Ms Maris Ilves European Commission
Internal Market and Services DG B-1049 Brussels
Belgium
BBA register ID number: 5897733662-75
6 April 2009
Dear Ms Ilves,
BBA response to consultation on access to basic bank accounts
The BBA is the leading association for the UK banking and financial services sector, speaking for 223 banking members from 60 countries on the full range of UK or international banking issues and engaging with 37 associated professional firms. Collectively providing the full range of services, our member banks make up the world's largest international banking centre, operating some 150 million accounts and contributing £50 billion annually to the UK economy.
We welcome this opportunity to give our views on the European Commission’s Consultation Document, “Financial inclusion: Ensuring access to a basic bank account”. We broadly support the Commission’s aim to improve financial inclusion across the EU and to bring more people into the financial mainstream. BBA member banks have been instrumental in a number of financial inclusion projects such as basic bank accounts as well as several financial capability and community finance projects. We are very happy to share our experiences with the Commission and with relevant stakeholders in other member states.
Summary of our main points
• The self-regulation model in the UK is a partnership with the government, based on basic bank account provision by 17 financial institutions. It works well and demonstrates that no stringent legislation or regulation to tackle financial exclusion is necessary to achieve the goal of financial inclusion.
• In promoting financial inclusion, we believe that the best role the EU is in raising awareness across all member states, sharing ideas and best practice, as the different financial customs across the 27 member states and the subsidiarity principle suggest that this is best approached at member state level.
• We define cross-border access to accounts (internal market-driven) and financial inclusion (social policy-driven) as to two distinct issues. Therefore, we do not think that basic accounts for non-residents would help improve financial inclusion in any way. We are open to further discussions on the provision of accounts in a separate arena.
Please find enclosed our detailed responses to the individual consultation questions. If you would like to discuss this response further, do not hesitate to contact our Policy Advisor Stefan Marx on +44 (0)20 7216 8850 or via email [email protected].
Yours sincerely,
Eric Leenders
Executive Director
T +44(0)20 7216 8857 E [email protected]
ANNEX – Response to individual consultation questions
Q1: Do you share the Commission's overall objective to ensure that, by a certain date, every EU citizen or resident has access to a basic bank account? What could constitute the main challenges in meeting this objective?
We believe that the overall aim that EU citizens should have fair access to transactional banking services is laudable. However, the subsidiarity principle and different banking cultures across Europe suggest that financial inclusion is a policy area that is best approached at individual member state level (please refer to our answer to Q10 for more detail). We would also question what an EU-wide definition of a “basic bank account” would look like, e.g. if this would involve access to a debit card, access to transfer services such as standing orders or if accounts would have to be free of charge. In the UK, 17 banks with branches across the country offer a basic bank account, including all major retail banks. The Banking Code, which is a voluntary code signed by the great majority of UK retail banks and monitored by an independent board, stipulates that
• if a customer’s needs are suited to a basic bank account and if the individual bank runs the product, the customer will be offered one; and
• if the customer asks for a basic bank account and meets the conditions, the bank will offer it to them.
A helpful overview of the basic bank account market in the UK can be found at the Financial Services Authority’s (FSA) “Moneymadeclear” website, which can be accessed at www.moneymadeclear.fsa.gov.uk/products/bank_accounts/bank_accounts.html.
Banks have a professional and legal obligation to ensure they correctly identify customers and verify their residential address (ID&V). However, in recognition that some customers at risk of financial exclusion may have varying forms of ID&V documentation available, they aim to be as flexible as possible in what they require from customers to open a basic bank account. As a result, there is good access to basic bank accounts in the UK, as no one is precluded from approaching the 17 institutions to apply for one. We believe that no further binding targets would need to be imposed in Britain, given the shared goal between Government and the financial sector, set in December 2004, to halve the numbers of unbanked individuals and households. Data published by the Government’s Financial Inclusion Taskforce (FITF) suggests reductions in both categories by more than a quarter each since 2002/03, stating there “has been a significant reduction in the numbers of unbanked”.1 However, we believe that access to these services does not mean forcing banks to unconditionally accept any application even if it does not meet their requirements under regulatory standards and their own risk assessments. All UK banks and building societies have in place their own internal policies and processes for determining to whom they will provide their accounts and products. For example, checks will be carried out to ensure the identity of the applicant can be properly verified in accordance with anti-money laundering (AML) requirements, and the applicant’s credit history might be looked at to see if they have any county court judgments against them or have been made bankrupt. For example, in the latter case some banks consider that there are legal issues that need to be resolved before they can offer accounts to undischarged bankrupts. Such policies take into account the level of risk acceptable to the bank and the requirements on them to act in a responsible manner. Whether or not an application to open a basic bank account is accepted is ultimately an
1
Financial Inclusion Taskforce: Third Annual Report on Progress Towards the Shared Goal for Banking. December 2008, paragraph 33. Available at:
individual bank’s decision. Banks must also be able to reserve the right to subsequently close the account in case of fraud or abuse.
It is important to note that access to basic banking features does not automatically translate to take-up by customers. As reductions in the number of unbanked households have been marked since the introduction of basic bank accounts, we are satisfied that the question of access has been addressed effectively. Members and consumer/voluntary groups agree that the challenge is now rather on the demand side, as there is a sizeable group who do not want to have a banking relationship or who feel that they lack the capability to demand and run a bank account. The Post Office also offers the Post Office Card Account (POCA), which allows only receipt of state benefits, state pensions and tax credit payments but no other payments. This offering seems to suit the needs of a significant part of the population. According to the latest Family Resources Survey, 12 percent of over-75s have a POCA.
One solution for addressing the demand side issue lies in increasing financial education/capability and cooperation with the advice sector. For example, the BBA and some individual banks have been part of a Banking Partnership Group at Toynbee Hall, a charity based in East London who are conducting financial inclusion work. The group was convened to make it easier for potential customers to open basic accounts. In February, a report was published giving a round-up of banks’ best practice on making transactional banking as accessible as possible.2 The BBA is also engaged with the Government and the FSA on their financial capability projects, and we know that many of our members run their own schemes to raise general financial awareness.
Q2: Do you agree with the description of the causes and consequences of financial exclusion? Please provide additional information if available.
We would like to add that self-exclusion from the financial mainstream is another reason which needs to be recognised:
• Public-sector solutions can contribute to people choosing to remain unengaged. As mentioned above, e.g. the POCA in the UK has proved sufficient for, in particular, many elderly people who have only benefit income.
• The current financial crisis has resulted in high levels of ongoing media stories and political rhetoric fuelling public uncertainty about engaging with the banking industry. This will undoubtedly make it more difficult in the short term to overcome self-exclusion.
Q3: Do you think that one can reconcile financial service providers' legitimate need to make profit with any social obligation they may have vis-à-vis excluded groups? Should financial service providers play a stronger 'social' role in the society, in particular in combating financial exclusion?
We recognise that as good corporate citizens, banks have a responsibility to sustain a community in which they can thrive. We also acknowledge that it is in banks’ interests to tackle financial exclusion where it is simply caused by a market failure. However, as the section on causes and consequences of financial exclusion in the consultation paper rightly suggests, this is a multi-dimensional problem, which is neither completely caused nor solved by the usage of a bank account. As outlined above, the UK banking industry has tackled the areas where they can make a difference by agreeing the
2
Toynbee Hall: Developing inclusive banking. Suggested approaches to improve access to your banking products and services. February 2009. Available at:
www.toynbeehall.org.uk/news_item.asp?itemid=1877&itemTitle=Toynbee+Hall+launches+Developing+Inclusiv e+Banking+Report§ion=00010001000100010001§ionTitle=News
shared goal with government, adhering to the Banking Code and by running their own individual corporate social responsibility (CSR) projects.
Consequently, we think that financial institutions can be active corporate citizens, but this does not constitute a formal “social role” in society. Such a role would clearly overstrain the resources of private businesses, as they already pay taxes, and as they are not subject matter experts for complex problems in society. We suggest that a better solution can be found in the partnership approach between the public sector, banks and the third sector, some examples of which we have described in answer to Q1.
Q4: In your experience, where voluntary codes of conduct are in place, are they well applied?
We believe that the UK market demonstrates that a voluntary system is workable and can benefit the customer in terms of product innovation. In the UK, there are 50,000 net openings (new accounts minus closure of old ones) of basic bank accounts every month, which means that more basic accounts are being opened relative to population size than in countries such as France and Belgium, where legislative obligations to provide a basic account are in place. Therefore, banking penetration is not lower in the UK than in France, which has a legislative right to an account. France opened 30,400 accounts under its ‘right to an account’ scheme between 1995 and 2006. In Belgium, 5,000 accounts were opened in 2005 following introduction of similar legislation, according to the European Commission’s study on financial inclusion across the EU published last year.3
Moreover, it is necessary that instruments for greater financial inclusion reflect different circumstances in individual states. For example, in France when customers write a cheque that they have insufficient funds to cover, they face bank charges but also, if the situation is not resolved within 2 months, they face a penalty fee from the state. If the customer does not resolve their situation within the two-month period, they will have to pay a penalty fee to recover their right to write cheques. There is therefore a lesser need to restrict the issue of cheques compared to the UK which has no equivalent legislation. It also needs to be noted that in the countries with a legislative obligation to open account, there is a comparatively smaller number of accounts which are free of charge. The self-regulatory UK model has allowed the provision of basic bank accounts which are free of charge, as long as the account remains in credit.4 These accounts may still have a high cost of servicing and therefore running these free of charge may mean that they are loss-making. Whilst this may be acceptable in the current environment, any charging model for basic accounts needs to be considered in the context of the overall prevailing charging models for bank accounts in a particular geographical market.
According to the European Commission’s report mentioned above, the UK shows a medium-low level of financial exclusion. We also note that the report states that experiences with self-regulation in Britain were “positive and ensure high levels of transaction banking inclusion” and that “the situations in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom have a great deal to commend them”.5 All in all, we believe that this area is best left to a flexible approach across the EU, giving member states the flexibility to choose the best model for them. This could include, for example, the provision of free accounts through not-for-profit entities (see answer to Q6).
3
pp100 and 102. 4
Please refer to the FSA’s basic bank account leaflet for more details - www.moneymadeclear.fsa.gov.uk/pdfs/bank_accounts.pdf.
5
Another area in which UK retail banks are active is the provision of accounts for ex-offenders. The UK government’s crime reduction and resettlement strategies recognise the importance of a bank account in the rehabilitation of prisoners. Without a bank account, measures to enable ex-prisoners to gain access to settled accommodation, employment and education are more complex and difficult to implement. A bank account has a greater significance than a method of money transfer alone. For prisoners, the significance of a bank account lies more in a desire to manage money more effectively and to achieve social inclusion within society. UK banks have developed schemes which enable ex-offenders to open a bank account whilst in prison or after being released. Research indicates that this appears to be having an impact on the rate of re-offending after release. UK banks are now working with the government and the voluntary sector to improve access to bank accounts for prisoners and make them an important element of the rehabilitation process.
Q5: Should all providers be obliged to offer basic bank accounts to all citizens throughout the EU?
We believe that the consultation paper tries to address two separate issues, which should be analysed in isolation: 1) financial inclusion (which is rooted in social policy) and 2) cross-border access to transactional banking services (which is a single market issue). It seems also unclear to us whether the question implies a) that all retail banks anywhere should be required to offer basic bank accounts or b) that all providers within a member state offer their accounts to all EU citizens wherever they may live. We will base our response on the latter understanding, as some retail banks legitimately choose not to operate in that market space.
In order to be financially and socially included within a society, access to a basis bank account in a different state strikes us as at best a very minor factor. Therefore, we suggest that the issue of cross-border access to banking services is not conflated with financial inclusion concerns. Any EU citizen or resident who is affected by the inability to open a basic account in another EU state is not running an evident risk of being automatically unbanked. Non-British EU citizens who are resident in the UK are unlikely to have problems in accessing a basic account. In addition, existing customers’ accounts are usually not closed down when they move abroad.
Moreover, our members can confirm that there is no overt regulatory barrier to opening bank accounts for non-residents, and they see this as a commercial, risk-driven decision that some banks choose to make. Our members have not seen a customer demand for this. Some of our members offer services to expatriates (who in the great majority of cases choose full current accounts), based on commercial considerations. Some are prepared to offer accounts to remote applicants, while others do so only face to face. They may also impose additional conditions and higher charges if the customer’s circumstances create substantially heightened costs or risks – this can be necessary to address potentially increased fraud risks and the need to make different or additional checks, which impose higher one-off and/or ongoing administration costs.
Therefore, we feel that the issue of account availability to non-residents is not a market failure, but more a question of clearly signposting information. The BBA is in continuing discussions with the UK Government on cross-border access, but we need to stress again that this is not an issue that would seriously affect levels of financial inclusion within a society.
Q6: Should basic bank accounts be provided on a commercial or not-for-profit basis; i.e. should they be free of charge? In case you favour the latter option, who should bear the costs?
We think that the type of basic bank account offered within an EU member state should reflect the norms and customs applying to simple current accounts, i.e. if the usual model is that there are
regular banking charges, basic accounts would reflect this. The British example at this point in time shows that basic accounts run on a commercial basis can be free of charge as long as the account remains in credit. Please refer back to our answer to Q4 for more details. Therefore, we would suggest that typically free banking services are available in a commercial, self-regulatory environment. However, we do not think that there should be a rigid rule that accounts have to be completely free of any charges in any circumstances, as this might change the business case for providers and might make the running of basic accounts economically unviable. It is important that there is transparency around the account features and costs. As an example, a number of credit unions have recently successfully launched simple current accounts in the UK, which have some basic but transparent fees attached to them. These fees enable the credit unions to offer this service in a sustainable manner.
We believe the option of offering not-for-profit services is always open to state-run entities such as post offices (e.g. the POCA mentioned under Q1). Such offerings would service very basic needs, but they are unlikely to offer more sophisticated services such as debit cards that can be used for shopping or internet banking.
Q7: Could the role of alternative commercial and not-for-profit financial services providers in addressing financial exclusion be enhanced? What could be done to encourage more such providers to help with access to basic bank accounts?
There is a role for social businesses in helping create greater financial inclusion. In the UK, many banks work closely with not-for-profit organisations such as Community Development Finance Initiatives and credit unions, who play a key role in addressing financial exclusion. UK banks already provide help to local credit unions by lending them money, transferring know-how and offering back-office facilities. To give one concrete example, there is a commercial arrangement between a high street bank and individual credit unions to enable them to offer a full current account 'banking service' to their members, with access to ATM facilities, direct debits and a payment debit card. This relationship has been recognised as a key enabler to capacity-building in the credit union sector and demonstrates how banks can support access to affordable credit in addition to basic banking services.
There is also a role for intermediary organisations (see the Toynbee Hall example above) in tackling self-exclusion and difficulties in opening accounts caused by regulations (e.g. ID&V requirements) and low financial capability. Banks are also liaising with the Department of Work and Pensions’ “Financial Inclusion Champions” initiative, which invites intermediary organisations to become active in local areas to raise awareness for financial inclusion and capability needs.6
Q8: Should regulators be required to consider the impact of regulation on financially excluded groups?
Yes, we believe that financial regulators need to take into account the impact of their rules on disadvantaged groups. Stringent regulations can have unintended consequences, as they can leave banks no choice other than to withdraw services or to refuse applications. They can also add a lot of complexity, which might discourage people with low financial capability from accessing banking services. For example, inflexible rules on ID&V and AML checks at account opening have sometimes caused problems in the past. Therefore, the Banking Code guidance for subscribers states that banks should take a flexible approach if applicants have difficulties with providing the usual documents to prove their identity and verify their address.
6
Q9: What is the most effective role public authorities can play in combating financial exclusion – e.g. providing an understanding of the problem; assessing the efficiency of policy measures implemented and their impact on financial inclusion; promoting and supporting market initiatives; contributing to the provision of financial services; raising awareness; intervening in cases of exclusion (e.g. via tax incentives, subsidies or regulatory penalties); introducing legislation?
As already suggested in the question, public authorities have a big policy arsenal for tackling financial exclusion by raising awareness and promoting socially desirable behaviour. From our experience, we conclude that a partnership approach works best and that self-regulation by the industry can lead to better inclusion and a dynamic marketplace for customers. We do not think that introducing stringent regulation or legislation that imposes fixed targets or prescribed account features on the industry is the ideal approach, as it leads to minimalist implementation and stifled innovation.
Raising awareness for the wider aspects of financial inclusion is a very important role for government. As financial exclusion is often coupled with a lack of understanding of financial issues, the BBA has also been very supportive of any policies which improve financial education at school and financial capability for a wider audience. As already stated in our answer to Q8, we support the idea that public bodies need to consider the impact of policy measures on financial inclusion. We also believe that member state governments can have a role as a partner to businesses and the third sector in promoting inclusion.
Q10: Should financial inclusion be addressed at EU level? How could the responsibilities and competences between the national and EU level be shared? What could/should be the Commission's role?
We agree with the statement in the consultation paper that any EU initiative should not compromise well-functioning solutions in individual member states. Tackling financial inclusion as part of wider social policy is an area which is a member state competency. There are wide variations as to the levels of financial exclusion and the possible solutions across the 27 EU member states. These are caused by different population structures, banking traditions, the usage of different types of payment channels, different financial habits and products, amongst other factors influencing wider social inclusion.
Therefore, we can only envisage a very limited remit for any EU-level action on financial inclusion issues. We do not think that a hard or soft law approach would be appropriate, given the variations in member states explained above. However, we think that the EU has a role in raising awareness of the problems associated with financial exclusion as well as in measuring and analysing social and financial inclusion within member states. In addition, the EU could play a key role in facilitating the sharing of ideas and concepts between different actors in the respective member states. The current work on financial capability, with an expert group consisting of financial and other professionals, sharing best practices amongst each other at EU level, could provide a useful model for any future cooperation on financial inclusion.
Q11: What could the Commission do to address the potential difficulties in opening basic bank accounts cross-border?
We refer to our response to Q5 and reiterate that cross-border access to accounts and financial inclusion within the individual’s member state are two distinct issues. As outlined above, we recognise that there are no overt regulatory barriers to opening bank accounts for non-residents, which is a commercial, risk-driven decision for individual banks. However, it must be kept in mind
that a regulatory burden arises from all accounts, i.e. tracking and monitoring for tax/AML purposes, financial crime, fraud risks and internal risk approach bring with them costs of compliance and penalties for mistakes.
Therefore, we suggest that the Commission can act as referral service pointing customers to sources of advice about the banking frameworks and regulations in each individual member state, e.g. information available from regulators, trade bodies and banks. We are also open to discussions about specific questions arising from cross-border access to accounts, such as potential problems with identity and address verification, AML rules, fraud risks and general “know your customer” issues. The Commission could facilitate such discussions with member states’ financial services ministries and regulators as well as representatives of banks if it wishes to do so.
Q12: Should the concept of financial inclusion cover financial services other than the provision of basic bank accounts?
For the reasons outlined above, we do not think that a regulatory approach or soft-law approach by the EU is needed on inclusion in transactional banking services and in any other products. Having said that, we would argue that financial inclusion typically means broader access to and understanding of financial products, not just access to basic bank accounts. Inclusion also involves individuals having the ability to understand financial products and have the financial capability to use them as well. Toynbee Hall define financial inclusion as “A state in which people have access to appropriate, affordable and desired financial products and services. It is achieved by financial literacy and financial capability on the part of the consumer, and access and products on the part of financial product, services and advice suppliers.”7 Therefore, to develop other areas of financial inclusion, financial institutions, the public and the third sector need to work together through cooperative financial capability initiatives.
It also needs to be recognised that basic bank accounts are often the first step in accessing other services such as savings accounts or “full” current accounts. A recent study by Toynbee Hall showed that 25 per cent of people within their sample have been able to access other financial products since opening a basic account, often picking up a “full” current account.8
ENDS
7
Please see the website of Transact, the national forum for national inclusion, www.transact.org.uk/page.asp?section=000100010004.
8
The report, “From Access to Inclusion: An evaluation of the role of Basic Bank Accounts in promoting financial inclusion” is available at www.transact.org.uk/core/core_picker/download.asp?id=375.
