Financial Exclusion: Access to Cash

Debate between Paul Sweeney and Patricia Gibson

Tuesday 21st May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) for securing this important debate. As we have heard today, there are serious concerns that too many people, including some of the most vulnerable, are being left behind.

Every one of us needs a viable way of paying for goods and services that meets our needs and circumstances. For some people that may be card payments, but we need access to cash for goods and services if that is most appropriate to the way we live our lives and if it suits our circumstances. Digital payments have become easier, but research shows that more than 8 million adults would struggle to cope in a cashless society.

It is important to remember that many people pay for goods and services in cash because their circumstances mean that they do not have the option to pay in any other way. The biggest factor in paying for goods and services in cash is where someone is on the income scale: the lower someone is down the scale, the more likely they are to rely on cash transactions, regardless of their age. Importantly, approximately 9% of those who rely on cash transactions do so as a budgeting strategy because they fear that if they do not use cash, they may overspend and fall into debt. Using cash helps them to keep track of their spending.

There is no doubt that cash allows many people a degree of control that digital transactions do not offer, as we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). They can hold it and count it—and when it is gone, it is gone. It is a real and physical aid to budgeting. Indeed, debt advice charities actively encourage people in debt to cut up their cards and deal only in cash, for obvious reasons. That goes back to the points that have been made about financial education.

We have heard much about the decline of ATMs, but that is merely the tip of quite a significant iceberg—it is a symptom of a wider trend. The underlying issue is that some businesses prefer payments to be made digitally, because of the costs of handling and banking cash; we heard today that Vodafone no longer accepts cash payments at all. We have also heard much about access to high street banks. In my constituency, North Ayrshire and Arran, the banks are stampeding out of our towns with alarming and eye-watering speed. In the past eight years, Scotland has lost one third of its banks, and closures continue apace, as the hon. Members for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) and for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) described.

Driving consumers towards digital payments clearly excludes those consumers who do not want—or simply do not have the option—to pay for goods digitally. If we want businesses to continue to accept cash, we have to make it easier for them to do so, and to bank and deposit it in a way that works for them. Post offices have been suggested as an alternative to banks, but post offices are in crisis. Many postmasters are finding their business increasingly unsustainable, and they often work for less than minimum wage—an issue that I raised with the Treasury and with Post Office Ltd almost two years ago.

For those who need to use cash, we must keep it viable. It is important to remember that 1.3 million people in the UK do not even have a bank account, for a whole variety of reasons. Problems with ATM access are both a cause and a symptom of a society that is moving closer to being cashless. That should give us cause for real concern.

[Mr Sweeney]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Patricia Gibson]

I am worried about time, so if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will press on.

Consumer organisation Which? has found that cashpoints disappeared at a rate of 488 per month between June and December last year, with more than 250 free-to-use cash machines closing monthly and 3,300 UK bank branches closing their doors since 2015. One in five cash machines in Scotland will impose charges by the end of this year. It is self-evident that charges for using ATMs hit those who are much less affluent much harder, because those people are more likely to make regular smaller withdrawals rather than occasional larger ones. Quite contrarily, pay-to-use cash machines are most often found in poorer areas—yet another poverty premium that punishes the less well-off.

It is clear that we need urgent regulatory action to protect the right of consumers to use cash. Otherwise, as the Minister will know, we will exclude many of our constituents from buying goods and services that they wish to access. I therefore fully support the Which? campaign “Freedom to pay. Our Way.”, which is supported by the Federation of Small Businesses. The campaign calls on the Government to appoint a regulator with sole responsibility for cash infrastructure, to ensure that consumers and businesses can continue to access cash. It should not be an uphill struggle for people to access the cash on which they rely, because it means that they struggle to go about their daily business.

The drift towards digital has not been without its problems, including IT glitches such as the high-profile problems suffered last year by TSB, which caused chaos for consumers. As the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston reminded us, aside from IT glitches, people living in rural areas can find digital access extremely problematic, with poor broadband reliability. Of the 5.3 million adults who never use the internet, 70%—some 3.7 million people—live in rural areas. They do not rely on cards and digital payments. We must not overlook the challenges of relying on digital payments for consumers and businesses in rural areas, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone).

It is essential that consumer interests are front and centre in this debate—the customer must be king. The way we bank and the way we pay for our goods and services must meet the needs of all customers, and banks and financial institutions must have a legal duty of care for their customers.

I hope the Minister will indicate the Government’s willingness to appoint a regulator with sole responsibility for the cash infrastructure, to ensure consumers and businesses can continue to access cash. I hope to hear what he will do to ensure a duty of care in all our communities so that they are not financially excluded and can access the goods and services that they need. It is clear from this debate that there is a financial exclusion crisis. I am sure we are all keen to hear what measures the Government will take and are willing to take to address the matter.

Unpaid Work Trials

Debate between Paul Sweeney and Patricia Gibson

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) on securing this debate and on his persistent and tenacious work in championing this long-standing issue. It is important, because in many ways his background is reflected in the priorities he brings to this House. I was thinking about the backgrounds of many MPs, and perhaps that is something we need to consider. Is this matter on their radar at all? Do they have even a basic understanding of how this sector operates? Have they ever had exposure to it? Have they ever understood how these exploitative employment practices work?

Like the hon. Gentleman, I share that background of having worked in similar environments. I reflect on my first job when I was at school: I went to work in a pizzeria in Glasgow called La Vita, which hon. Members might have heard of. There is one in George Square, one in Byres Road and one in Bishopbriggs Cross. I was hired on a zero-hours contract, but I also had to do an unpaid trial shift when I started there with my friend Ryan. I remember we were competing against each other for the same job, but they ended up taking us both on.

Often, we would go in during the week and work for maybe an hour, and then be sent home with a free pizza when we were expecting to work five or six hours. It was okay for me, because I was still living at home at the time, so it was pocket money, but I shudder to think about the people I worked alongside, who relied on that as income to live on and often to take care of children. While I was somewhat insulated from the full effects of that exploitative practice, I none the less realised that it was unfair and discriminatory. We also had our tips taken from us—a practice that was subsequently made illegal. That just shows that, even though we are operating at the margins, things that happened then to me and others are actually illegal now.

We are still dealing with the effects of casualised employment, zero-hours contracts and unpaid trial shifts, which remain to be tackled. I wonder why that is not a priority for this Government and why it is not a priority for more Members of this House, who might otherwise have been here. I think it is simply that they are not aware of it.

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that it does not seem to be a priority for this Government—unless, of course, the Minister is able to enlighten us and tell us what her Government might do. Does he agree, given that we all understand it is not a priority for this Government, that that is a powerful argument for devolving this power to the Scottish Government?

[Mr Sweeney]

As a Labour Member of Parliament, my analysis is primarily driven by class. I have just as much interest in securing the employment rights of someone who lives in Liverpool as of someone in Glasgow. That is where I operate. I am saying that I want us to have unity of purpose for worker’s rights across the UK, and that is why I believe in the trade union movement and the labour movement. We can have respect for ideological difference on this, but that is my analysis, and it is as simple as that.

I want to increase trade union density, because there has historically been a significant casualisation and a low trade union density in the hospitality sector in this country. That is why the “Better Than Zero” campaign has been particularly effective in mobilising workers and making them aware of their power. I also commend the GMB for the excellent, ground-breaking agreement it achieved with Hermes, the courier firm, just yesterday, which secured holiday pay, guaranteed rates and collective negotiation under the GMB, with full recognition for those workers. That is a lesson for the rest of the gig economy and the hospitality sector that we can really achieve improvements, and a demonstration of a trade union working innovatively. What could we do for workers’ rights across the UK with the real force of law and legislation behind them? I feel that would be a real game-changer for our economy; it would improve average wages and improve the resilience of our economy, and that is the way we ought to proceed.

I have experienced exploitative employment practices, as have other Members of this House. It is time that this House woke up to the reality facing millions of young people and casualised workers across the UK.

Scottish Welfare Powers

Debate between Paul Sweeney and Patricia Gibson

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Sweeney]

I agree that the complexity of the social security system should not be underestimated, but none the less we should have committed at the outset to the objectives and the vision that we wanted to see, which we share. Surely they should live up to their rhetoric on this issue.

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman says that the Labour party has been leading from the front on this issue. In the light of that statement, I ask him whether he regrets, and would like to apologise for, the fact that 184 members of his party abstained on the Welfare Reform and Work Bill in 2015, thereby letting through £12 billion of welfare cuts.

[Mr Sweeney]

I am afraid that is a total misrepresentation of what Labour was voting for in that case. If anything, the SNP should apologise for abstaining on the Third Reading of the Tory Finance Bill just last month, when we were all in Parliament. I cannot speak for colleagues who were not elected at the time she refers to, but I can accuse the hon. Lady of that act just last month.

On the progress of the Social Security (Scotland) Bill and how complex it has been, even at stage 2 in February, Labour continued to challenge the Scottish Government to deliver a number of further improvements, which have been resisted. For example, a child benefit top-up of £260 per year was blocked by the Tories and the SNP voting together. Changes that would prevent the winter fuel payment as well as disability and industrial injuries benefits from being means-tested were backed unanimously by Labour, the SNP, the Tories, and the Greens—a good concession. Binding targets to boost the take-up of all benefits were also backed, and protection for carers from inflation—the current carefully crafted Scottish Government plans look set to save £5 million—was backed unanimously.

However, a requirement in law to secure the automatic splitting of universal credit so that women are protected from financial abuse was blocked. The competency of that is contained in section 30 of the Scotland Act 2016. The Tories and the SNP blocked that by voting together—just days before, somewhat ironically, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) introduced a Bill in this place on the same issue. It is an example of how the SNP talks a good game at Westminster, yet acts very conservatively at Holyrood. An attempt to secure a higher legal threshold to prosecute claimants who fail to notify a change of circumstances was also blocked when the Tories forced a vote on it.

There is clearly much more scope to improve the quality of the social security system in Scotland. The only party that has driven real change and a real defence of working people in Scotland who rely on a social security system and a safety net has been the Labour party at every stage. We should not forget that the only force that will ensure that we have real, radical change for disabled people, that we tackle poverty, and that we reinforce the safety net will be a Labour Government at Holyrood in Edinburgh, and at Westminster in London.