Poverty Premium

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2018 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications of the decline in the use of cash for the “poverty premium” payable by the most financially disadvantaged.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, modern technology has delivered many important benefits to us individually and to society as a whole. But some among us have not been able to take advantage of these trends, in some cases because of unfamiliarity with the particular technology and in other cases, more importantly, because the individual’s personal financial position is too stressed to allow them to do so. I focus my remarks on this last group.

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register. I am chairman of CMS Ltd—Cash Management Solutions. The company provides analytical services to banks and retailers on the best methodologies for cash handling. The work of the company has no direct relevance to our debate tonight, but it has given me an insight into the interaction of cash and credit in our society. I say “no direct relevance” except in one sense. It is often argued, as my noble friend may argue shortly, that non-cash transactions—credit cards, direct debits et cetera—are cheaper than cash payments. I am afraid that this assertion is wrong. Non-cash transactions can be safer, more secure and leave a better evidence trail, but they are not cheaper. There is general agreement that non-cash transactions cost about 0.25%—one-quarter of a per cent—to fulfil. By comparison, cash costs are about 0.15%, just over half.

The practical implications of a paper-based payment system were brought home dramatically to me when I was a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House. We examined Instrument 2017/427 entitled the Universal Credit (Tenant Incentive Scheme) Amendment Regulations. Under this statutory instrument, the East Lothian Housing Association wanted to reward its tenants by reducing their rent by £10 if they paid by direct debit or standing order and a further £20 per month where the tenant had no rent arrears.

The purpose of the regulation was to ensure that the reduction in rent payable did not affect the benefits payable under universal credit. They were clearly a trial run which, if proved successful, was likely to be rolled out across the whole UK. So far, so good, but I wondered why there were two rewards and not one. Enquiries with the relevant department revealed that there was, in fact, only one reward. If the tenant did not or could not sign a direct debit or a standing order, they were not eligible for the second £20 reduction, even if they were up to date with the rental payments due.

Inevitably, families on low incomes have to budget very carefully. Signing direct debits cuts across such budgeting because, as will be familiar to the House, a direct debit mandate allows the deduction of the sum due on the date agreed without any reference to the account holder. Many people on low incomes, aware of the ebbs and flows of personal expenditure, not to mention the inevitable emergencies, will be reluctant to sign up to the open-ended commitment of a direct debit. Apart from anything else, if a direct debit is refused and has to be re-presented, there will be a further charge to the account holder by the bank of between £10 and £20. One of the dangers of these regulations was that the most financially stretched in our society were apparently never going to be able to take advantage of the additional room for financial manoeuvre that the proposals would offer. It is not a small amount: £30 a month is £360 over a full year.

That is only the beginning. Noble Lords may care to examine their utility bills carefully. They will see substantial savings for those who can, or are prepared to, sign direct debits. I do not like direct debits and I do not sign them. I have here my recent utility bills. One says: “You will save £33.36 a year on your electricity standing charge if you pay by direct debit”. Another says: “You will get a continuous discount as a lower daily standing charge when you pay by direct debit. Over a year you will receive a discount of £40 on our electricity charges and £50 on your gas charges”. Looking across the whole piece, there are substantial numbers of other things such as council tax, telephone and utility bills generally. It is quite possible to argue that the poorest members of our society are paying £500 to £600 more than those who can sign a direct debit for precisely the same service.

In fairness to the Government, they are aware of some of these charges. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy published a Green Paper in April this year—Command Paper 9595—which has a section headed:

“Ensuring vulnerable consumers are treated fairly”,


which, over a series of paragraphs, explains the problem. It will be very important that, in the follow up to the Green Paper, the Government move from statements of good intent which recognise the problem to implementing policies which actually provide some answers to the issue. These solutions must also apply across all government departments. While this Green Paper is being discussed, other departments are implementing policies, such as those affecting the East Lothian Housing Association, which will accentuate the disadvantage faced by the poorest in our society.

For example, my noble friend’s department, the Treasury, also has a consultation out on cash and digital payments in the new economy. Perhaps inevitably, there is a good deal of focus on the way the use of cash facilitates money laundering and tax evasion. However, the paper also points out that, across the UK, no fewer than 2.7 million people are entirely reliant on cash. Even more significantly, half that number— 1.35 million people—have household incomes of less than £15,000 per annum. Any inability to sign direct debits or standing orders is likely to make a significant reduction in the disposable incomes of these groups.

To conclude, it would be facile to deny the conflicting pressures that exist. No one wants to encourage tax evasion or impose unnecessary administrative and paperwork burdens. However, there is a need for a joined-up, cross-departmental government approach if we are to create, in the words of the Prime Minister,

“a country that works for everyone”.