This idea arises from an ignorance concerning how ordinary people transact their financial affairs, and an arrogant indifference as to their needs. It is also apparently based on the assumption that cheques are only used by older people. There is no basis for this. Younger people will still have the need to exchange sums with each other and with small voluntary bodies. The decision should be reversed.
The abolition of cheques, planned for a few years hence, will be enormously inconvenient and troublesome for the ordinary citizen, and should not take place. It appears to be based on the argument that cheques are no longer used in retail purchases or major commercial and financial transactions. That is so, but neglects the fact that cheques are still the normal method of financial exchange by private individuals with each other and with small voluntary bodies, who will, if cheques are abolished, have no sensible alternative.
Do the banks expect that every private individual or small voluntary body will have a credit or debit card reader? What method do they expect me to adopt if I wish to transfer or receive money with my family or voluntary bodies that I belong to? How do they expect voluntary bodies to pay or receive cash, above very small sums?
In any case, I do not see how the abolition of cheques will be legally possible. A cheque is a written instruction by me to my bank to pay a certain sum to a certain person. Even if cheques are abolished, I can still send such a written instruction. Abolishing cheques will therefore not achieve its purpose.
No doubt the banks wish to save money on their cheque processing centres. This saving will happen naturally as the number of cheques made out declines. It does not follow that cheques have no use and will become redundant.