That is an issue on which the bank would have to respond, because my view is that clearly it is not fair.
I have a fourth and final example of businesses finding themselves in difficulty due to decisions taken by the bank. A company that contacted me recently had net profit of £272,000 on turnover of £3.5 million in 2008, net profit of £281,000 on turnover of £4.4 million in 2009, and net profit of £268,000 on turnover of £3.9 million in 2010. Those are all healthy figures. The company employed about 40 members of staff. In late 2010, however, an agreed overdraft facility with the bank was withdrawn, because a loan agreement under the EFG—enterprise finance guarantee—system was declined. The company was therefore put into GRG support, and the group proceeded to disallow a payment of £14,000 in corporation tax, on which basis the company found itself in difficulties and ended up going into administration. The final set of management accounts for the nine months before the company went into administration showed a net profit of £190,000. The company would argue that its difficulties were caused by the bank refusing the corporation tax payment, even though the final accounts showed a profit.
Such businesses feel extremely hard done by as a result of the way that the GRG and RBS have behaved towards them. My evidence could be described as anecdotal—I am more than happy to accept that—but it is important to emphasise that the cases highlighted in the Tomlinson report are the tip of the iceberg; they are not representative of an issue created by Lawrence Tomlinson himself. I have seen these issues in my constituency, and other Members have seen them in theirs.
Once businesses are in the GRG, the concern is that its attitude and behaviour is less than helpful. RBS argues that the whole purpose of the group is to put businesses back into health, but it is difficult to see how a business allegedly subject to cash-flow problems is helped by having an additional £250,000 in fees in a six-month period. Time and again, I have seen the fees charged by the bank go up when businesses go into the GRG, and they apparently bear no relation to the amount of work done in support of the business.
So-called independent reviews are forced on businesses by the bank, whether through a valuation, accountancy work or solicitors. Professional fees are charged to the business, but the instructions come from the bank and, often, the reports go to the bank first. We have to be concerned about that. Furthermore, the businesses often have no say whatever in who the reviewers will be. There is a question about the conflict of interest faced by those professionals: if they are being paid by a business, but instructed by the bank, surely they are conflicted in their work.
The other thing that I have seen time and again is payments by suppliers not being prioritised. There is almost never a case in which a payment to suppliers would be allowed if that took the business beyond the terms of its overdraft or facilities, and yet I have never seen a case in which charges due to the GRG have not been taken because they will take the business over its overdraft limit. That is a fair point to make, because if a business can go over its agreed limit in order to pay the bank charges, why on earth will the bank not allow a payment to a supplier if that supplier is crucial to the continuation of the business in question?
I have already mentioned a constituent of mine struck with a £4,000 weekly fee for the continuation of his banking facilities. To return to him, after three months of negotiation, the GRG agreed that it would accept £2,000 per week. There was no explanation as to why the fee was initially £4,000, or why £2,000 was now acceptable. I get the impression that the reason why it was £4,000 to start was that the bank thought that it could get away with it; the fee was subsequently £2,000, because the business put up a fight—its accountants and solicitors argued the case, as did the MP.