Treasury Committee gives Payments Council a rough ride on cheque abolition 2

Finance | Tania Mason | 17 Mar 2010

The Payments Council was warned by the Treasury Committee yesterday that its decision to phase out cheques by 2018 should only go ahead if it can prove the public really wants it.

At a hearing yesterday, the Committee heard from Institute of Fundraising policy head Louise Richards that some charities garner nearly three-quarters of their donations via cheque and that the death of the cheque could be disastrous for them.

"You have to remember that 6.3 million people over the age of 65 don't have access to the internet," Richards told the Committee.

Other groups representing consumers and older people added their concerns to the Institute’s and the Committee chair, Labour and Co-operative Party MP John McFall, appeared sympathetic to their worries.

He told the Payments Council it had not presented sufficient evidence to put its decision beyond review, and warned that parliament might step in if it was not persuaded that the benefits of phasing out the payment method outweighed the costs to affected organisations.

Payments Council chief executive Paul Smee was told to get an independently-verified cost/benefit analysis and present this to the Committee once it is done.

McFall said the Council did not appear to have done any consumer research to determine whether people want cheques to be abolished or not, and that it had to give people the choice.

"I'll tell you now that as chairman of the Treasury Committee, I want cheques to be kept," McFall added. "We are not convinced that chques are in terminal decline, as you claim - they are still the second largest means of payment."

Directory: Institute of Fundraising

Place a comment

Colin Overall
St Bartholomew's Church
6 May 2011

Cheques remain a vital part of money matters today.

Most alternatives suggested will not be suitable for those who do not have internet access, do not use a mobile phone or need to send money to a recipient who has no internet connection and no on line banking facility. Where many charities, Church account transactions are needed, in most cases 2 signatures are required. This can't be achieved by any online banking systems.

The whole suggested change is not aimed at the general public but at business and commerce users.

We need to remember the individual customer who wants a customer first approach and not system solely run for the benefit of the banking community

[Reply]

S Dye
PA
Disabled People's Partnership
22 Mar 2010

As a result of an illness I am unable to remember my PIN number and therefore rely on the use of signature not only for cheques but also for payment via debit card. I feel it would be disastrous for people such as myself and also those who are unable to obtain a debit card. The two organisations I am involved in, Speakability and Disabled People's Partnership in Wakefield, are two that would be affected but I am sure there are many more. It is difficult enough now, do not make it any harder.

Regards

S Dye

[Reply]

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

Robust but respectful debate
Strongly held opinions
Intelligent relevant discussion
The sharing of relevant experiences
New participants

We will not publish:

Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
The posting of contact details for yourself or others
Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.