BEIS0001208
BEIS0001208
{/o5 Coagk Aprey
To: ci: Secretary of State
MR JOHNSON Sir Michael Scholar
Mr Macdonald
Mr Davis CGBPS
From: Mrs Britton PORT
DAVID SIBBICK Mr Hosker FRM
DIRECTOR POSTS Mr Tee NEWS
308 Red Ms Johnson Legal C3
ce Road bner PORT
Mr Leese PORT
——t Mr Whitehead CGBPS 1
Mrs Wright CGBPS1
24 November 1999 Q Mr Halls CGBPS 2
Ms Madson NEWS
lo- P
i Ft Mr Robinson NEWS
Ms Anderson CGBPS1
*Mr Corry SpAdv
! GRO Ms Moore SpAdv
POST OFFICE: BA MAILSHOT ON CHILD BENEFIT ALLOWANCES
Issue
Ie Follow up action on the Benefits Agency mailshot on child benefit allowances.
Recommendation
vs That you should write to Mr Rooker following his return visit to the Horizon
Working Group (HWG) on 15 November in the terms of the attached draft, copying
your letter to members of the HWG.
Timing
3. You should write if possible before the weekend so that your letter can be
circulated before the next meeting of the HWG, scheduled for 1 December.
Background
4. Following Mr Rooker’s return visit to the HWG on 15 November, at which he
insisted that the child benefit mailshot represented in no sense a departure from well
established and accepted DSS/BA policy and practice, we have held further meetings
and discussions with BA officials and with the National Federation of Sub-
DATEMP\TOZCHLOBENS.00C
BEIS0001208
BEIS0001208
Postmasters. We still do not have all the answers. Thus despite asking the question
several times of BA officials we still do not know whether the BA mailshot went to
weekly paid child benefit recipients who are paid by ACT (assuming that there are
some, though this remains unclear). BA officials told us categorically at one point that
the mailshot had only gone to benefit recipients who are paid weekly by order book at
post offices. But it surely cannot be the case that beneficiaries who have elected to be
paid by ACT will continue to be paid weekly whether or not their circumstances still
justify it, whilst their counterparts who elected to be paid by order book are being
moved to monthly payment. A second question relates to those whose child benefit
pre-dates the change of policy on periodicity in 1982. We know from anecdotal
evidence that at least some in that category who are paid weekly by order book did not
receive the BA mailshot. One possible explanation is that they were given reserved
rights in 1982 to continue with weekly payment, and that those reserved rights are still
honoured.
5: We will continue to press for answers to these questions, but they are unlikely
to affect the fundamental issues which can perhaps best be summarised as follows:
© We have found no reason to challenge Jeff Rooker's statement that DSS/BA policy
on payment periodicity has remained unchanged since 1982. It is that child benefit
allowances are paid at four-weekly intervals except where claimants fall into one of
a small number of tightly defined categories such as those in receipt of income
support.
Jeff Rooker is equally correct in stating that the wording relating to ACT on the
recent mailshot is entirely in line with that used repeatedly on BA forms and leaflets
for some years now.
e Where however he can be challenged is that on every BA form, leaflet and mailshot
that we and the NFSP have been able to unearth, whether aimed at new claimants or
at existing order book claimants, the wording on ACT options has always been
accompanied by a clear statement that payment by order book at post offices is or
remains an option. The NFSP are therefore entirely right to claim that the wording
on ACT has in the © Past been accepted Le Serer ajenper
6. Ido not doubt that the assurance which Jeff Rooker gave to the HWG was made
entirely in good faith, but I strongly suspect that his officials had omitted to mention to
him that their recent mailshot failed - so far as we can tell for the first time ever - to
include any mention of the crucial order book option. It is clear that the omission has
misled and upset many recipients of the mailshot. We have told BA officials that we
feel strongly that they both owe it to recipients of the mailshot, and to the spirit of their
DATEMP\TO2CHLDBENS.DOC 26
BEIS0001208
BEIS0001208
Secretary of State's assurance to the Trade and Industry Committee, to send a further
mailshot to all recipients of the first alerting them to the "ambiguity" in the first
mailshot, and setting out clearly the payment options. Whilst they undertook to think
further on this, we have heard nothing further from them.
Conclusion
7. I suggest that you should now write to Mr Rooker setting out the position as we
see it, and urging him to agree that BA should urgently send out a further mailshot.
An alternative, though less satisfactory, solution would be for BA and POCL to agree
on the terms of a poster/leaflet that could be displayed prominently in all post offices.
This would remind child benefit recipients that they continue to enjoy the right to be
paid by order book at post offices whether their payments are on a weekly or a
monthly basis. Finally, it would be useful to remind Mr Rooker that if BA had
consulted - or even informed - POCL about the mailshot in advance, the present
difficulties might have been avoided, and the relationship between the two parties
strengthened rather than damaged.
DAVID SIBBICK
DATEMPATOZCHLDBENS.DOC 38