Britain's Payments Council today announced that the humble cheque would be consigned to history in 2018 - provided suitable alternatives are available for the elderly and others who cherish this 350 year of method of payment.
I did a couple of television interviews with Sky News on the subject today. (Sky called me after reading my article in the Observer on cheques last February.) I was up against Stephen Alambritis from the Federation of Small Businesses in the first, live interview.
I'm surprised by the FSB's fierce support for cheques. If I was running a small business, the last thing I'd want is an payment method that takes days to clear, requires visits to the bank to deposit - and are increasingly shunned by consumers. True, many small traders rely on cheques, but by 2018 I suspect many will wonder why the fate of the cheque had stirred such controversy. True, it's easy to be cynical about the motives for the banks ditching cheques, but it's not just the banks who stand to gain time and money. To quote my sister, who runs her own business:
"I think I've only written 3 company cheques in the last 3 months - but we do receive a number. They are a pain in the backside - not only do they cost more in bank charges, they take forever to clear (one took 6 working days) for no reason that I can see. Plus the fact that we then have to drive 5 miles to the nearest bank to pay the damn thing in."
By contrast, I can understand why the elderly struggle with the idea of finding another way to pay. The Payments Council is right to say it will need to show there are suitable alternatives for them before the cheque passes into history. But let's put this into perspective: my grandmothers, born in the decade before Queen Victoria died, coped with a far more dramatic change: the switch from pounds shillings and pence to decimal money. You can't help thinking we'd still be using the groat if the naysayers had their way!
Comments