Banking Services: Accessibility

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[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 I have been so dismayed by the attitude and approach of the bank to this closure that I have withdrawn all my custom and taken it elsewhere, and the bank knows it.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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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.