Mr. Andrew Blair:

Correct. On the point the Senator has made about allegations in the media recently, particularly in Great Britain, I refer to what the Financial Conduct Authority, FCA, stated at the time. On 8 November RBS announced the actions it would take and those actions were undertaken voluntarily by it. The FCA stated it had seen no evidence that the bank had artificially engineered a position to cause customers to transfer to the GRG and that any customer transferred had been exhibiting signs of financial distress but that there was no widespread practice of transferring customers for inappropriate reasons. It went on to note that the bank's communications with customers could have been better during the transfer process. There was a focus on pricing in Great Britain of increased risk at the expense of consideration of long-term viability. Decisions made were not necessarily well documented and explained. The last point was about complaints. That is why actions were taken.

There are and have been allegations. As Mr. Mallon said, they are allegations. That is the position stated by the FCA in response to the decision by RBS to go voluntarily with the complaints process and the refund of fees. Beyond that, without getting into individual cases and people talking about what happened to them, it is difficult to address. I return to the core objective of the bank in its totality - the GRG is a division of the bank - which is to take customers who are in distress and try to find ways to restore them. The reality is that, unfortunately, not all customers remain viable forever. Some, in circumstances that may be driven by actions of their own or the economic environment, will prove not to be viable and incapable of being restructured. I understand the Senator's concerns about the allegations made, but the most we can do is explain what exactly the FCA stated at the time and what its perception of the outcome was. It could not find support for the contention made in these allegations.