-----
Original Message -----
From:dave.mortimer@tiscali.co.uk
To:starkeyp@miltonkeynes-sw.demon.co.uk
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 6:04 PM
Subject: Dr Phyllis Starkey MP - I wonder if you would pursue
this?
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/
7th
January 2005
Dear
Dr Starkey
The
Distortion of Family Policy
Many
thanks for forwarding Lord Filkin’s letter of 15 December
about the substitution of the Early Interventions reforms. I’m
not entirely sure that the picture painted by Lord Filkin is accurate.
The truth is that a major family policy reform was hijacked by
Whitehall. This is something of a disaster. The reforms stopped
by Whitehall would have resolved the problems in the family courts
I wonder if you would could pursue this? I attach two documents:
(i)
a background briefing
(ii)
a proposed letter to Lord Filkin
Could
you write to Lord Filkin again?
Yours
sincerely
David
Mortimer
Family
Policy – Background Briefing
January
2005
Whitehall:
Hijacking the Reform Process
A
bona-fide set of reform proposals developed by the legal profession
was approved by Lord Filkin. The detailed specifications for this
‘Early Intervention’ reform were passed by the Minister
to a DfES civil servant called Bruce Clark in October 2003. Mr
Clark [1] was told to implement a finished design for a new model
court system.
Reform:
Destroyed in Whitehall
Mr
Bruce Clark, of his own initiative:
-
decided to stop the approved reforms
-
decided to replace the approved reforms with his personal ideas
Mr
Clark, who had no relevant experience in this area:
-
devised a project which is the opposite of the agreed project
-
assured the Minister that he was producing the original EI reform
project
The
Deformation of Family Policy
The
upshot is Mr Clark’s “Family Resolutions” project,
which:
-
reverses the framework of the Florida system
-
abandons the proposed EI reforms
-
does not impinge on the existing legal system
-
consists of a pre-court non-legal Public Relations exercise
-
delays access to the existing court system
Meanwhile,
a Green Paper was prepared on the basis of Mr Clark’s assurances
that the original EI reform project (which Mr Clark had destroyed)
was nearing completion. The policies announced in the Green paper
are in consequence incapable of fulfillment
Corroboration
A
fully-documented ‘insider’ record, including day-by-day
correspondence and emails up to Ministerial level, is available
on request.
Suggested
letter to Lord Filkin
Dear
Lord Filkin,
Family
Policy - The Early Interventions Project
Thank
you for your letter of 15 December. Mr Mortimer has asked me to
say how very helpful he found your letter, in particular the paragraph
that: “The Family Resolutions Pilot Project has not abandoned
the principles of early intervention. Indeed in designing the
Pilot Project we have drawn a great deal from the experience of
other jurisdictions, particularly the Early Interventions model
in Florida.” Mr Mortimer appears to think that this account
is not fully supported by the written record. He claims that the
Family Resolutions project (which he says is the opposite of the
EI project) reverses the principles of Florida’s judicature.
His point is that the approved EI reforms have been abandoned.
Mr Mortimer claims that the legal profession accepts that the
original EI project, which he says has been stopped, is the answer
to the Family Court problem. He says that the wrong project has
been built. My constituent wonders if there is truth in the stories
that:
(i)
a lone Whitehall official decided to stop the EI project
(ii)
this same official concealed this decision by means of extended
assurances to Ministers that he was completing the original EI
project
Mr
Mortimer insists that there is an extensive written record to
this effect. I have reassured him generally that his beliefs are
misplaced. Perhaps you would assist with a reply specifically
directed at points (i) and (ii) above?
Best
regards Dave
