Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to
ensure that all financial services are accessible and inclusive,
including ATMs and point of sale terminals.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury () (Con)
My Lords, the Government work closely with regulators, industry
and consumer groups to promote financial inclusion. We are
currently legislating to protect access to cash and many firms
offer services to make everyday banking and payment interfaces,
including ATMs and point-of-sale terminals, more accessible for
consumers. Importantly, all service providers, including banks
and building societies, are bound under the Equality Act 2010 to
make reasonable adjustments where necessary in the way they
deliver their services.
(Con)
My Lords, if we are to ensure financial inclusion, we need not
just to have such financial services and products but to ensure
that those services and products are accessible. Does my noble
friend agree that the worrying rise in inaccessible point-of-sale
terminals and card payment machines—for example, accessible
keyboards being replaced with inaccessible flat screens—marks
three things: a prima facie breach of equalities legislation, a
complete failure of inclusion by design, and just bad
business?
(Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right that it is really important
that innovation aid inclusion, rather than hinder it. I was
really pleased to hear about the work the Royal National
Institute of Blind People has done with manufacturers to create
an accessible solution for card payments, and that these devices
are starting to appear in some shops. That is excellent work that
we would like to see replicated to ensure that the aims he
rightly referred to are met.
(Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware from our debate
yesterday of the real concern about loss of banking facilities
for people with disadvantages, and that there is a great risk
that many currently free cash machines are going to be converted,
so that people will have to pay commission on the cash they take
out. Will she look very carefully at last night’s debate and come
back with amendments to safeguard financial inclusion?
(Con)
I will absolutely be looking very carefully at all the details of
yesterday’s debate. I do not think it necessary to amend the Bill
to achieve what the noble Lord talks about. On face-to-face
services and bank branch closures, there is already FCA
regulation on banks seeking to close branches. That guidance has
recently been strengthened and is very clear about the
expectations for the provision of alternative services; also, the
impact of branch closures on customers must be considered very
carefully.
(LD)
My Lords, recent research shows that blind and partially sighted
people are twice as likely to be digitally excluded—and, by
extension, financially excluded—as the general public. Does the
Minister agree that the Financial Services and Markets Bill,
which we discussed only last night, must give the FCA a “have
regard to financial inclusion” statutory duty to ensure that
financial inclusion is protected and advanced for blind and
partially sighted people and other vulnerable groups?
(Con)
My Lords, I recognise the strong interest in this area. As we
debated last night, the previous Financial Services and Markets
Act put an obligation on the FCA to look at it. It has brought
forward its new consumer duty and believes that that fulfils the
same function. I am sure that we will discuss this further in
Committee.
(Con)
My Lords, I declare a partial interest in that a member of my
family is involved in designing, constructing and introducing
ATMs and other retail technology. Does my noble friend think that
enough is being done on the relationship and connection between
organisations that represent those with disabilities, the
Government and the manufacturers and designers of this
equipment?
(Con)
I would certainly be interested to hear what more could be done
in that area. On ensuring that everyday banking is accessible to
customers, LINK, for example, publishes on its cash locator
information on ATMs with audio assistance and those that are
wheelchair-accessible, so that consumers are aware of what
locations are suitable for them. We are always interested to hear
about what further work we can do to promote financial
inclusion.
(CB)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the FCA consumer duty. As I
understand it, that duty and the consumer vulnerability guidance
deal primarily with existing customers and do not help with the
issue of the poverty premium, which excludes vulnerable people
and those with the least access to resources from financial
products and services. Can she say how that new consumer duty
will address the issue mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady
Tyler, because I do not believe they are the same thing?
(Con)
The noble Baroness is right to mention the poverty premium. It
can take different forms; it may be financial exclusion or being
charged more for particular services. The Government progress
their work on this area through the Financial Inclusion Policy
Forum. For example, we are working with Fair4All Finance, which
was set up using funding from dormant assets and seeks to provide
more access to fair, affordable and appropriate financial
products and services. It has an affordable credit scale-up
challenge that seeks to address this area.
(Non-Afl)
Does the Minister share my concern at the increasing number of
shops refusing to take cash? Obviously, they have the right to
make that decision, but does she share my concern at the
difficulty this poses for many people, particularly the elderly
and vulnerable, who do not have bank accounts?
(Con)
We absolutely recognise the importance of cash to the people the
noble Baroness mentions. As she says, it is for shops and other
service providers to determine how they accept payments, but we
are legislating to protect access to cash through the Financial
Services and Markets Bill. That should help those shops and
service providers which wish to continue to accept cash to do so,
because we are focusing on this from both a consumer and a
wholesale perspective.
(Lab)
My Lords, if I understood the Minister correctly, she said that
the consultation, or the rules, on bank branch closures are being
strengthened. May I ask her to consider three facts? First, there
is absolutely no consultation between banks and customers before
a branch is closed. Secondly, banks do not publish details of
their financial calculations to show whether a branch should be
closed or not. Thirdly, people do not have the opportunity to
object and vote against a bank’s decision. In light of that, what
is any guidance worth?
(Con)
My Lords, what I actually said is that the FCA guidance on bank
branch closures has recently been strengthened. I do not
recognise the picture the noble Lord paints. Firms are expected
carefully to consider the impact of planned closure on their
customers’ everyday banking and cash access needs and to consider
alternative arrangements. The strengthened FCA guidance has
specifically looked at enhancing protections for consumers who
rely on those branch services. For instance, there are examples
of banks placing people in those branches to ensure that they can
help their customers to access banking through digital means such
as mobile or online banking. There is also the rollout of Post
Office banking hubs to provide more in-person services to
customers.
(Con)
What consideration have the Government given to the ability of
residents in rural areas to continue to draw cash from ATM
machines, and to the security implications of rural businesses
not being able to bank their cash at peak times?
(Con)
The access-to-cash provisions in the Bill will require the FCA to
consider access to cash at both a local and national level, so it
will take geographic factors into account. That is also taken
into account through LINK’s maintenance of the ATM network, which
considers how far people might have to travel to access cash and
what is reasonable.
(Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister claiming that progress on this matter
is rapid enough? It seems to me that the general view in the
House today is that it is not. If she is saying that the
legislation is sufficient, surely, the implication is that the
regulator is not doing its job well enough.
(Con)
My Lords, there is always more to do. For example, I referred to
the rollout of Post Office banking hubs. They may have been
slower than expected to get off the ground, but just recently we
have seen a large number of new hubs announced. That is an
example of improvement in these areas. As I have referred to, we
think we need more legislation, so we have measures in the Bill
on access to cash to further strengthen that.
