Banking Services: Accessibility

David Williams Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- 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.

[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.