET HODGE
Sanctuary
Buildings
Great Smith Street
London SW1P 3BT
Dear
Mrs MARGARET HODGE
The
Early Interventions project
David
Mortimer
Thank
you for your reply of 17 September to my constituent David Mortimer
in relation to his concerns about the Early Interventions pilot
put forward in my letter to the Right Hon Charles Clarke of 25
August. Mr Mortimer has asked me to say how very helpful he found
your reply. In particular he notes you say, at paragraph 3, that
Family Resolutions “does not differ from the original project”.
In addition he notes the suggestion, at paragraph 5, that ‘Early
Interventions’ only existed as a briefly-considered name-change
to the FR project ‘earlier this year’. In this connection,.
Mr Mortimer has drawn my attention to your comment to the House
the previous year (23 October 2003, Hansard 332WH) about ‘the
early intervention schemes in Florida’ of which you say:
‘I have looked at the scheme… it is extremely interesting
and we are considering whether we can take it forward with Mrs
Justice Bracewell.” Mr Mortimer has asked me to raise the
following points. He has seen documentation clearly showing that
it was the fully-designed ‘Early Interventions’ project
which was - as you told the House - submitted to the DCA and DfES
on 8 October 2003. He also claims that Early Interventions was
the project approved by Lord Filkin - as confirmed by Lord Filkin’s
letter to the CEP on 29 April 2004 (‘The Early Interventions
project which was developed by New Approaches to Contact (NATC)
and others, is being developed and taken forward’.) Mr Mortimer
claims there is no resemblance between the project which has come
out of Whitehall (Family Resolutions) and the agreed project which
went into Whitehall (Early Interventions). The core EI innovation
was deliberately omitted. He claims that departmental officials
spent a year working up a private project of their own - which
is the opposite of the project submitted, the opposite of the
project approved - and, incidentally, of no use. Since this Section
8 project was, as you say, intended to form a ‘key proposal’
in the Green Paper, Mr Mortimer wonders if the Green Paper will
be undermined. In making these observations, Mr Mortimer claims
that the attempted substitution of the Early Interventions pilot
is well known to the press, parents groups and lawyers; he further
claims that a full professional announcement to this effect, rejecting
FR as the wrong project, is scheduled for publication. Mr Mortimer
has asked me if you can find out which civil servant or civil
servants decided to - as he puts it - ‘swap’ one project
for another.
