Cash at a Crossroads: What the Treasury Select Committee Revealed About Cash Acceptance

The debate over cash acceptance in the UK reached a critical point when the Treasury Select Committee launched its investigation into the issue. With bank branches disappearing, ATMs vanishing, and more businesses refusing to take cash, the Committee sought answers:

• Is cash acceptance really in decline?
• How much responsibility should businesses have to keep cash an option?
• What role should the government play in protecting consumer choice?

While many organisations presented their views, one of the most significant moments came when the Treasury itself gave evidence. And what they said—and didn’t say—revealed just how fragile the future of cash really is.

Compelling Evidence: Why Cash Acceptance is Failing People

The first session of the inquiry saw powerful testimonies from witnesses who made it clear that the decline in cash acceptance is not just an inconvenience, it’s a serious problem affecting millions of people. The evidence presented was overwhelming, but the Treasury’s response failed to acknowledge it.

• Individuals with Learning Disabilities: Wayne Crocker, Director of Mencap Cymru, explained that many people with learning disabilities rely on cash to manage their money. Digital payments can be confusing or inaccessible, yet businesses increasingly refuse to accommodate them.
• Victims of Economic Abuse: Deidre Cartwright, Public Affairs and Policy Manager at Surviving Economic Abuse, highlighted how some individuals are financially controlled by abusers who restrict their access to digital payments. Cash is a lifeline for these victims, giving them a way to retain some financial independence.
• Older Adults: Chris Brooks, Head of Policy at Age UK, pointed out that many older people do not use digital banking and depend on cash for everyday transactions. The refusal of cash by businesses risks excluding them from society.
• Small Businesses and Rural Communities: Several witnesses emphasised that in rural areas, cash remains essential because internet connectivity issues make digital payments unreliable. Small businesses, meanwhile, face high transaction fees on card payments, yet feel pressured to go cashless.

The Treasury heard all this evidence, and yet their response was utterly detached from the reality they had been presented with.

The Treasury’s Position: A Complete Disregard for the Evidence

When questioned, the Treasury acknowledged that cash remains an important payment method for millions. They even pointed to recent legislation aimed at safeguarding access to cash, but when it came to cash acceptance, their stance was far more ambiguous.

• No plans for a legal requirement for businesses to accept cash. The Treasury argued that market forces should determine whether businesses take cash, despite clear evidence that many people still rely on it and that this is unfair to those businesses that choose to accept cash.
• Recognition that cash is being refused more often. The Treasury admitted that the decline in acceptance is real and growing, but offered no concrete plans to reverse the trend.
• A focus on ‘access’ rather than “usability”. While the government has introduced measures to protect ATM networks, this does little good if businesses are refusing cash at the checkout.

In short, the Treasury’s position appears to be: cash should remain available, but businesses can choose whether or not to accept it. This leaves consumers with diminishing options, making the decline of cash feel less like a natural shift and more like an orchestrated one.

The Committee heard detailed, first-hand accounts of how cash refusal is harming people. But the Treasury’s response showed they had already made up their minds, without seriously considering the evidence presented.

The Core Problem: Cash Acceptance vs. Cash Access

One of the biggest flaws in the Treasury’s approach is their separation of “access” and “acceptance”. Ensuring people can withdraw cash is only half of the equation: if businesses refuse to take it, then access alone is meaningless.

Consider this:

• You can withdraw cash from an ATM, but you can’t necessarily use it at your local café, supermarket, or high street store.
• The more businesses go cashless, the harder it becomes to use cash anywhere, pushing people into digital payments even if they don’t want them.

The Treasury’s failure to address this distinction shows a lack of urgency in tackling the real issue.

What Needs to Happen Next?

If the Treasury is unwilling to act, pressure must come from campaigners, consumers, and businesses who understand the risks of a cashless society.

• A Legal Right to Pay with Cash: Other countries have already introduced laws requiring cash acceptance for transactions below a certain amount. The UK should follow suit.
• Stronger Support for Cash-Friendly Businesses: Small businesses that accept cash should be supported, not penalised, through lower banking costs and better access to deposit facilities.
• Consumer Awareness Campaigns: Many people don’t realise how fast cash acceptance is disappearing. The more we highlight the issue, the harder it is for policymakers to ignore.

Conclusion: The MPs Have Listened – Will the Treasury?

The Treasury Select Committee’s investigation has put cash back in the spotlight, and MPs have now heard the evidence — stories about learning-disabled individuals, victims of economic abuse, older adults, and small business owners and others who are being left behind. Yet, the Treasury’s stance remains completely disconnected from reality.

They have formed an opinion without properly considering the powerful evidence presented by the Committee.
The Select Committee has done its job, gathering the evidence and making the case. Now, will the Treasury finally pay attention?

Cash is more than just a payment method – it’s about freedom, privacy, and choice. Without intervention, the UK risks becoming a society where paying for something is no longer a right, but a privilege granted by the financial system.

It’s time for action. Cash still matters! Let’s make sure it stays that way.