Five questions answered… on Royal Bank of Scotland’s PPI provisions

The cost of PPI mis-selling continues to rise.

RBS has set aside even more money to cover the cost of compensation claims for mis-sold PPI. We answer five questions on RBS’s PPI payouts.

How much more has RBS put aside to cover PPI mis-selling claims?

RBS has announced it will be setting aside a further £400m to cover future anticipated PPI compensation claims. 

It has also set aside another £50m to cover the cost of compensation from a recent computer systems failure which affected customers earlier in the year.

How much has the bank spent on PPI mis-selling claims already?

Including this latest fund, a staggering £1.7bn

What about other banks?  

In total, and including any latest provisions, the PPI scandal has cost UK banks £10.8bn. 

Lloyds banking group has also announced it has put aside a further £1bn of provisions to cover claims. 

What is RBS current financial position?

RBS, which is 80 per cent owned by the UK government, has reported a pre-tax loss of £1.26bn for the three months to 30 September, against a £2bn profit a year earlier. 

The bank is also bracing itself over possible steep penalties for any involvement it might of had in alleged manipulation of the Libor inter-bank lending rate. Barclays was recently fined £290 million for attempting to manipulate libor. 

Another big hit for the bank is a £1.5bn charge against its own debt due to an accounting rule that requires it to take a loss on increases in the value of its bonds. 

RBS's operating profits for the third quarter were £1bn, up from a £650m profit in the second quarter. However these figures discount the PPI mis-selling and other charges. 

What has RBS said?

Chief Executive of RBS, Stephen Hester, told the BBC: 

"The extraordinary challenges which RBS faced following the financial crisis are being worked through successfully"

"The five year restructuring plan is now in its later stages with important work still to do, including an emphasis on dealing with reputational issues now that the bank's safety and soundness has advanced so well."

Adding that the bank is too often was looked upon as putting the short-term interests of shareholders and staff above customers. 

Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for Nridigital.com

GETTY
Show Hide image

Cabinet audit: what does the appointment of Andrea Leadsom as Environment Secretary mean for policy?

The political and policy-based implications of the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

A little over a week into Andrea Leadsom’s new role as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and senior industry figures are already questioning her credentials. A growing list of campaigners have called for her resignation, and even the Cabinet Office implied that her department's responsibilities will be downgraded.

So far, so bad.

The appointment would appear to be something of a consolation prize, coming just days after Leadsom pulled out of the Conservative leadership race and allowed Theresa May to enter No 10 unopposed.

Yet while Leadsom may have been able to twist the truth on her CV in the City, no amount of tampering will improve the agriculture-related side to her record: one barely exists. In fact, recent statements made on the subject have only added to her reputation for vacuous opinion: “It would make so much more sense if those with the big fields do the sheep, and those with the hill farms do the butterflies,” she told an audience assembled for a referendum debate. No matter the livelihoods of thousands of the UK’s hilltop sheep farmers, then? No need for butterflies outside of national parks?

Normally such a lack of experience is unsurprising. The department has gained a reputation as something of a ministerial backwater; a useful place to send problematic colleagues for some sobering time-out.

But these are not normal times.

As Brexit negotiations unfold, Defra will be central to establishing new, domestic policies for UK food and farming; sectors worth around £108bn to the economy and responsible for employing one in eight of the population.

In this context, Leadsom’s appointment seems, at best, a misguided attempt to make the architects of Brexit either live up to their promises or be seen to fail in the attempt.

At worst, May might actually think she is a good fit for the job. Leadsom’s one, water-tight credential – her commitment to opposing restraints on industry – certainly has its upsides for a Prime Minister in need of an alternative to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); a policy responsible for around 40 per cent the entire EU budget.

Why not leave such a daunting task in the hands of someone with an instinct for “abolishing” subsidies  thus freeing up money to spend elsewhere?

As with most things to do with the EU, CAP has some major cons and some equally compelling pros. Take the fact that 80 per cent of CAP aid is paid out to the richest 25 per cent of farmers (most of whom are either landed gentry or vast, industrialised, mega-farmers). But then offset this against the provision of vital lifelines for some of the UK’s most conscientious, local and insecure of food producers.

The NFU told the New Statesman that there are many issues in need of urgent attention; from an improved Basic Payment Scheme, to guarantees for agri-environment funding, and a commitment to the 25-year TB eradication strategy. But that they also hope, above all, “that Mrs Leadsom will champion British food and farming. Our industry has a great story to tell”.

The construction of a new domestic agricultural policy is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Britain to truly decide where its priorities for food and environment lie, as well as to which kind of farmers (as well as which countries) it wants to delegate their delivery.

In the context of so much uncertainty and such great opportunity, Leadsom has a tough job ahead of her. And no amount of “speaking as a mother” will change that.

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.