Banking Services: Accessibility

Thursday 19th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Matt Western in the Chair]

15:00

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the accessibility of banking services.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for permitting me the opportunity to raise the issues and concerns about access to banking services across the country and in our communities. These are nationwide concerns, and the issue vexes many MPs and constituents—certainly in my constituency, where a large number of banks have closed in the last decade. Many people, particularly the digitally excluded and the most vulnerable, have been left in extremely difficult circumstances.

My relationship with banking is rather rudimentary, and I hope that those more engaged in debates on banking and financial services will tolerate my rudimentary dialogue on this issue; it is not one of my specialist subjects by any means, as I think will become apparent. Nevertheless, as a Member of Parliament, I have taken a very close interest in this issue, largely provoked by the closure in January this year of a bank in my constituency —in Penzance, west Cornwall. That has had a rather offensive impact on the town.

I am also concerned about the rather high-handed manner in which this closure was carried out, without any consultation—simply an announcement that was then followed through. I was shocked by the impact and many resulting factors of the closure, as well as the dismissive attitude of the bank when it came to that impact on some of the most vulnerable, disabled and digitally excluded people in the community. I have had a nine-year sabbatical from this place; when I was here previously, I did not face these issues as there were not any bank closures. There have been significant closures since. I was surprised at the dialogue and the attitude of the high-street bank—in this case, Lloyds.

I declare an interest in that I was a loyal Lloyds customer until last week; I had been for more than the last half century. I have been so dismayed by the attitude and approach of the bank to this closure that I have withdrawn all my custom and taken it elsewhere, and the bank knows it. The same applies to many in the Penzance area of my constituency.

When it announced the closure, the bank promised the local community a community banker who would come for one day every fortnight into a public building to offer an alternative service to help those people who needed face-to-face banking. I have had the following information from a constituent who attended one of those sessions very recently; they have only just been set up. The hub, held in St John’s Hall, a local authority building in Penzance, consisted of one community banker, with equipment in a very large room; no cash or notes were available, only advice. There were 28 people queueing to see the community banker, waiting in a very public place in an echoey room; there is no confidentiality there. The first two people waiting were in the meeting room for one hour—20 people stayed; eight left because they could not wait any longer.

This person’s wife arrived at 9 am and arrived back home just before 12 midday, having walked to and fro. It was a total shambles, which shows the disregard Lloyds has for people. The next time the community banker arrives, which is apparently now in three weeks’ time, the hub will be held upstairs, which is not good for older and disabled people. The nearby post office at St Clare could not dispense any cash during that time because the system was down, including the cashpoint outside the post office. Lloyds has recently stopped people from cashing cheques at post offices as well, so banking services that should be and have been provided to people have been withdrawn.

According to Fair4All Finance, more than 20 million people across the UK are in “financially vulnerable circumstances”. One in 10 people has no savings, and 21% have less than £1,000 in savings—nearly a third of our population are in extremely financially vulnerable situations: just one or two pay packets away from homelessness. Nearly 2 million people have used an unlicensed lender or loan shark in the last year, and 4.5 million people in financial vulnerability prefer face-to-face banking with a person. The issue has grown in urgency in many parts of the country. Access to in-person banking should be an essential public service. Closures affect people’s financial security, local economies, small business survival, digital inclusion, and the independence and dignity of older and disabled people.

The Minister will no doubt refer to the fact that banking hubs have replaced the banks, which have all been removed from towns, falling like a house of cards. However, having looked at the services available through hubs, I have to say that they are very limited in scope. I wonder about their sustainability in the longer run.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate, because so many people in my area of Devon, as well as his area of Cornwall, feel strongly about the issue. Not only are fewer services available when a bank closes its high street branch, but, if they are available a banking hub, they are available only one day per week rather than five. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is in the gift of the Government to reconsider the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, and to look again at the ease with which banks are closing their high street branches?

[Andrew George]

I strongly agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. I will come to questions to the Minister in a moment; I believe that the Government need to look at the robustness and sustainability of those services. What has been put in the place of banks is rather flimsy in the longer term, and that represents a risk to the future of financial services, which are essential, particularly for the most vulnerable and digitally excluded in our society.

It is worth reflecting that Members of Parliament using digital technologies perhaps do not entirely comprehend how difficult that is for some people. I am not one of the most IT-savvy people on the planet by any means, so I sympathise with those people to a certain extent. Even when someone gets on top of the electronic capacity required to use electronic services, the services often still contain degrees of linguistic ambiguity that leave even the most intelligent and educated among us rather confused. Unless someone can speak to a human being, that ambiguity remains and the inaccessibility of those services continues as well. It is not just the electronics, but the fact that someone cannot ask anyone who has designed the system what on earth they mean by the options available.

I am surprised that the review of access to financial services has been reduced to an assessment of merely cash. That is what the regulations seem to say. My hon. and gallant Friend suggested that the Government need to look at this again, and I hope they will. The framework designed to protect communities from losing central banking services is far too narrowly focused. Current legislation and regulatory oversight look almost exclusively at access to cash, but needs to look at access to banking, banking advice, account advice and other services. Even Link’s formal assessments openly state that it does not consider access to more complex banking needs. It allows banks to close branches even when communities remain deeply dependent on face-to-face support, as we found in the case of Penzance, which I mentioned earlier.

I ask the Minister to extend the regulatory framework, including the 2023 Act, which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred to already, so that it protects access to banking and not just cash; so that it strengthens and widens the FCA’s role to ensure that local impact, equality analysis and access to banking services more widely are mandatory considerations before closures are permitted to go ahead; so that it requires realistic travel assessments for rural and island communities; so that it improves standards and the roll-out of service standards for banking hubs; and so that it considers proportionate service obligations on banks, not least because these banks are, after all, too big to fail. In 2008, Lloyds was bailed out to the tune of more than £20 billion of taxpayers’ money.

The bank says in its branding that it is “By Your Side”—but apparently only until it finds that to be unsuitable: an empty branding slogan, one is bound to observe. I hope the Minister looks at this issue. It is a matter not of consumer choice, but consumer displacement. Around 14% of adults in financially vulnerable communities in the UK—that is 2.8 million people—live in rural areas, and the rural nature and travel involved need to be considered, too.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. He makes a really pertinent point about the issue of transport. One of the most frustrating elements for me, apart from the initial announcement of a closure of a bank on my high street or in the villages that I represent, often occurs when they tell people the location of their nearest alternative branch. I do not know whether the people running the banks understand the local transport system, but it can often take three and a half hours on public transport to even get to those branches. Does the hon. Member agree that it would be helpful if, when banks made these decisions, they consulted the public transport available to those losing their branch?

[Andrew George]

The hon. Member makes a pertinent and relevant point. That is why these matters need to be taken into account; it cannot be purely about access to cash, which is all that Link currently needs to consider. As long as there is an ATM in some corner within a mile or two of someone’s community, that is deemed to be sufficient to justify any bank closing anywhere. However, it is not sufficient.

Now that the Penzance branch has closed, of the 39 Lloyds branches in Cornwall and on the Isles of Scilly, only two are left in Cornwall. People on the Isles of Scilly have to travel by ferry, paying £220 for a return ticket to the mainland—as well as for an overnight stay and a two-hour bus ride to Truro and back—to get access to face-to-face banking. That is the reality my constituents face to get access to the services.

Why are face-to-face transactions important? They are important for identity verification, resolution of fraud or scams, handling significant disputes or matters of banking interpretation, complex account queries, CHAPS and international payments, business cash deposits, and change-giving services. They are also important when there are bereavement or probate matters, as well as for community organisations, when counter-signatories are required, and for sports clubs and voluntary organisations. Those things are absolutely essential to the life of such organisations.

I am conscious of time; although I could say a great deal more on this important issue, I want to make sure that other hon. Members have an opportunity. Since 2015, around 6,700 branches—68% of the whole banking network—have closed. That is significant, and the impact on our communities has been fundamental and wide-ranging. On the day in January this year that Lloyds decided to close its Penzance branch, the bank had been in the most iconic building in the centre of our town, Market House, for literally 100 years. It was still serving 33,000 customers. Twenty-nine per cent of those local customers used the branch exclusively, and more than 1,000 regular weekly users—around one in 20 of the town’s residents—relied on it. The local population is older than the average and, as I mentioned, there was no consultation on the closure. Banks are able simply to ignore those facts.

Another pattern is that the banks will refer to the significant increase in people using apps, online banking, telephone banking and other alternatives to the face-to-face banking available on the high street. Often, that increase is a result of enforcement by the banks themselves; they fail to take into account that it results from their policy of making it difficult for people to use face-to-face services. Indeed, when customers go through the front door of branches that the banks are trying to close down, they are often met by someone who triages them out of the door again, to go and use an app or online service that they do not want to use. The banks are creating the circumstances in which they can justify closing branches.

I hope that the Minister will consider strengthening the regulations, recognising the limitations that exist, and challenging the banks on the services they are providing, as well as the dismissive way in which they ignore the most vulnerable in society—the people who will be suffering the most. In towns such as Penzance, the impact on the viability of the town is significant. When high street banks have closed in other towns, footfall—the lifeblood of commerce in the centre of a market town—has been significantly depleted as a result. That is certainly one of the great fears in Penzance if the other bank branches fall like a house of cards after the closure of Lloyds. We are trying to stop that by demanding that the other banks demonstrate their loyalty to the town. One by one, we are getting them to commit their loyalty, but only for a limited period, up to 2030; we need to go way beyond that.

I hope that my comments have helped to set the debate up for others to contribute, and I hope that the Minister is listening.

15:19

[David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I am grateful to the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for securing this timely debate.

The debate is particularly timely for me, because only last week the last bank in the whole of my constituency—Lloyds in Tunstall—closed its doors for the last time, leaving Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove without a single bank. In Kidsgrove, the last bank, Barclays, closed back in 2023, and Burslem residents have been without a bank for years. I remember going to the bank in Burslem with my mum when I was a kid. I queued up and watched people pay in and take out money. It was a place with a social purpose and someone to speak to. It was part of my everyday life and the everyday life of my family, and I know that is true for all members of our community. That has been lost.

Since my election, I have fought, alongside residents and local councillors, against the final bank’s closure. When Lloyds announced that it would leave Tunstall, I wrote to the bank and met its representatives to make the case against the closure, but really the decision had already been made. It was a case of “computer says no”—that is what it felt like. That is the problem: these decisions are made far away, on the basis of narrow commercial logic with little regard for communities like ours.

I have been campaigning on this issue in my constituency, but I did not stop there. I campaigned to bring banking hubs back into my constituency, and pushed for provision in both Tunstall and Kidsgrove. In Tunstall, we have a banking hub that is open, and I want to place on record my thanks to Aaron and the team at the post office who are doing great work with residents who have lost access to what I call “proper banking”, but we need to be clear that a banking hub is not a replacement; it is a mitigation. Meanwhile, in Kidsgrove, there is no banking hub at all—or no proper banking hub, I ought to say. There is something that is branded as a banking hub, but I do not class it as a real banking hub. Let me say it plainly: Kidsgrove needs a full-time banking hub, and it needs it now. We are told that alternatives are available. We are told to go and use post offices, but the post office in Kidsgrove has been closed for a year. We are told to go elsewhere, but “elsewhere” simply is not accessible for many people, particularly older and vulnerable residents, people without transport, and people who run small businesses.

I am really pleased that we pushed forward on banking hubs in our manifesto. They are part of the solution, but they are not good enough yet. They are limited and can be inconsistent. My question to the Minister is simple: what more will the Government do to expand banking hubs and make sure that they provide the full services that people need? This is about more than purely banking. Banks were anchor institutions on our high streets. They brought footfall into our town centres, supported businesses and gave confidence to our towns.

When the last bank leaves a town like Tunstall, Kidsgrove or Burslem, it sends a message that the place does not matter any more. We need to decide what level of access communities should be able to rely on, because right now the answer seems to be whatever is left behind, and that simply is not good enough. I urge the Minister to act. We need to strengthen the rules on bank closures; we need to expand proper banking hubs, including in places like Kidsgrove; and we need to recognise banking for what it is: a basic, fundamental service. If the market will not provide it, the Government must act. My constituents cannot be left behind, and they tell me that today, they are.

15:23

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship for the first time, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for introducing this debate on a subject that is so important to his constituents and those of so many other Members.

Lloyds Banking Group recently informed me, with only four months’ notice, that it is set to close its Tewkesbury branch alongside 94 others across the UK. Members who represent rural constituencies similar to mine will understand just how hard that will be for residents, not only of Tewkesbury but of the smaller settlements around it. The closure of Lloyds is only the latest in a sorry pattern that we have faced in recent years. In Tewkesbury town alone, the Barclays branch was shuttered in 2025, following the closure of Halifax only a few years previously. In Bishop’s Cleeve, NatWest and TSB have perished, as has the Lloyds mobile banking service. Winchcombe has not had a bank branch since 2018, and had lost face-to-face banking altogether for a brief but painful period until the post office was reopened in 2025. I take this opportunity to thank Councillor Gemma Madle for her excellent work in securing the reopening of that branch, and indeed to thank the Post Office for providing that lifeline.

As I said, such bank closures are prohibitive for residents in rural communities, particularly the elderly, the digitally excluded and those who fear the transition to digital banking due to the threat of criminal exploitation, but they are damaging in other ways too. For our high street businesses, a bank closure means the added administrative burden of closing their account or moving it to a bank with a continuing presence, if one remains. It means that the footfall that would otherwise occur on Tewkesbury high street, from people who live in outlying villages and bank with Lloyds, might now benefit the high street in Cheltenham or Evesham. It means another empty front on a historic high street and another signal from the bank that it will no longer justify serving its customers face to face.

I cannot make this case without also stating that these closures are occurring while Tewkesbury borough continues to develop as the fastest-growing borough outside London. How can it be sustainable that, as the local population grows so quickly, the services on our high street continue to diminish? On 13 February, I wrote to Lloyds Banking Group with my concerns. I have yet to receive a response. I echo the criticism that my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives made of Lloyds Banking Group’s communication. Like his constituents, mine were not consulted; neither were my local businesses, and I certainly was not. It is a continuing pattern, which I experienced as a Lloyds customer until I ended my association with the bank, several years ago.

The Government have pledged to open 350 new banking hubs across the country by the end of this Parliament. I am glad for those communities that now feature one. Sadly, there is not a single banking hub within the Gloucestershire local authority, and I understand that Tewkesbury will not qualify for one until its final bank branch closes. With only TSB remaining on Tewkesbury high street, will the Government support my residents with a banking hub now, or must they wait until they have no access at all? This paints a picture to me that we need more than the 350 hubs pledged.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. After a long campaign in my constituency, we have been lucky enough to secure a banking hub in Ilkley. It opens in a couple of weeks. I fear that more bank branches will close in Keighley and we will need to secure a banking hub there. One challenge has been that when Cash Access UK and Link assess whether a banking hub should be opened, they look at when the last bank closes but also assess access to cash through a cash machine. I suggest that when the hon. Member is trying to secure banking hubs in his constituency, he should pay attention to making sure that there is a cash machine on the outside of the hub, because I have had that challenge in my constituency.

[Cameron Thomas]

I thank the hon. Member for the advice; I will certainly take that forward. I am glad to hear that his constituents are served by a banking hub.

I close by welcoming the formal review of access to cash that the Financial Conduct Authority is undertaking, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives pointed out, it does not incorporate access to other banking services. I worry about communities such as mine, which will suffer in the interim.

15:28

[Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing this timely and appropriate debate. I will tell you a tale of three towns with relatively big populations on the outskirts of Glasgow, of a number of banks, of the actions of one banking group in particular, and of a community fight back.

When a bank moves out, what replaces it? For far too many communities the answer has been nothing. In Kilsyth in my constituency, that was exactly the situation. The last bank branch, the TSB, closed in 2021 prior to any automatic assessment for a community banking hub. When that branch went, something more than a service was lost. It meant longer journeys, less footfall, and real anxiety for people who simply want to manage their banking face to face.

I know from experience, having lost my father last year, that my mum—in her 80s, dealing with the bereavement and having to close his accounts—wanted to deal with the bank face to face. She did not feel comfortable using an app and did not want to talk to a call centre—they did not understand Scots law. I have spoken to local businesses that handle cash every day, which were left asking where they were supposed to go, and to older residents—not my mum—who do not bank online and should not be expected to, and I heard time and again that people should not have felt forgotten.

But Kilsyth did not accept it. The community spoke up. A request was made by my team, working with the local Labour councillors, Councillor Jean Jones and Councillor Heather Brannan-McVey, whose mum, Nan, was one of the previous bank staff—Heather is still known as “Nan from the bank’s daughter”—and indeed the whole local community. Link carried out the assessment, and we are expecting the interim banking hub for Kilsyth to be opened in the next few weeks.

This is what good looks like, in an area that lost its bank five years ago—a shared banking space; cash in and cash out; bill payments at the counter; customers being able to speak to somebody who will talk them through all the things they need to do. Every bank does different things through the hub. One improvement that could be made would be to offer a full range of banking services—but on different days, staff are there from different banks to deal with things that cannot be done on the app. It is not a perfect replica of the past, but it is a practical solution for the future. Crucially, it puts banking back where it belongs: in the community. In Kilsyth, it enables people to manage their money locally again and lets businesses bank their takings without leaving town, without pushing aside those who rely on cash. But communities like Kilsyth should not have to fight that hard just to get the basics back.

I want to talk about another banking group and the closure of Santander in Cumbernauld. We were notified in 2024 of a plan to close the Cumbernauld branch of Santander, with a suitable alternative available in Kirkintilloch, eight miles away or 25 minutes on one bus. The Cumbernauld branch closed on 3 July 2025. In late January, a few months ago, notification was given that the Santander branch in Kirkintilloch would close on 29 April, with alternative provision available in central Glasgow, 10 miles away from Cumbernauld and over an hour by most buses. I contend that if the plans had been more transparent, the original Cumbernauld closure should not have been supported, because there was not a reasonable alternative in place.

This is about making things transparent, being honest with communities, making sure people are not pushed aside and making sure we have systems for everybody. Banking hubs show what is possible when communities are listened to and industry steps up, but they are not a one-off success story. I ask the Minister: how do we go further and faster? How do we ensure transparency? How do we make sure more communities like Kilsyth, Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch get the access they need? How do we make sure we get face-to-face banking and not just cash? It is not a luxury.

15:34

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for securing this vital debate. He represents a similar constituency to my own, with the additional challenge of some extra islands, and I was struck by some of the similarities in our experiences—particularly the dismissive attitude of Lloyds, which was mentioned by several Members.

My hon. Friend spoke about the reliance on community bankers, which banks have provided as an alternative, but, similarly to him, I have found in my constituency that the locations in which they are offering those services are not up to scratch, and local residents do not feel comfortable with them. My hon. Friend also said that the FCA criteria need to be widened, a call that I certainly agree with.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) spoke of the impact of closures on small towns and local economies. There is only one bank left in Tewkesbury; I am sure that is causing a huge inconvenience for his residents. Likewise, I agree with his call for the number of hubs to be increased. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) spoke of Lloyds’ “computer says no” approach, and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) spoke about the community campaigns in her constituency and the impact of Santander’s closures.

Across my constituency of Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, we are seeing a steady and deeply worrying erosion of access to basic banking services. The issue here is whether people can withdraw their own money, whether small businesses can function, and whether elderly residents can manage their day-to-day lives. In rural Wales, access to cash and in-person banking is not a luxury; it is a necessity.

Take Hay-on-Wye, an internationally renowned tourist destination and home to the Hay festival, with a thriving high street built on independent businesses. It is heavily cash dependent, particularly during the tourist season, yet it has no bank, and its only 24-hour ATM is routinely out of action, often for weeks at a time. What message does that send—a town that welcomes the world yet cannot guarantee access to cash for its own residents or its many visitors? That is not just inconvenient; it is economically damaging.

In Presteigne, the situation is even more stark: the town has lost its bank branch entirely. The nearest alternative—this speaks to the point about long bus journeys—is now two hours and 40 minutes away by bus. This is a town with a large elderly population—people who are far less likely to bank online and far more reliant on face-to-face services. Those people are effectively being told that accessing their own money now requires a full day’s travel. That simply cannot be right.

In Brecon and Llandrindod Wells—the largest towns in Brecknockshire and Radnorshire respectively—each town is now down to its last remaining bank. Those towns are key hubs for their counties, serving not just local residents but the wider Brecon Beacons and Radnorshire area, with a significant tourism and agricultural economy. Yet, under the current rules, those towns must wait until the final bank closes before they can be considered for a banking hub. That forces us into a perverse situation in which communities have to lose everything before they qualify for any support. Why are we waiting for failure when we can clearly see it coming?

In Pontardawe, residents have already been left without a bank. They are now forced to travel to Neath—a round trip by bus that can often take more than two hours. Again, that disproportionately affects older residents, those without cars and those on lower incomes. Financial access is becoming a postcode lottery.

The fundamental problem is that the criteria for banking hubs are deeply flawed. They simply do not reflect how rural communities actually work. The current model looks at whether there are 7,000 people within 1 km of a high street, but rural Wales does not work like that, and nor do many areas across the United Kingdom. Towns like Brecon, Hay, Llandrindod and Presteigne act as hubs for vast surrounding areas—villages and rural communities many miles beyond that arbitrary radius. The system therefore systematically underestimates need, and communities lose out as a result.

Banking hubs are about more than convenience; they are also about inclusion. We still have significantly high levels of digital exclusion, particularly among older residents and in rural areas, where many struggle to get a mobile signal at home. Many people simply cannot manage their finances entirely online, and they should not be forced to. Banks should have a duty of care to their customers. After all, their profits are built on the money that customers entrust to them.

We also need to ensure reliable access to cashpoints. An ATM that is frequently out of service is no access at all. Let us be clear: this situation is not inevitable. The major banks are making significant profits. They are benefiting from higher interest rates and, in many cases, generous tax arrangements. Yet at the same time, they are withdrawing services from the very communities that helped them to build those profits.

In Powys, for example, a county that covers nearly a third of the land mass of Wales, there are no remaining Lloyds branches at all. That is an extraordinary withdrawal of service. Yet Lloyds made a £6.7 billion profit last year, which was up 12%. Its CEO, Charlie Nunn, received a total pay package of £7.4 million for 2025, and he is reportedly set up for a potential maximum payout of £17.7 million under a new performance-related pay policy proposed for 2026. There we have it: he will get a £10 million pay rise for closing bank branches across the country. Communities are being abandoned unnecessarily while banking profits are being prioritised.

[Cameron Thomas]

I hope my hon. Friend does not mind if I join in on his last point, which adds to the comments made by our hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) about the branding that Lloyds uses to portray itself as “By Your Side”, as though it is a member of the community. It uses the powerful image of the black stallion and powerful music, the name of which evades me. The reality is that it is a multi-billion-pound juggernaut and that black stallion has well and truly bolted from 94 of our communities, ridden by a CEO taking home £17 million.

[David Chadwick]

My hon. Friend is quite right. Many of my constituents certainly would not say that Lloyds is by their side. That is why it comes down to the Government. They have to show that they are on the side of our constituents, not just of the big banks.

Ultimately, this is a question of political choice. The Government can choose to stand up for rural communities and those reliant on in-person banking—which is all of us—or they can continue to allow this managed decline. Right now, the choices being made are the wrong ones. Labour has chosen to keep the tax breaks handed to the big banks by the previous Conservative Government and hinge its economic strategy on appeasing those same banks. At the same time, it is asking the small, often family-run businesses on our high streets to shoulder more of the burden to raise revenue. While big banks are being rewarded, rural communities are being left behind and local businesses are being squeezed.

That is not fair, balanced or sustainable. We need a reform of banking hub criteria to reflect rural geography, a proactive provision of hubs before the last bank closes, guaranteed access to free-to-use ATMs, and stronger obligations on banks to maintain services in underserved areas. Without intervention, the current trajectory is clear: more closures, further exclusion and more communities left behind.

15:43

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I join everyone in congratulating the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on not only securing the debate but opening it so clearly. He laid out the particular issue in Penzance, but in doing so highlighted common concerns about bank closures. He raised some interesting questions in his excellent speech. I am sure the Minister will address them, but I will highlight a couple that I thought particularly interesting. The first was about the manner in which the closure was done—there was no consultation. He also talked about access to banking, not just to cash. The Minister will be aware that the Labour party had thoughts on that prior to the election; I do not want to prejudge the consultation, but I would be interested in her observations about that.

The hon. Member for St Ives has been joined by several other Members. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) made an important point, among many, about the communal role that banks have played historically, and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) mentioned the impact on town centres. Those two points highlight how central bank branches were to our country’s culture. The hon. Member for St Ives also talked about the buildings that once housed the recently closed banks. The withdrawal of bank branches not only strikes at the way financial services operate in this country, but says a lot about the type of country we are. I will come on to that point later.

In his intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) raised the issue of the criteria used in the selection of banking hubs. I would be interested to know whether the Minister is considering that. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) talked about face-to-face banking, which goes to the nub of the matter: future trends in banking, an issue that I will raise in my own comments. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), made a wide-ranging speech and talked about how mobile banking must be dependable to be successful, as well as the availability of mobile networks.

I had an exceptionally brief ministerial career, part of which included introducing to the House of Commons the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, which contained the provisions that provided for banking hubs. It might be helpful to share some of my own thinking, or the thinking of the Conservative Government at the time. Some comments have been made about the impact of closures. I share people’s concerns about that issue, but the Government of the day—the Labour Government, today—must take a view on whether they will work with trends in how financial services operate in this country. They must decide either to seek to mitigate the social consequences, which is the rightful role of Government, or to stand steadfast against such changes. Patently, the decision made by the then Conservative Government, which has been supported by this Labour Government, was to work with the grain of how financial services are moving. It is about facilitating that, as far as possible, while recognising the social disbenefits that can arise.

It is fair to say that when consultations were done at the time, which was during covid, accessibility to cash was the primary focus of concerns about the decline of branches. It is also fair to say that the provisions in the 2023 Act on the future accessibility of banking were not set in stone. It was clear that we were in a period of trend and change that would require further consultation and review on how it was working, and what further trends were occurring. The Opposition welcome the Government’s taking the opportunity to look at these issues again.

To give a sense of the pace of change—this has not been mentioned so far—in 2024, for the first time, cash accounted for less than 10% of payments in this country. We need to go back only eight years for it to be, by far, the No. 1 form of transaction in this country. For those Members who are old enough to remember them, cheques now account for only 0.2% of all payments, so there has been a significant change.

On the pace of change of bank branches, since January 2015 there have been 6,700 bank branch closures, according to Which? magazine. To put that into context, there are approximately 12,000 towns in the country, and about another 100 cities. That shows the significant withdrawal of physical premises across the country. The number of ATMs has also fallen by 40% since 2015.

On the plus side, we have largely seen an end to the long decline in post offices in this country. One of the benefits of our post office network was that post offices were present in many locations, although not all, and could provide aspects of the banking services that were important to people. The change to the trend for post offices is welcome. We want our post offices to continue to provide a broad range of services to local communities. Postmasters and postmistresses are often among the most trusted people in their community, and they can provide a range of services, but of course they do not necessarily have the same level of expertise in banking that one would find in a bank branch.

That takes me on to another point. This debate was starting to look like a bit of a hit-job on Lloyds bank. I think that it was just by chance that the first three bank closures referred to were all of Lloyds branches, so let me say that this is not just a Lloyds thing; it affects all financial institutions. On the other hand, our financial institutions and banks do a very good job for people. They are effective in making sure that people have a safe place for their money and that money can be transferred from A to B. They are good at developing new products and at trying to adapt to technological change.

[David Chadwick]

The hon. Member says that banks do a very good job. Is he not aware of the numerous outages that Lloyds has had on its banking apps over the past couple of years and indeed the past couple of weeks? Those outages create a reliance on physical infrastructure for people to access cash if they need to.

Does the hon. Member also agree that the banks can afford to pay for banking hubs? It is not the Government who should have to pay for them. Does he agree that banks have more than enough to cover the cost of these hubs?

[Richard Fuller]

I have to say to my Liberal Democrat friend that the Liberal Democrats’ position is that taxing big businesses, big banks and big tech can pay for everything. I think I have heard the moneys from that being allocated to well over 20 different applications. That may have a role—it is up to the Liberal Democrats to say—but the key point I was making is that, whether we like it or not, a vast number of the things we do are moving from analogue to digital, and banking is not isolated from that. Look at the way in which people communicate, the way in which legal services are likely to change and the way in which public services are likely to be delivered. The role of Government, back in 2022-23, was either to put up a block against that or to facilitate the change. We said that we would facilitate the change.

There are contributions made through the banks to fund the banking hubs. More broadly, on the major transition of banking into the digital age, I take the hon. Member’s points about outage concerns and about someone receiving £1 million in their bank account and wondering how it got there, but overall the transition by financial services in this country has been done very well. It is important, though, that the Government of the day recognise the importance of maintaining essential banking services as a foundation for public confidence in the sector.

The issue of footfall is crucial, as is the point about being able to talk to a person. I recently went into a bank to withdraw some cash—not a huge amount, but a fair amount. I was asked, “Why are you taking your money out?” That might seem a rather intrusive question—I was going to say, “I’m putting it all on red in Las Vegas,” although I was not, obviously—but the reason for asking the question relates to a serious point that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch made. One issue that, back in 2022-23, I did not anticipate becoming so significant was how sinister online fraud on vulnerable people would become. With just a phone conversation, people can be intimidated or forced into thinking that they have to take money out of their account, and it ends up in criminal hands.

Online fraud is an evil crime, and it can affect anyone. It is a very sophisticated way to get to people who feel vulnerable. The best defence against it is the fact of having to go into a branch of a bank or financial institution and have someone over the counter look you in the eye, see how you feel, and ask important questions to reassure themselves that you are not the victim of a crime. I take that very seriously; when I was looking at the issue a few years ago, I was perhaps not as cognisant of it as I am now. I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts.

Notwithstanding certain disagreements about the overall role of banks, this has been a debate in which all sides have urged the Minister and the Government to look at the update and the consultation in a serious way, think about what has been done correctly and see what, in today’s world, are the best changes to be made to the regulations.

15:55

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing this debate. I thank him for setting out the concerns of his constituents very well, and I thank other hon. Members for their contributions: they have been powerful and in some cases very heartfelt.

It is fair to say that access to banking continues to attract significant interest from colleagues across the House. The hon. Member is right that that interest is increasing. He referred to his own experience of the trajectory of this issue, and I agree: I am seeing hon. Members raising this issue in the House with increased salience, which I am sure reflects how our constituents feel. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have taken the time to share their experiences and those of their constituents.

Some hon. Members who spoke in this debate have attended my banking hub surgeries, which I hope the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), found valuable. The fact that I hold those surgeries, which Members of Parliament from any party can attend, demonstrates that the issue is being raised more and more by Members across the House.

I recognise that rural and coastal communities such as those in the constituencies of the hon. Member for St Ives and of the hon. and gallant Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) face particular challenges in accessing banking services. I very much appreciate the fact that in many circumstances local geography and transport may make it more difficult for elderly and disabled people, as well as those who are vulnerable or digitally excluded, to reach face-to-face banking when branch provision changes locally.

The hon. Member for St Ives mentioned services in his constituency being provided in an upstairs setting. I will come on to address accessibility issues, but I was sorry to hear that example. On transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) raised concerns about travel times, which I will also address. Many points have been raised, and I will do my level best to address them all.

The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), rightly referred to the fact that the banking landscape has changed in recent years. Many people have greatly benefited from digital innovations that allow them to manage their finances more easily. For many, those changes have increased accessibility and convenience. Many of us are able to access banking services just from an app on a phone. It has been clear in this debate, however, that although digital services work well for many people, others still want, need or prefer to access banking in person or use cash in their daily lives. That includes some older customers, people who are more vulnerable, or those—as with the family member of my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray)—who have been through a significant life event. Being vulnerable at that point, they may just want to speak to another human.

This Government are on the side of each of those categories of people. We recognise that cash remains important for people and businesses right across the country. That is why we have been clear that, alongside digital innovation, it is critical that people have access to the services that they need. Hon. Members know that access to cash is protected in legislation and the FCA has responsibility and powers to ensure that people and businesses can continue to withdraw and deposit cash.

I want to address the serious concerns that have been raised by hon. Members about the impact of bank branch closures on our communities. In particular, the hon. Member for St Ives articulated his concerns about the closure of a Lloyds branch in Penzance. I fully understand his concerns about that situation. The Government understand the importance of those services, and there are other similar instances across the country. Banking services and other services must reflect customer and community interest.

I welcome the fact that some banks have made commitments to maintaining or improving their existing branches, because they recognise just how important they are to their customers. Nationwide Building Society has committed to maintaining 605 branches until at least 2030 and HSBC UK has committed to keeping 327 branches open until at least 2027; we very much welcome those important commitments. I also draw attention to the fact that, according to the Building Societies Association, 35% of the branch network is currently provided by building societies. As a Government, we fully support and value the role that mutuals play in our economy and society.

Branch access is an important feature for a number of customers. Many have used the free current account switching service to change provider. The switching service ensures that all payments and balances are automatically transferred to a new account, but for those firms that are changing their branch network, there are rules and obligations. In those circumstances, it is important that all Members know that decisions to close branches must be taken with regard to their impact on customers and communities. The FCA’s branch closure guidance is very clear that firms must carefully assess the effect of a planned closure on customers’ everyday banking and cash access needs.

Let me underline that point: it is very important, not least because of some of the contributions to today’s debate. Banks are expected to put appropriate alternatives in place. Where they fall short of those expectations, the FCA can and will ask for closures to be paused and I fully support those FCA powers. As a Government, we expect the FCA to use them where they consider it necessary to do so. Crucially, we also believe it is right that no branch can close until any recommended services are put in place.

[Andrew George]

At the end of the day, the issue is that the FCA and Link primarily undertake an assessment of access to cash, and not to the full range of banking services. The Minister says that adequate alternatives are in place. Of course, the banks will no doubt attempt to put some facade in place to satisfy that requirement—as she notes, I am unimpressed by the case in Penzance—but fundamentally, the test is access to cash, and that is insufficient. Surely that measure needs to be significantly widened.

[Lucy Rigby]

I appreciate that there is a difference between access to cash and access to banking services; I will come on to the latter, if the hon. Member will give me a moment.

The Government wholeheartedly recognise the importance of banking services to local communities; that recognition underpins our manifesto commitment to support industry to roll out 350 banking hubs across this country by the end of this Parliament. I think I am right to say that the hon. Member attended the opening of a banking hub in Helston in his constituency.

[Andrew George]

I did.

[Lucy Rigby]

It is always welcome when Members attend such openings. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) is no longer in his place, but I was pleased to hear him welcome the upcoming opening of the banking hub in Ilkley. I note what he says about the need for a hub in Keighley as well.

[David Chadwick]

Mine is the biggest constituency in England and Wales, and four or five towns in it sorely need a banking hub: Brecon and Presteigne are two such examples, beyond the hub that has already opened in Ystradgynlais. Does the Minister agree that there is a need for more than the 350 hubs that the Government have already committed to?

[Lucy Rigby]

The hon. Member has tried to trick me into saying the name of his constituency or the towns in it before; as he well knows, I cannot pronounce them anywhere near as well as he can. I was about to answer the exact point that he makes. It is really important to note that the 350 figure is a floor, not a ceiling. Our manifesto commitment sets that floor of 350 hubs. I appreciate that the hon. Member is not asking me to call it right now, but I will: the Government, working with industry, hope to go above that number. That is not least because more than 270 hubs have already been announced. Our commitment is for 350 hubs over the course of this Parliament, and 18 months into the Parliament we are already at 270—hon. Members will see the trajectory. Of the 270 hubs that have been announced, 225 are now open. The remaining hubs that have been committed to are yet to open, but we expect them to in due course. To answer the hon. Member’s question, it is entirely possible that the 350 target will be surpassed, as and when more communities need banking hubs. I would welcome that, it sounds like he would welcome it and I am sure that other Members across the House would too.

Banking hubs provide assisted cash services through post office counters alongside community bankers from individual banks who meet customers face to face in a private room to offer support, as they would in a traditional branch, as has been mentioned. I was very sorry to hear the experiences with community bankers noted by the hon. Member for St Ives; that was not what I understood from colleagues in this place and what I have heard anecdotally outside this place. Indeed, when I visited the banking hub in Warwick in your constituency, Mr Western, I did not see queues of people waiting to see a community banker. Everything was happening in an orderly way, and community bankers could see people in a timely fashion. Nevertheless, I note the experiences that the hon. Member put on the record, and I am more than happy to look specifically at the issues in that banking hub.

[Andrew George]

I want to make sure that the Minister understands that I was simply describing what the community banker working on behalf of Lloyds was providing. I was referring to the Lloyds replacement for the closed branch, not a banking hub.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

I remind the hon. Member that he will have time to wind up at the end. Perhaps the Minister could start to conclude her remarks.

[Lucy Rigby]

On that cue, I will skip further ahead in my speech. I was going to talk about all the services that are available at banking hubs, which the industry is working hard to increase. Customers can now open accounts, change names and addresses, register complaints or receive help with online and telephone banking. I have met the industry on a number of occasions and I would like to put on record that we are working to try and make sure that the services provided at banking hubs meet the needs of communities. Fraud and scams were mentioned; they are concerns that the Government are thinking about.

Let me cut to the chase and answer many of the questions that have been raised. Despite everything that I have said about the importance of banking hubs and our manifesto commitment to open 350 of them, it would be premature to conclude that all communities are consistently receiving sufficient support for their banking needs. That has been clear from the contributions of hon. Members in this debate. In direct response to one question was raised by the hon. Member for St Ives—a point that was also well articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams)—that is why, as might be expected, we are keeping any need to go further, including on access to banking services, under close review.

There is much more I could say about the health of our high streets, digital and financial inclusion, and alternative options to banking services, but in the light of the time and your strong cue, Mr Western, I will wrap up there.

16:12

[Andrew George]

We have had a good debate and I am pleased that the Backbench Business Committee has permitted us to have it. It is clear that although we have aired so many of the issues today, there are still matters to be resolved. The Minister has helpfully addressed the Government’s position on the points that I raised at the beginning of the debate. Some should be part of an ongoing dialogue with Members who have been affected by the significant changes in banking services over the last decade and are therefore conversant with the impact it is having on constituents.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) strongly and articulately argued the case for improved services in his constituency. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) did the same. Their examples illustrate that much more work is needed to improve accessibility to banking services, particularly for the most vulnerable and the digitally excluded.

[David Williams]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew George]

I do not know whether that is permitted or not, but I will if the Chair allows it.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

Very briefly. I would not normally allow this.

[David Williams]

My point is about the focus on vulnerable customers: it is not only about vulnerable customers; it is about older people. My mum and dad would not be described as vulnerable. I bought them a smartphone last year, and I spent weekend after weekend trying to get them to use it. When their bank closed, they were offered half an hour with the bank on how to use apps. Would the hon. Member agree that that is not going to work, and that banks need to do more to help older residents?

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that this is the summing up by the Member in charge, not an open debate.

[Andrew George]

I do not wish to reopen the debate. I have no summed up a debate before so I was uncertain about the procedure; thank you, Mr Western, for your advice. I will not accept any further interventions and will bring my remarks to a close as soon as I can.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) made a telling contribution talking about the impact the situation is having on customers seeking support from banks. Very often, the banks have designed centralised systems for the convenience of the banks themselves, rather than for the customers. They seem to be retreating behind the digital and electronic walls of the bank, and not making themselves available to offer advice to people who really want to be able to eyeball people and see them face to face to get those services.

Fundamentally, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) illustrated how what is going on epitomises the widening inequality in this country. A chief executive of a bank runs off with £17 million. The big banks are creaming it on the back of the massive tax advantage that they have in these circumstances. On the other hand, the poorest in our society have been pushed out from these banks, and it has been made significantly more difficult for them to get access to banking services and support.

The issue epitomises the widening inequality in society and people’s digital exclusion. That is why I hope that a Labour Government, working with Liberal Democrats who share the same values, would address these issues, and not simply allow the banks to get away with what I consider to be blue murder. I am grateful to the Minister, and I hope that the conversation can continue.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the accessibility of banking services.

16:16

Sitting adjourned.