Category: France

  • MIL-OSI China: Macron proposes to discuss nuclear deterrence for Europe

    Source: China State Council Information Office 3

    Flags of European Union (EU) and Ukraine are seen at the EU headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 24, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]

    French President Emmanuel Macron announced on Wednesday that he has decided to open strategic discussions with European allies on potential nuclear protection.

    “Responding to the historic call of the future German chancellor, I have decided to open a strategic debate on the protection of our allies in Europe through our (nuclear) deterrent,” Macron said in a televised address.

    Speaking on Europe’s defense and Ukraine, he emphasized that France’s nuclear deterrent has played a role in maintaining peace and security in Europe.

    On Ukraine, Macron asserted that the country has “the right to peace and security for itself, and it is in the interest of the European continent’s security.” He stressed the need to ensure that any future peace, once achieved, is sustainable.

    “This will certainly require long-term support for the Ukrainian army and could potentially involve deploying European forces,” he said.

    However, Macron clarified that such European forces would not engage in frontline combat but would instead help ensure that peace is upheld once secured.

    He also announced that France would host a meeting next week with countries willing to contribute to future European forces to be deployed in Ukraine.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: World News in Brief: Death toll rises in Darfur, Cyclone Chido latest, São Tomé and Príncipe takes development step

    Source: United Nations MIL OSI b

    Peace and Security

    UN humanitarians expressed alarm on Monday at the rising numbers of civilian casualties in and around the besieged Sudanese city of El Fasher, in northern Darfur.

    According to news reports citing local sources, paramilitaries from the so-called Rapid Support Forces who have been battling the forces of the military Government for 18 months, launched a missile attack at the weekend which killed more than 30 people in the city, while a drone attack on Friday reportedly killed nine and wounded 20 at the Saudi Hospital in El Fasher.

    Attacks include the repeated shelling of the Zamzam displacement camp since the beginning of this month, said UN Spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric, briefing correspondents in New York.

    “The camp hosts hundreds of thousands of people and famine conditions were confirmed there earlier this year.”

    In response to the deaths in the city in recent days, Mr. Dujarric condemned all civilian killings “wherever they occur”.

    ‘Deplorable’ attacks

    WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said of the attack on the main hospital that it was no longer operational, describing all attacks on healthcare as “deplorable”, in a post on X. The hospital is no longer operational. (repeat)

    “This is part of a broader escalation of attacks across Darfur and in other areas of Sudan,” the Spokesperson added, reiterating the call from UN humanitarian affairs office, OCHA, for an immediate ceasefire

    “We reiterate that international humanitarian law must be respected. Civilians and civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, are not targets,” he added.

    Cyclone Chido: Humanitarians rush aid to affected areas

    After Cyclone Chido made landfall in the French island territory of Mayotte at the weekend, leaving an unknown number of dead and destruction on a massive scale, UN teams began aid distribution in Cabo Delgado province, in northern Mozambique – following the deadly storm making landfall there.

    Around two million people are at risk in Mozambique, including 627,000 identified as being at “high risk”.

    In an alert, the UN World Food Programme (WFP) said that voluntary evacuation plans began to be circulated on 8 December, reaching more than 400,000 people.

    The UN agency reported that in less than 24 hours, emergency food assistance reached around 500 cyclone-affected families in temporary accommodation centres in Pemba district alone.

    Humanitarians have been on high alert since the French Indian Ocean territory of Mayotte experienced its worst cyclone in almost a century on Saturday. Media reports showed trees uprooted and houses smashed, while communities faced power cuts and fears over a lack of drinking water.

    Close cooperation

    The UN is working closely with the Government in Mozambique to assess the damage and humanitarian impact.

    For its part, UN Children’s Fund, UNICEF, and partners are providing water and sanitation supplies to mitigate disease risks as the region is already grappling with a cholera outbreak.

    Preliminary figures indicate that 140,000 people have been impacted across Cabo Delgado Province, where more than one million people are already in need of assistance due to the ongoing conflict, said UN Spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric.

    “Our humanitarian colleagues tell us that in the most impacted districts – including Mecufi and Metuge – people urgently need shelter, they need water, they need sanitation, hygiene, health and protection assistance,” he added.

    Emergency Relief Coordinator, Tom Fletcher, allocated $4 million from the Central Emergency Response Fund to support early response efforts.

    São Tomé and Príncipe takes major development step

    The UN has congratulated São Tomé and Príncipe on its official graduation from the Least Developed Countries (LDC) category.

    The Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UNOHRLLS) said the milestone “marks a significant achievement in the country’s development journey and reflects its sustained efforts to achieve robust economic growth, enhance human development, and improve resilience against vulnerabilities.”

    The graduation also underscores the international community’s collective push to support LDCs overall and is “the result of years of strategic planning, effective policymaking, and international partnerships,” added OHRLLS in a statement.

    The UN Committee for Development Policy recommended the country’s graduation after it met the necessary criteria based on per capita income, human assets, and economic and environmental vulnerability indices.

    Notable accomplishments include the increase in universal health coverage from 47 per cent in 2010 to 59 per cent by 2021 and being ranked 11th among 54 African nations in the 2021 Ibrahim Index of African Governance.

    “The graduation of São Tomé and Príncipe is a historic milestone that underscores the resilience, vision, and determination of its government and people,” said Rabab Fatima, High Representative for OHRLLS.

    “This achievement is a powerful testament to the impact of effective partnership and multilateral cooperation, offering both a model and an inspiration for other LDCs working to overcome structural challenges and achieve sustainable development.”

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: 47th session of the World Heritage Committee to meet at UNESCO Headquarters in July 2025

    Source: United Nations

    On 5 March 2025, the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee met to discuss the venue of the forthcoming 47th session of the World Heritage Committee scheduled to take place on 6 to 16 July 2025.

    Upon request from the Bulgarian authorities, the Bureau has agreed to organize the 47th session of the World Heritage Committee at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris, France, from 6 to 16 July 2025.

    As initially planned, the session will be organized with the financial support of the Republic of Bulgaria and under the chairmanship of Prof. Nikolay Nenov (Bulgaria).

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI: Annual Financial Report

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    6 March 2025
    2024 Results Highlights

    Admiral Group reports excellent 2024 performance with strong growth in customers, turnover and profit and good strategic progress

      31 December 2024 31 December 2023 % change vs. 2023
    Group profit before tax £839.2m £442.8m +90%
    Earnings per share 216.6p 111.2p +95%
           
    Dividend per share 192.0p 103.0p +86%
    Return on equity1 56% 36% +20pts
           
    Group turnover¹ £6.15bn £4.81bn +28%
    Insurance revenue £4.78bn £3.49bn +37%
           
    Group customers¹ 11.10m 9.73m +14%
    UK insurance customers¹ 8.80m 7.39m +19%
    International insurance customers1 2.10m 2.17m -3%
    Admiral Money gross loan balances £1.17bn £0.96bn +23%
           
    Solvency ratio (post-dividend)¹ +203% +200% +3pts

    1 Alternative Performance Measures – refer to the end of the report for definition and explanation.

        
    Over 13,000 employees will each receive free share awards worth up to £3,600 under the employee share schemes based on the full year 2024 results.

    Comment from Milena Mondini de Focatiis, Group Chief Executive Officer:

    “2024 was a remarkable year. We delivered an excellent result with a 28 per cent increase in turnover and 90 per cent increase in profit as we welcomed an additional 1.4 million customers to the Group.

    “To remain one of the most competitive insurers for the largest number of people is a priority for us. We have emerged from several rather challenging years so when we saw conditions improve we were quick to respond. We were one of the first to reduce prices in response to easing inflation and cut rates the day after the favourable Ogden rate change announcement.

    “The main driver of our exceptional performance was our UK Motor business. However, it is great to see UK Household, Admiral Money, and our French and US Motor businesses all report a double-digit profit.

    “We are excited to be building on the synergies within our businesses and products. We recognise that there is more that we can do to meet even more of the needs of our growing customer base. We continue to focus on being a great choice for customers by leveraging our expertise in pricing, claims management and underwriting, and making continuous improvements in our service.

    “I was pleased to see our MSCI ESG score upgraded to AAA and to have our science-based targets officially approved. We have published our Net Zero Transition Plan and, as one of the leading insurers of electric vehicles in the UK, we are supporting the transition to greener vehicles.

    “Thanks to our incredible colleagues we have achieved so much this year and rewarded them with an additional bonus for their commitment.

    “As we enter into 2025, the market is softening, and the outlook is uncertain. Our priority is to stay efficient and agile so that we can adapt as needed and deliver long-term growth by building on our strong foundations and talented team.”

    Comment from Mike Rogers, Admiral Group Chair:

    “Admiral has had an excellent year, demonstrating, once again, how its unwavering focus on doing the right thing for customers can deliver growth and long-term value to all its stakeholders.

    “Admiral is now helping even more people to look after their future with its wider range of products. The Group’s commitment to continuous evolution and innovation means that it is using new technologies to better anticipate and meet customers’ needs and achieve greater efficiencies in how it operates.

    “Although inflation has eased, political, regulatory and economic uncertainty remains. Admiral’s prudent and disciplined approach will be key to ensuring that the Group continues to achieve long-term sustainable growth and can be there for its customers, colleagues and communities when they need it the most.”

    Final Dividend

    The Board has proposed a dividend of 121.0 pence per share (2023: 52.0 pence per share) representing a normal dividend (65% of post-tax profits) of 91.4 pence per share and a special dividend of 29.6 pence per share. The final dividend will be paid on 13 June 2025. The ex-dividend date is 15 May 2025, and the record date is 16 May 2025.

    Management presentation

    Analysts and investors will be able to access the Admiral Group management presentation which commences at 10.00 GMT on Thursday 6 March 2025 by registering at the following link to attend the presentation in person, or access the presentation live via webcast or conference call: https://admiralgroup.co.uk/events/event-details/2024-full-year-results. A copy of the presentation slides will be available at the following link: Results, reports and presentations | Admiral Group Plc (www.admiralgroup.co.uk)

    Investors and Analysts: Admiral Group plc
    Diane Michelberger                                Diane.Michelberger@admiralgroup.co.uk

    Media: Admiral Group plc    
    Addy Frederick                                Addy.Frederick@admiralgroup.co.uk
    +44 (0) 7500 171 810                       

    Media: FTI Consulting  
    Edward Berry                                        +44 (0) 7703 330 199
    Tom Blackwell                                        +44 (0) 7747 113 919

    Chair Statement

    Admiral Group performed very strongly in 2024 despite an unfavourable macroeconomic backdrop. The Group has achieved significant customer growth, while increasing customer satisfaction, and delivered an excellent UK Motor performance, supported by changes to the Ogden rate, with strong results in many other business lines. This has translated into profit before tax of £839.2 million and a proposed final dividend of 121.0 pence per share, making a total of 192.0 pence per share for the financial year.

    The Group’s impressive customer growth is a testament to its core value of doing what is right for customers. In the UK, due to better cycle management and in response to improved market conditions, Admiral reduced prices earlier than the market in early 2024.

    Delivering growth, digitisation and sustainability

    Defending and extending the competitive advantages of the UK motor business remains our number one priority, alongside our strategy of developing other franchises with the potential to drive future profitable growth. We have seen positive results across many of our newer franchises, with double-digit profit in the UK’s Household and Money businesses and our French business.

    The Group has made significant strides in enhancing its digital capabilities and unlocking the potential of new technologies to achieve a superior customer experience and greater productivity.

    Admiral continues to navigate a challenging regulatory landscape to ensure its resilience and sustainability in the long term. As one of the UK’s largest motor insurers, the business has been engaging with members of the motor insurance taskforce to identify solutions to tackle the current high costs of insurance.

    Admiral continues to support customers to adopt greener behaviours and is one of the leading UK electric vehicle insurers. The publication of Admiral’s Net Zero Transition Plan and the SBTi’s approval of its science-based targets demonstrates our commitment to responsible and sustainable business practices.

    Powered by our people

    Admiral colleagues’ expertise and dedication to supporting customers, colleagues and local communities is remarkable, so I was pleased that Admiral was, again, named one of the world’s best workplaces. Similarly, it was an honour to be at the London Stock Exchange to celebrate 20 years of Admiral being a listed business and delivering for customers and shareholders with colleagues who are custodians of the business’ incredible culture.

    I was sorry to say goodbye to Cristina Nestares who had successfully led the UK Insurance business since 2016. We all wish her the very best for the future. I’m pleased that, in line with the Group’s strong track record on succession planning, Alistair Hargreaves has been appointed UK Insurance CEO.

    We conducted an evaluation on the performance of the Board and its Committees. This process confirmed that these were operating effectively, that the business is managed for the long-term benefit of all stakeholders and provided a clear focus on areas for improvement for the forthcoming year.

    On behalf of the Board, I would like to thank Admiral colleagues for their ongoing commitment, and the management team for their excellent leadership and performance.

    While the external landscape remains uncertain, I believe that the Group’s competitive advantages, disciplined approach, and customer-first mindset will drive continued growth and shareholder value.

    Mike Rogers

    Group Chair

    5 March 2025

    Group Chief Executive Officer’s Review

    Overall, 2024 was a remarkable year for Admiral. It was not only a year of delivering excellent financial results but also one of continuous improvements in serving our customers and making solid progress on our strategy.

    Despite persisting economic, political, and regulatory uncertainty, motor insurance market conditions improved and this – combined with our historical discipline and agility across the insurance market cycle allowed us to achieve a great many successes. We have welcomed 1.4 million new customers, improved customer satisfaction, added £1.3 billion in turnover, and increased profits by 90 per cent.

    Our core business, UK Insurance, was the main driver of this success. It delivered just under £1 billion in profit, supported by the impact of the recent favourable Ogden Rate change, and strong growth across our other products. Our acquisition of the renewal rights for More Than completed in the first half of the year. The integration is progressing well with 7 months of renewals at the end of January and retention is in line with expectations.

    To remain one of the most competitive insurers for the largest number of people is a priority for us so, when we saw conditions improve, we were quick to reflect this in our pricing. We led on reducing rates, doing it earlier than most at the start of the year, as we saw inflation easing. We also cut rates the day after the favourable Ogden rate change announcement.

    Beyond UK motor, we have delivered double-digit profits within our UK Household, French and US Motor businesses and Admiral Money. We now serve over 11 million customers globally, with almost half of customer growth coming from other business lines across the Group.

    We are proud of the pleasing turnaround that the US team has achieved. As previously mentioned, we’re assessing the strategic options for our US business. We have made good progress and are in exclusive talks with a potential acquirer.

    Across our European franchises, we now insure more than half a million French customers and have seen an improved performance in our Spanish business. In Italy, the team is focused on turning the business around following a disappointing financial performance in a tough market in 2024.

    We are conscious that there is more to do to unlock the potential of these businesses. We have ambitious plans to build on our UK customer base, to further improve the customer experience and harness the advantage of automation and AI to achieve even greater efficiency.

    Taking a step back, our story has been one of continuous growth and, to celebrate 20 years as a listed company, colleagues joined Mike Rogers and I at the London Stock Exchange to close the market. This anniversary was a time for reflection on where the business has come from and, of course, where the business is going (and to celebrate Geraint who has been Group CFO for ten years – congratulations Mr Jones!).

    Our success has been underpinned by our pricing, underwriting and claims management expertise, all united by a culture that is truly unique. We put our customers and people first, and are data-driven, agile and entrepreneurial.

    We want to have a positive impact on society. We are one of the leading electric vehicle insurers and are proud of our commitment to improve road safety. In the UK, our Words to Live By campaign video was shown in cinemas nationwide.

    I am proud of how our colleagues have supported customers impacted by flooding and we are working cross-industry to ensure that homes are more flood resistant or resilient. Our colleagues want to play a positive role in the communities in which we live and work, and the number of volunteering hours more than doubled in 2024.

    We have published our Net Zero Transition Plan and are working hard to meet our sustainability goals. I was pleased to see our science-based targets officially approved and our MSCI ESG score upgraded to AAA.

    We know that if our people like what they do, they will do it better, and it is brilliant to be recognised, once again, as one of the World’s Best Workplaces. We focus on being an inclusive employer and maintaining our unique culture to attract and retain the talent we need to execute our strategy.

    I am so proud of everything that we have been able to achieve this year thanks to our incredible colleagues. Ever since we floated, colleagues have been given a stake in the business so that they can benefit from their hard work and customer focus. This year, we have given colleagues an additional bonus to reward their commitment.

    In October, we announced that Cristina Nestares was stepping down as CEO of our UK Insurance business to spend more time in her native Spain. We will miss Cristina’s passion and customer focus, which were key to building on the business’ position as a leading insurer. I was pleased to appoint Alistair Hargreaves as CEO. Alistair has significant leadership experience and extensive knowledge of our customers, colleagues, products and strategy, and I look forward to working even more closely with him as we continue to deliver for our growing customer base.

    We are emerging from four years of challenge from the pandemic and cost-of-living crisis to inflation spikes and regulatory changes. Although, no doubt, further challenges lie ahead, I am optimistic about the opportunities too. Our priority will be to stay agile, lean, and efficient so that we can adapt as needed, leveraging our strong foundations and talented team to deliver long-term growth.

    Milena Mondini de Focatiis

    Group Chief Executive Officer

    5 March 2025

    Group Chief Financial Officer’s Review

    I closed my 2023 statement by saying I looked forward to seeing improved underlying margins feeding into reported results for 2024. These results have duly delivered.

    There are many positives and milestones: customer numbers up by 1.37 million (record number and highest annual gain); turnover up £1.3 billion to £6.1 billion (same records as customers); highest ever investment return at £182 million; very strong solvency position (203%) maintained despite the significant 121.0p final dividend; some of the best results we have delivered in UK Motor (including a material boost from the review of the Personal Injury Discount Rate); and some encouraging results from businesses beyond UK Motor – over £70 million in aggregate from UK Household, Admiral Money, L’olivier Motor and Elephant US – each delivering their own record result.

    In UK Motor Insurance, after the very challenging 2021 and 2022 underwriting years (both of which experienced severe claims inflation), 2023 and 2024 have been more positive – with a notably larger business (5.7 million risks at year-end 2024 v 4.9 million at year-end 2023), much higher revenue and more positive combined ratios for both years (driven by quite large cumulative price increases since the start of 2023). These factors have contributed to materially higher reported profit in 2024.

    In terms of volumes, after very positive conditions in the market at the start of the year (very large new business volumes and very competitive Admiral prices), the environment became tougher from Q2 onwards, with prices drifting down quite steadily. Confidence in our loss ratios meant we were able to reduce prices around the start of 2024 (ahead of the market) and in H2 as well (partly to pass the benefits of the new discount rates to our customers), but inevitably our growth in the second half was lower than in H1.

    Personal Injury Discount Rates

    As we explain more fully later in the report, the Discount Rate for all parts of the UK changed during 2024, resulting in lower projected costs of large open claims. We estimate that in today’s money, the total (positive) impact on profit is around £150 million (emphasis on estimate) of which £100 million has been recognised in 2024.

    Investments

    Much larger balances (£5.2 billion at year-end ’24 v £4.2 billion year-end ’23) due to strong revenue growth combined with a higher yield (4.0% for 2024 v 3.3% for 2023 as the portfolio has been reinvested over the past couple of years) led to investment income for 2024 of £182 million, our highest ever.

    More details on the portfolio are set out later in the report, but there’s been no change in our approach and only small changes in the asset allocation. Obviously very subject to what happens to market interest rates and spreads, we’d expect the yield shown in the income statement to continue to increase but much more gradually in 2025.

    Italy

    In a generally very positive year, it’s fair to call out the ConTe result as a disappointment. ConTe has been steadily profitable since 2014, and the loss for the year (£23 million compared to a profit in 2023 of £7 million) was obviously not in our plan. The disappointing performance came about, partly, because of an update to the Milan Court tables (used to determine the cost of many injury claims), but also because of some adverse experience, notably from some business written in 2023.

    Our management team (along with pretty much the whole business) is very focused on restoring profitability through various actions as soon as possible, and I’m confident they’ll achieve this. It might well come at the cost of some volume in the very short term, though we’re still confident in ConTe’s prospects.

    At the risk of upsetting some of our terrific management teams, let me also call out a few other high points:

    • Partly benefiting from lower than budgeted weather cost in 2024 (but also see an improving attritional loss ratio), UK Household Insurance reported its largest profit of £34 million. The team has also been well focused on the migration of the acquired More Than renewal rights portfolio as well as organic growth as we close in fast on two million policies
    • After some quite bruising years in the US, huge credit goes to our team in Elephant Auto who have very much met their goal of materially improving the bottom line in 2024. The result swung impressively from a loss of £20 million to a profit of £14 million due to a much better loss ratio and a very solid expense outcome. And whilst acknowledging the portfolio has shrunk as a consequence, this is a pleasing turnaround and we’re very proud of the team’s work
    • Veygo (mainly offering short-term car insurance in the UK) is possibly the Group’s fastest growing business, reporting revenue of £64 million in 2024 (with a very healthy three-year CAGR of 45%) and also returned its first (albeit small in the Group context) profit
    • Our French motor insurer L’olivier reported its highest profit of £11 million (2023: £7 million). With turnover above €260 million and a solid combined ratio, we’re positive about the future in France
    • And finally – partly stretching timeframe of the report – I’m very happy that Admiral Money has, in early 2025, signed its first deal to use third-party capital to grow the personal loan business – we think this is an important part of the model for the future

    Internal capital model

    As part of the process to ultimately use our own capital model to calculate our capital requirement, Admiral entered the pre-application phase (focused on UK car insurance) with the two main prudential regulators in mid-2024. We received feedback late in the year and are working to address that as well as finalise the other aspects of the model before submitting our full application. Lots of hard work is continuing on this important but complex project and we’ll update on progress in due course.

    Looking ahead to 2025

    We move into the new year well-placed for continued positive results. There are one or two challenges for sure (a competitive market in UK motor and the need to restore profit in Italy to name two), but particularly noting the prudent claims reserves position in all lines of business at the end of 2024, we expect strong releases and profit to flow into 2025 and beyond. Subject to market conditions, we’re still hoping to grow in pretty much all our operations too.

    Big thanks to all Admiral colleagues for helping to achieve these great results!

    Geraint Jones

    Group Chief Financial Officer

    5 March 2025

    £m 2024 2023 Change vs 2023
    UK Insurance 977 597 +380
    UK Insurance (Ogden -0.25%) 877 597 +280
    Europe Insurance (20) 2 -22
    US Insurance 14 (20) +34
    Admiral Money 13 10 +3
    Share scheme cost (62) (54) -8
    Other costs including Admiral Pioneer (83) (92) +9
    Pre-tax profit 839 443 +396
    Pre-tax profit (Ogden -0.25%) 739 443 +296

    2024 Group overview

    £m 2024 2023 % change vs. 20234
    Group turnover (£bn)1 3 6.15 4.81 +28%
    Net insurance and investment result 798.7 363.1 +120%
    Net interest income from financial services 76.3 68.1 +12%
    Other income and expenses (9.3) 31.7 nm
    Operating profit 865.7 462.9 +87%
    Group profit before tax 839.2 442.8 +90%
           
    Analysis of profit      
    UK Insurance 976.7 596.5 +64%
    UK Insurance (Ogden -0.25%) 876.4 596.5 +47%
    International Insurance (5.3) (18.0) +71%
    International Insurance – European Motor (14.8) 6.1 nm
    International Insurance – US Motor 14.4 (19.6) nm
    International Insurance – Other (4.9) (4.5) -10%
    Admiral Money 13.0 10.2 +28%
    Other (145.2) (145.9) +1%
    Group profit before tax 839.2 442.8 +90%
    Group profit before tax (Ogden -0.25%) 738.9 442.8 +67%
           
    Key metrics      
    Reported Group loss ratio1 2 +55.4% +63.9% -9pts
    Reported Group expense ratio1 2 +22.0% +24.8% -3pts
    Reported Group combined ratio1 2 +77.4% +88.7% -11pts
    Reported Group combined ratio (Ogden -0.25%) +79.7% +88.7% -9pts
    Insurance service margin1 2 +16.2% +10.2% +6pts
    Customer numbers (million)1 11.10 9.73 +14%
           
    Earnings per share 216.6 111.2 +95%
    Earnings per share (Ogden -0.25%) 190.2 111.2 +71%
    Dividend per share 192.0 103.0 +86%
    Return on equity1 56% 36% +20pts
    Solvency ratio1 +203% +200% +3pts

    1 Alternative Performance Measures – refer to the end of the report for definition and explanation.

    2 Reported Group loss and expense ratios are calculated on a basis inclusive of all insurance revenue – this includes insurance premium revenue net of excess of loss reinsurance, plus revenue from underwritten ancillaries and an allocation of instalment and administration fees/related commissions. See glossary for an explanation of the ratios and Appendix 1a for a reconciliation of reported loss and expense ratios, and insurance service margin, to the financial statements.

    3 Alternative Performance Measures – refer to note 14 for explanation and reconciliation to statutory income statement measures.

    4 Definition: nm – not meaningful.

    Group highlights

    Admiral reports strong growth in turnover and customer numbers and significantly higher profits in 2024.

    • Group customer numbers increased by 14% and turnover was 28% higher, driven by UK Motor Insurance
    • Group pre-tax profit was £839 million, 90% higher than 2023 as a result of a significantly improved current year underwriting performance and continued significant prior period releases, notably in the UK Motor Insurance business. Excluding the impact of the change in Personal Injury (‘Ogden’) Discount Rate (see below), pre-tax profit would have been £739 million, 67% higher than 2023
    • Strong growth in UK Household pre-tax profit to £34 million (2023: £8 million). A relatively benign year for weather and an improved attritional loss year resulted in a favourable current year loss ratio
    • Completion of the acquisition of the More Than direct UK Household and Pet Insurance renewal rights; renewals started to transfer to Admiral in the second half of 2024
    • A lower overall loss in International Insurance (£5 million v £18 million), including a profit of £14 million in US motor, which was offset by a loss of £20 million in Europe
    • Continued growth in Admiral Money profit to £13 million (2023: £10 million) and gross loan balances (+23% year-on-year growth).

    Earnings per share

    Earnings per share for 2024 were 216.6 pence (2023: 111.2 pence). The increase from 2023 is higher than the increase in pre-tax profit above due to a slightly lower effective tax rate.

    Return on equity

    Return on equity was 56% for 2024, 20 percentage points higher than the 36% reported for 2023. The increase is the result of the significantly higher post-tax profits, partially offset by higher average equity.

    Dividends

    The Group’s dividend policy is to pay 65% of post-tax profits as a normal dividend and to pay a further special dividend comprising earnings not required to be held in the Group for solvency, buffers or purchasing shares for the Group’s employee share plans. No shares are expected to be purchased for the share plans until 2026.

    The Board has proposed a final dividend of 121.0 pence per share (approximately £366.6 million) splits as follows:

    • 91.4 pence per share normal dividend
    • A special dividend of 29.6 pence per share.

    The 2024 final dividend reflects a pay-out ratio of 87% of second half earnings per share. 121.0 pence per share is 133% higher than the final 2023 dividend (52.0 pence per share), in line with the growth in earnings per share.

    The 2024 final dividend payment date is 13 June 2025, ex-dividend date 15 May 2025, and record date 16 May 2025.

    Economic background

    Whilst remaining higher than its long-term average, the elevated inflation observed over the course of 2022 and 2023 started to reduce in 2024. Price increases implemented to mitigate the impact of the higher inflation in the Group’s main UK business in 2022 and 2023 have resulted in a strong current year underwriting performance compared to the prior year.

    Admiral continues to focus on medium-term profitability and has maintained a disciplined approach to business volumes. The Group’s customer base in UK Motor grew significantly at the start of 2024 as a result of price reductions ahead of the market, with market competition increasing in the second half. The Group continues to set claims reserves cautiously.

    Admiral Money has continued to grow its consumer loans book, with a cautious approach to growth and evolving underwriting criteria to reflect the macroeconomic environment and potential financial impact on consumers. The business continues to hold appropriately cautious provisions for credit losses.

    Change in UK personal injury discount rate (‘Ogden’)

    The discount rate, which is used in setting personal injury compensation (referred to throughout the report as ‘Ogden’), changed to +0.5% across the UK in H2 2024.

    In Scotland and NI, the discount rate changed from -0.75% to +0.5%, effective from September 2024. In England and Wales, it was announced in December 2024 that the discount rate would change to +0.5% from the existing -0.25% rate, effective from 11 January 2025. The +0.5% rate is expected to remain in place for up to the next five years.

    Given the announcements were made in 2024, the Group has updated its insurance contract liabilities to reflect the new rate. The impact of the change in rate is an increase in 2024 pre-tax profits of £100 million (with the ultimate profit impact estimated to be around £150 million).

    UK Insurance Review – Alistair Hargreaves, CEO UK Insurance

    It is a great privilege and responsibility to be appointed UK Insurance CEO and I’m fortunate that in writing this statement, I’m able to reflect on the UK Insurance teams’ many achievements in 2024, a very positive year. Our disciplined approach to managing uncertainty and the motor market cycle, alongside enhancements to propositions, pricing, claims and customer experience, helped us to welcome 1.4 million new customers, sustain our market-leading combined ratio and deliver £977 million profit before tax, while improving our Trustpilot customer rating to an industry-leading 4.6.

    In motor, price is the primary customer consideration. This was especially true in 2024 after the recent sustained period of elevated claims inflation drove market premiums up and motor insurance affordability made the headlines. Our discipline throughout 2022 and 2023, where we increased prices ahead of competitors and sacrificed growth, paid off in 2024. We were able to start reducing rates in early 2024, ahead of the market, and our competitive prices resulted in a 15% increase in motor policies to a record 5.7 million. This was achieved whilst maintaining strong service levels and repair times due to the strength of our repair network partners. UK Motor turnover grew by £1.1 billion in 2024 to £4.5 billion and profit before tax increased to £955 million, driven by our strong performance as well as a c.£100 million reserving benefit from the recent change to the Ogden discount rate, which impacts large personal injury claims. We passed the benefits from the new Ogden rate going forward to our customers by lowering prices accordingly the day after the announcement in December.

    Beyond Motor, our strong MultiCover proposition supported further growth in our Household insurance business, despite continued rate increases offsetting claims inflation. The integration of the ‘More Than’ Pet and Home renewal rights from Royal Sun Alliance (RSA) is going well. The customer migration runs over 12 months and started in the summer of 2024. This has given a boost to our Household business, which finished the year with just under two million customers, and led to a significant acceleration for Pet with more than 200,000 policies. The renewal process will continue through to the summer of 2025. Our Travel business grew both new business and renewals with strong underwriting discipline leading to a small but growing profit.

    We continue to invest to further improve customer journeys and maintain our market-leading insurance expertise. In 2024, we drove improvements in speed, both in feature development sprints and deploying machine-learning models across pricing, claims, and customer experience. This is supported by the fact that over 80% of our estate is now cloud-based. We are pleased with the continued growth of our digital experience, which enables customers to engage with us in the most convenient way for them. We give customers the choice to self-serve digitally, and half of mid-term changes and a third of claims notifications are now made this way. In Motor, our investment in customer proposition and claims is supporting strong growth in insured electric vehicles where we continue to be one of the industry leaders with a high teens market share.

    The driving force of our business is our culture and people, we were pleased to, again, have been listed in the Top 10 for both Great Places to Work and for Great Places to Work for Women. One element of our culture, which I’m particularly proud of, is our continued support of our communities. In 2024, our colleagues spent over 30,000 hours helping over a thousand people to secure work or to gain new skills with funding and support for our community partners.

    2024 has been a remarkable year for UK Insurance, and by delivering for our customers we’ve taken the opportunity to grow. Looking ahead, some uncertainty remains around near-term market dynamics, but our strong team and fundamentals give us a great platform to continue to provide value, ease and trust for customers and in doing so make the most of opportunities for sustainable profitable growth in 2025 and beyond.

    UK Insurance financial performance

    £m 2024 2023
    Turnover1 2 5,108.5 3,776.0
    Total premiums written1 4,745.2 3,502.6
    Insurance revenue 3,873.4 2,596.9
    Underwriting result1 764.4 383.4
    Net investment income 70.5 55.2
    Co-insurer profit commission and net other revenue 141.8 157.9
    UK Insurance profit before tax1 976.7 596.5

    Segment result: UK Insurance profit before tax1

    £m 2024 2023
    Motor 955.1 593.3
    Motor (Ogden -0.25%) 854.8 593.3
    Household 34.1 7.9
    Travel and Pet (12.5) (4.7)
    UK Insurance profit before tax 976.7 596.5
    UK Insurance profit before tax (Ogden -0.25%) 876.4 596.5

    Segment performance indicators1

      2024 2023
    Vehicles insured 5.69m 4.94m
    Households insured 1.97m 1.76m
    Travel and Pet policies 1.14m 0.69m
    Total UK Insurance customers 8.80m 7.39m

    1 Alternative Performance Measures – refer to the end of this report for definition and explanation.

    2 Alternative Performance Measures – refer to note 14 for explanation and reconciliation to statutory income statement measures.

    Highlights for the UK Insurance business include:

    • In UK Motor:
      • A 15% increase in customer numbers, driven by reducing prices ahead of the market around the start of the year, after a period of prices moving higher to address significant claims cost inflation in the past few years
      • The increase in customers, combined with higher premiums, resulted in a 33% rise in turnover, and a 50% rise in insurance revenue
      • Profit of £955 million was 61% higher than 2023, driven by the resulting improved current year combined ratio and continued positive reserve releases, as well as the favourable impact of the Ogden Discount Rate change. Excluding the Ogden change, profit would have been £855 million, 44% higher than 2023.
    • In UK Household:
      • An increase in customer numbers of 12% to 1.97 million (31 December 2023: 1.76 million). Growth continued, particularly in the second half of 2024 when rate increases in response to inflation eased, resulting in increased competitiveness
      • Profit grew strongly to £34 million (2023: £8 million) as a result of a positive current period combined ratio driven by higher earned premiums, a relatively benign year for severe weather, an improved attritional loss year plus continued prior period releases.
    • In UK Travel and Pet Insurance:
      • Both business lines continued to grow their customer base and turnover
      • Travel delivers second consecutive annual profit, whilst there was an increased loss in Pet due to both integration costs (primarily IT) in relation to the More Than acquisition of £6.3 million, and the premium written as a result of More Than renewals not yet earning through
    • More Than acquisition:
      • In March 2024, the Group successfully completed its first significant acquisition, of the direct UK Household and Pet insurance renewal rights of the More Than brand and the transfer of over 280 colleagues from RSA. Liabilities relating to existing policies and those up to renewal remain with RSA
    • The integration of the business is now largely complete, with renewals having commenced in July 2024 for Household and in August 2024 for Pet
    • The 2024 UK Insurance results, therefore, include an impact of £11.9 million of integration costs in relation to the acquired business. See note 13 to the financial statements for further details.

    UK Motor Insurance financial review

    UK Motor profit in 2024 was £955 million, 61% higher than 2023. Excluding the impact of the change in the Ogden Discount Rate, UK Motor profit was £855 million, 44% higher than 2023. This increase is the result of an improved current period combined ratio (driven by higher average premiums earning through), along with continued positive development of prior year claims, partly offset by recognising the reinsurer’s share of releases on underwriting years 2021-2023.

    In addition, favourable net investment income is driven by higher yields and investment balances.

    £m 2024 2023
    Turnover1 4,495.9 3,371.8
    Total premiums written1 2 4,157.7 3,118.2
    Insurance premium revenue1 3,160.5 2,115.4
    Other insurance revenue 209.0 134.8
    Insurance revenue 3,369.5 2,250.2
    Insurance revenue net of XoL2 4 3,271.4 2,188.6
    Insurance expenses1 2 3 (586.8) (451.2)
    Insurance claims incurred net of XoL2 4 (2,078.1) (1,729.0)
    Insurance claims releases net of XoL2 4 374.6 392.8
    Quota share reinsurance result2 3 (228.8) (16.8)
    Movement in onerous loss component net of reinsurance2 1.1 4.1
    Underwriting result2 753.4 388.5
    Investment income 150.0 111.8
    Net insurance finance expenses (83.4) (58.2)
    Net investment income 66.6 53.6
    Co-insurer profit commission 53.3 76.5
    Other net income 81.8 74.7
    UK Motor Insurance profit before tax1 955.1 593.3
    UK Motor Insurance profit before tax (Ogden -0.25%) 854.8 593.3

    Segment performance indicators

      2024 2023
    Reported Motor loss ratio1 2 5 52.1% 61.1%
    Reported Motor expense ratio1 2 5 17.9% 20.6%
    Reported Motor combined ratio1 2 5 70.0% 81.7%
    Reported Motor combined ratio (Ogden -0.25%)1 73.2% 81.7%
    Reported Motor Insurance service margin1 2 5 23.0% 17.7%
    Core motor loss ratio before releases1 2 6 69.2% 87.0%
    Core motor claims releases1 2 6 (12.7)% (20.2)%
    Core motor loss ratio1 2 6 56.5% 66.8%
    Core motor expense ratio1 2 6 18.2% 21.4%
    Core motor combined ratio1 6 74.7% 88.2%
    Core motor written expense ratio1 2 7 16.8% 17.8%
    Vehicles insured at period end1 2 5.69m 4.94m
    Other revenue per vehicle2 8 £76 £62

    1 Alternative Performance Measures – refer to the end of this report for definition and explanation.

    2 Alternative Performance Measures – refer to Appendix 1b for explanation and reconciliation to statutory income statement measures.

    3 Insurance expenses and quota share reinsurance result excludes gross and reinsurers’ share of share scheme charges respectively. Share scheme charges reported in Other Group Items.

    4 XoL refers to Excess of Loss (non-proportional) reinsurance; see glossary at end of report for further information.

    5 Reported Motor loss ratio, expense ratio and insurance service margin are all net of XoL, as defined in the glossary. Reconciliation in Appendix 1b.

    6 Core Motor loss ratio, expense ratio and combined ratio are all net of XoL, as defined in the glossary. Reconciliation in Appendix 1b.

    7 Core motor written expense ratio defined as insurance expenses divided by core product written insurance premium, net of excess of loss reinsurance.

    8 Other revenue per vehicle includes other revenue included within insurance revenue. See ‘Other Revenue’ section for explanation.

    Claims

    Claims inflation continues to show signs of gradually reducing, with Admiral’s current estimate of average claims cost inflation for full-year 2024 (compared to full-year 2023) being approximately in mid-to-high single-digits (2023: around 10%). Despite the significant growth in policy base, a small reduction in claims frequency has been observed.

    As usual, the longer-term impacts of inflation on bodily injury claims remain uncertain. Admiral did not observe material changes in inflation for bodily injury claims settled in 2024, when compared to 2023. We maintain a prudent allowance held in the best estimate reserve to reflect potential impacts of higher than historic levels of future wage inflation on certain elements of large bodily injury claims reserves.

    There is still uncertainty within motor claims across the market arising from inflation, and future developments relating to both whiplash reforms, and regulatory developments. As noted above, the new Ogden discount rate of +0.5%, as announced in December 2024, has been used within the best estimate reserves.

    In line with the FCA’s multi-firm review into total loss claims valuations, Admiral is conducting a review of its total loss and related processes, which considers current practice and customer outcomes in the recent past. The work is in the process of being finalised, with the conclusion that some action is required.

    Although uncertainty remains over the final position, when fully concluded, the cost is not expected to have a significant impact on the financial statements. Taking account of current information, appropriate amounts are included within insurance contract liabilities at 31 December.

    Admiral continues to hold a significant and prudent risk adjustment above best estimate reserves, with an increase in the confidence level to the 95th percentile (93rd percentile at 31 December 2023). When setting the level of risk adjustment due consideration has been given to the strong releases in the best estimate, inherent uncertainty in bodily injury claims, growth in the UK motor book along with an assessment of other external factors. There has been a slight reduction in the volatility of the reserve risk distribution from which the percentile is selected as a result of the strong reserve releases following the change in Ogden discount rate; otherwise it has not changed significantly since 2023.

    The core motor loss ratio has reduced to 56.5% (2023: 66.8%) with offsetting movements in the current period loss ratio and prior year reserve releases, as follows:

    Core Motor loss ratio1 2 Core motor loss ratio before releases Impact of claims reserve releases Core motor loss ratio
    FY 2023 87.0% (20.2)% 66.8%
    Change in current period loss ratio excluding Ogden (16.9)% —% (16.9)%
    Change in claims reserve release excluding Ogden —% 10.2% 10.2%
    Impact of Ogden discount rate change (0.9)% (2.7)% (3.6)%
    FY 2024 69.2% (12.7)% 56.5%

    1 Reported Motor loss ratio shown on a discounted basis, excluding unwind of finance expenses

    2 Alternative Performance Measures – refer to Appendix 1b for explanation and reconciliation to statutory income statement measures.

    The rate increases that were implemented over the course of 2022 and 2023, as well as favourable frequency in 2024, have driven a significant improvement in the current period loss ratio.

    The benefit from prior-period releases includes both the positive development of the best estimate reserve and the unwind of risk adjustment for prior-period claims. The absolute value of releases is consistent with 2023, with higher releases on the best estimate arising from significant favourable development, along with the benefit from the Ogden rate change, being offset by lower releases of risk adjustment given the increase in risk adjustment percentile. The lower release percentage is a result of significantly increased earned premiums.

    Quota share reinsurance

    Admiral’s quota share reinsurance result reflects the net movement on ceded premiums, reinsurer margins and expected recoveries (claims and expenses, excluding share scheme charges) for underwriting years on which quota share reinsurance is in place (2021 underwriting year onwards).

    The ‘Group capital structure’ section sets out further details on Admiral’s UK Motor quota share arrangements.

    Quota share reinsurance result1

    £m 2024 2023 Quota share claims asset
    31 December 2024
    2021 and prior (27.2) (55.3) 15.0
    2022 (84.0) 8.2 62.8
    2023 (81.0) 30.3
    2024 (36.6)
    Total (228.8) (16.8) 77.8

    1 Quota share result in underwriting year 2024 includes an £11.1 million re-charge for the reinsurer’s assumed share scheme recoveries, out of other Group costs in line with prior period (2023: £11.1 million)

    The significantly increased quota share charge in 2024 is the result of:

    • Favourable developments in the underlying loss ratios on underwriting years 2021-2023 resulting in the reversal of quota share recoveries previously recognised
    • A charge rather than credit on the most recent underwriting year (2024), as the booked combined ratio is below 100%, which means no quota share recoveries are recognised.

    Co-insurer profit commission

    Co-insurer profit commission of £53.3 million is lower than in 2023 (£76.5 million).

    In 2024, a significant proportion of claims releases are on underwriting years 2021 and 2022, which reduce the losses on those years but do not result in profit commission, given the years are not yet profitable with booked combined ratios of over 100%.

    In addition, the losses on those years are carried forward in line with contractual clauses, suppressing the recognition of profit commission on underwriting years 2023 and also, to a large extent, 2024.

    Net investment income

    Net investment income increased to £66.6 million from £53.6 million, benefiting from higher investment income, which was largely offset by increased net insurance finance expenses.

    Investment income grew by 34% to £150.0 million (2023: £111.8 million), as a result of increased investment balances (due to strong growth in premium collected) and higher average return. Further information on the Group’s investment portfolio and the income generated in the period is provided later in the report.

    Net insurance finance expense reflects the unwind of the discounting benefit recognised when claims are initially incurred. The expense has increased notably in 2024 (£83.4 million; 2023 £58.2 million) as a result of the unwind of discounting benefit recognised from early 2022 onwards, when there was a significant increase in risk-free interest rates. A significant proportion of the insurance finance expense in 2024 relates to claims incurred during 2022 and 2023.

    Other revenue

    Admiral generates other revenue from a portfolio of insurance products that complement the core motor insurance product, and also fees generated over the life of the policy. The most material contributors to other revenue continue to be:

    • Profit earned from Motor policy upgrade products underwritten by Admiral, including breakdown, car hire and personal injury covers
    • Revenue from other insurance products, not underwritten by Admiral
    • Fees such as administration and cancellation fees
    • Interest charged to customers paying for cover in instalments.

    Under IFRS 17, income from underwritten ancillaries and an allocation of instalment income and administration fees in line with Admiral’s gross share of the core motor product premium, are included within Insurance revenue in the underwriting result. The remaining income from instalment income and fees, as well as income from other non-underwritten ancillary products is presented in other net income.

    Overall contribution increased to £321.8 million (2023: £247.3 million), primarily due to the growth in customer numbers in the past year. In particular, more customers along with the increased proportion of customers choosing to pay via monthly payments in the prior period has resulted in higher earned instalment income.

    Other revenue was equivalent to £76 per vehicle (gross of costs), with net other revenue per vehicle at £61 per vehicle, both up compared to 2023 in line with the increased contribution.

    UK Motor Insurance Other revenue

    £m 2024
      Within underwriting result Other net income Total
    Premium and revenue from additional products and fees1 139.8 83.4 223.2
    Instalment income and administration fees2 209.0 45.7 254.7
    Other revenue 348.8 129.1 477.9
    Claims costs and allocated expenses3 (108.8) (47.3) (156.1)
    Net other revenue 240.0 81.8 321.8
    Other revenue per vehicle4     £76
    Other revenue per vehicle net of internal costs     £61
    £m 2023
      Within underwriting result Other net income Total
    Premium and revenue from additional products and fees1 107.8 89.4 197.2
    Instalment income and administration fees2 134.8 29.3 164.1
    Other revenue 242.6 118.7 361.3
    Claims costs and allocated expenses3 (70.0) (44.0) (114.0)
    Net other revenue 172.6 74.7 247.3
    Other revenue per vehicle4     £62
    Other revenue per vehicle net of internal costs     £52

    1 Premium from underwritten ancillaries is recognised within the insurance service result (underwriting result). Other income from non-underwritten products and fees is included within other net income, below the underwriting result but part of the insurance segment result.

    2 Instalment income and administration fees are recognised within insurance revenue (% aligned to Admiral’s share of premium, net of co-insurance) and other revenue (% aligned to co-insurance share of premium).

    3 Claims costs relating to underwritten ancillary products, along with an allocation of related expenses, are recognised within the insurance result. Expenses allocated to the generation of revenue from non-underwritten ancillaries are recognised within other net income.

    4 Other revenue per vehicle (before internal costs) divided by average active vehicles, rolling 12-month basis. Presented here based on all ancillary income.

    UK Household Insurance financial review

    £m 2024 2023
    Turnover1 475.4 338.6
    Total premiums written1 450.3 318.8
    Insurance revenue 399.6 292.8
    Insurance revenue net of XoL1 376.4 275.3
    Insurance expenses1 (102.9) (80.9)
    Insurance claims incurred net of XoL1 (225.7) (199.8)
    Insurance claims releases net of XoL1 37.0 6.4
    Underwriting result, net of XoL reinsurance1 84.8 1.0
    Quota share reinsurance result1 3 (61.2) (1.4)
    Underwriting result1 23.6 (0.4)
    Net insurance investment income 3.9 1.6
    Other income 6.6 6.7
    UK Household Insurance profit before tax1 34.1 7.9

    Segment performance indicators

      2024 2023
    Reported Household loss ratio1 2 50.1% 70.2%
    Reported Household expense ratio1 2 27.3% 29.4%
    Reported Household combined ratio1 2 77.4% 99.6%
    Household insurance service margin2 6.3%         (0.1%)
    Household loss ratio before releases2 60.0% 72.6%
    (Favourable) impact of weather on reported loss ratio vs budget4 (7.9%) (3.8%)
    Households insured at period end 1.97m 1.76m

    1 Alternative Performance Measures – refer to the end of this report for definition and explanation

    2 Alternative Performance Measures – refer to Appendix 1c for explanation and reconciliation to statutory income statement measures.

    3 Quota share reinsurance result within the segment result excludes reinsurers’ share of share scheme costs.

    4 Weather impact, being the combined impact of claims related to freeze, flood, storm and subsidence, is disclosed relative to a budget expectation. The 2023 impact has been restated to align.

    The UK Household Insurance business reported strong growth in turnover of 40% to £475.4 million (2023: £338.6 million). The number of homes insured increased by 12% to 1.97 million (31 December 2023: 1.76 million), despite price increases made by Admiral during 2024, in particular the first half, to reflect continued higher claims inflation. Competitors also increased prices, with Admiral’s competitiveness in price comparison (the main distribution channel for new policies) relatively unchanged.

    Profit before tax for the period was £34.1 million (2023: £7.9 million), the large increase arising as a result of:

    • Strong prior year reserve releases of £37.0 million (2023: £6.4 million), reducing the loss ratio by 9.9 percentage points (2023: 2.4 percentage points). These releases primarily reflect the unwind of best estimate reserves in relation to the freeze events in late 2022, along with some impact from the unwind of storm events in late 2023
    • A lower current period combined ratio, with both a lower loss ratio and expense ratio driven in large part by higher earned premiums.

    The reported loss ratio excluding releases decreased significantly to 60.0% (2023: 72.6%) as a result of the higher earned premiums, along with relatively benign weather and a reduction in claims frequency.

    Weather was relatively benign in both periods. While there was some impact of freeze, flood and storm events, this was considered below a budget expectation, creating a net benefit to the current period loss ratio of just under 8% (2023: 3.8%).

    Despite growth in absolute expenses during the year as the business grew, Admiral’s expense ratio improved to 27.3% (from 29.4%), benefiting from the larger portfolio and the earning through of higher average premiums. Customer growth leading to higher acquisition costs and IT integration costs relating to the More Than acquisition were the primary drivers of the increase in absolute costs.

    The quota share result for the period (a loss of £61.2 million compared to £1.4 million) arises as a result of the proportional sharing of the positive underlying underwriting result, with only a small amount of profit commission recognised to date on underwriting year 2024, due to a relatively cautious view of the written combined ratio.

    International Insurance

    International Insurance – Costantino Moretti – CEO, International Insurance

    In 2024 we continued to prioritise margin over growth, maintaining our pricing discipline which resulted in an improved performance in most of our markets.

    Market conditions improved in France and Spain, with premiums finally increasing to reflect continued claims inflation. Having increased prices ahead of competitors in 2023, the businesses saw their competitiveness improve resulting in an improved performance year-on-year.

    On 1st July, Julien Bouverot was appointed CEO of L’olivier which now insures 453,000 motorists and 83,000 homes. In 2024 the business has increased its turnover and delivered a double-digit profit. The team is also investing in its technological capabilities to make it easier to provide multiproduct propositions for its growing customer base.

    In Spain, Admiral Seguros is making good progress against its distribution diversification strategy which aims to make it easier for customers to access insurance through the channels that best suit them. This approach is yielding positive results with a lower expense ratio despite the investment into new channels.

    2024 was more challenging for ConTe, partly, driven by the update to the Milan Court tables which determine the cost of most bodily injury claims, inflation and because of some adverse experience, notably from some business written in 2023. The management team has already taken material pricing and other remediating actions to restore ConTe to profitability.

    Our team in the US has achieved a great turnaround. Elephant delivered a profit of £14 million due to management’s focus on improving the book mix and cost discipline. The business experienced a shrinkage of book size which is now stabilising.

    We are proud of the team’s hard work. As previously mentioned, we’ve been assessing the strategic options for Elephant. We have made good progress and are in exclusive talks with a potential acquirer.

    Our colleagues’ commitment and dedication to our customers and each other is unmatched, which is why we continue to see positive customer satisfaction scores across the board and our businesses are recognised as Great Places to Work. The combination of our colleagues and management teams’ strategic focus and expertise mean that we are well-placed for a positive 2025.

    International Insurance financial review

    £m 2024 2023
    Turnover1 840.0 894.9
    Total premiums written1 785.7 840.0
    Insurance revenue 829.5 842.6
    Insurance revenue net of XoL1 794.2 811.8
    Insurance expenses1 (236.5) (249.4)
    Insurance claims net of XoL1 (564.5) (565.2)
    Underwriting result, net of XoL1 (6.8) (2.8)
    Quota share reinsurance result1 3 (4.1) (22.1)
    Movement in net onerous loss component 0.4 0.6
    Underwriting result1 (10.5) (24.3)
    Net investment income 6.1 4.3
    Net other revenue (0.9) 2.0
    International Insurance loss before tax1 4 (5.3) (18.0)

    Segment performance indicators        

    £m 2024 2023
    Loss ratio1 2 71.1% 69.6%
    Expense ratio1 2 29.8% 30.7%
    Combined ratio¹ 100.9% 100.3%
    Insurance service margin1 2 (1.3%) (3.0%)
    Customers insured at period end1 2.10m 2.17m

    International Motor Insurance – Geographical analysis1

    2024 Spain Italy France US Total
    Vehicles insured at period end 0.45m 0.96m 0.45m 0.14m 2.00m
    Turnover (£m) 131.8 269.1 224.0 200.1 825.0
               
    2023 Spain Italy France US Total
    Vehicles insured at period end 0.45m 1.04m 0.42m 0.19m 2.10m
    Turnover (£m) 121.8 272.4 219.1 271.2 884.5

    Segment result: International Insurance result1

    £m 2024 2023
    European Motor (14.8) 6.1
    Spain Motor (3.1) (8.6)
    Italy Motor (22.8) 7.3
    France Motor 11.1 7.4
    US Motor 14.4 (19.6)
    Other (4.9) (4.5)
    International Insurance loss before tax (5.3) (18.0)

    1 Alternative Performance Measures – refer to the end of this report for definition and explanation.

    2 Alternative Performance Measures – refer to Appendix 1d for explanation and reconciliation to statutory income statement measures.

    3 Quota share reinsurance result within the segment result excludes reinsurers’ share of share scheme costs.

    4 Costs related to the settlement of a historic Italian tax matter during 2023 are excluded from the International Insurance result and presented within Group other costs, given that these are not reflective of the underlying trading performance of the International Insurance business.

    Admiral’s International insurance businesses reported a 3% reduction in customer numbers at 31 December 2024 to 2.10 million (31 December 2023: 2.17 million), as a result of a continued reduction in the US, and a reduction in Italy following pricing action taken to prioritise margin over growth. Turnover fell to £840.0 million (2023: £894.9 million), driven by a reduction in the US, partially offset by higher turnover in the European businesses as a result of higher average premiums.

    The combined result for the segment improved by around £13 million to a loss of £5.3 million (2023: loss of £18.0 million), driven by a significantly improved result in the US, which was partly offset by the disappointing Italian result.

    The combined ratio increased slightly to 100.9% (2023: 100.3%). An improved expense ratio (30% v 31%) was offset by a higher loss ratio, which was impacted by higher Italian and lower US and other European loss ratios.

    The European insurance operations in Spain, Italy and France insured 1.86 million vehicles at 31 December 2024 – 2% lower than a year earlier (31 December 2023: 1.91 million). Motor turnover was up 2% to £624.9 million (2023: £613.3 million), driven by continued price increases following continued focus on improving loss ratios.

    The combined European Motor loss was £14.8 million (2023: £6.1 million), with the combined ratio increasing to 105.0% (2023: 95.4%) largely a result of the loss of £22.8 million recognised in ConTe in Italy (2023: profit of £7.3 million).

    ConTe’s performance in 2024 was adversely impacted by both the significant increase to the settlement inflation rate for large bodily injury claims provided by the court of Milan (known as the Milan tables) which had an impact of approximately £16 million, and also the impact of continued inflation on claims settlement costs, particularly on business written in 2023. Action has been taken with strong price increases to improve the loss ratio and restore profitability. Vehicles insured decreased by 7% to 0.96 million (2023: 1.04 million) as a result of the pricing action, with turnover decreasing by 1% to £269.1 million (2023: £272.4 million).

    L’olivier assurance (France) continued to grow, with the customer base increasing by 8% to 0.45 million (31 December 2023: 0.42 million), and turnover increasing by 2% to £224.0 million (2023: £219.1 million). The business reported increased profits in 2024 (£11.1 million v £7.4 million) as a result of its focus over the past year on risk selection and loss ratio improvements, as well as cost reduction.

    In Admiral Seguros (Spain) customer numbers were flat at 0.45 million, due to increased prices to target loss and expense ratio improvements. The loss for the year was notably lower (£3.1 million v £8.6 million). Admiral Seguros continues to focus on sustainable growth through distribution diversification in the broker channel and other partnerships alongside its direct offering.

    In the US, Admiral underwrites motor insurance through its Elephant Auto business. Elephant delivered a significantly improved result in 2024 with a profit of £14.4 million (2023: loss of £19.6 million) due to strong management action on pricing, underwriting and expense control.

    In early March 2025, Admiral entered into a memorandum of understanding with a counterparty with a view to signing a purchase agreement to sell Elephant. The agreement, if signed, would be subject to regulatory approval.

    Admiral Money

    Scott Cargill – CEO, Admiral Money

    I’m pleased to be able to say it has been a positive 2024 for Admiral Money. Throughout the year we have retained a firm focus on prime lending and continued to prioritise a controlled and conservative approach to growth. Our book at the end of December stands at £1.17 billion, 23% growth since FY 2023.

    Our gross income of £112.5 million has grown 19% since FY 2023, reflecting the higher average balances through the year. Our book net interest margin finishes the year at a healthy 650bps and our credit performance has been more than satisfactory, with a full year of cost of risk of 2.5%. The outcome of this has been our third consecutive year of growing profits, achieved whilst maintaining an appropriately conservative provision to cover potential credit losses.

    Our NPS score of 75 and Trust Pilot score of 4.4 provide continued evidence that our focus on being an efficient customer-focussed prime lender, providing certainty and transparency to UK customers on their lending needs through offering guaranteed rate solutions, is a successful formula.

    In 2024 we have also continued our focus on being the lender of choice for Admiral Insurance customers. This is a key pillar of our strategy and where we have the most significant competitive advantage. Over 68% of our new customer flows in 2024 came from either current or recent Admiral Insurance customers.

    When we set out Admiral Money’s strategy in 2018, we identified four key ingredients for an ‘Admiral-like’ lender. Over seven years, we have clearly proven three: pricing excellence, expense efficiency, and product differentiation. I’m delighted to see us take our first step towards delivering the fourth, using third-party capital to enhance shareholder returns and manage risk. I’m pleased to confirm our first off-balance-sheet deal, a forward flow agreement consisting of £150 million back book and up to £300 million per annum, transferring loan risk off Admiral’s balance sheet in exchange for origination and servicing fees. This milestone enables future growth beyond the Group’s balance sheet and acts as a model for us to expand participation in consumer lending beyond the current asset classes.

    Looking to 2025, we enter with strong momentum. I expect to see continued growth towards the £1.3 billion on-balance sheet loans, with total loans under management towards £1.6 billion. I’d like to finish by thanking our customers and all of my colleagues and wish everyone the best for 2025.

    Admiral Money financial review

    £m 2024 2023
    Total interest income 112.5 94.7
    Interest expense¹ (43.2) (28.3)
    Net interest income 69.3 66.4
    Other income 0.5 0.1
    Total income 69.8 66.5
    Credit loss charge (26.9) (33.4)
    Expenses (29.9) (22.9)
    Admiral Money profit before tax² 13.0 10.2

    1 Includes £6.1 million intra-group interest expense (2023: £1.5 million).

    2 Alternative Performance Measures – refer to the end of this report for definition and explanation.

    Admiral Money distributes and underwrites unsecured personal loans and car finance products for UK consumers through the comparison channels, credit scoring applications, through car dealerships, and direct to consumers via the Admiral website. The aim of the proposition is to provide customers with affordable guaranteed rates, ensuring transparency and certainty.

    Admiral Money recorded a pre-tax profit of £13.0 million in 2024, improved from £10.2 million profit in 2023, continuing the positive trajectory of growth in both the loan book and profit.

    The business has continued to focus on writing high-quality loans, with the increase in profit largely driven by net interest income growth of 4% to £69.3 million (2023: £66.4 million), as well as a reduced provision charge driven by a focus on high-quality risk selection and positive loss performance. Increased interest expense is driven by market-linked funding instruments and continued investment to support the ongoing growth in the business, partially offset the increased net interest income and lower credit loss charge.

    Gross loans balances totaled £1,174.0 million at the end of the year (31 December 2023: £956.8 million), with a £84.3 million (31 December 2023: £81.7 million) expected credit loss provision. This leads to a net loans balance of £1,089.7 million (31 December 2023: £875.1 million)

    Credit loss models reflect the latest economic assumptions and appropriate post model adjustments remain in place to maintain an appropriately cautious level of provisioning. The provision to loans balance coverage ratio is lower at 7.2% (31 December 2023: 8.5%), with a £2.6 million increase in absolute provision size in the period to £84.3 million. The provision includes lower post model adjustments of £4.6 million (31 December 2023: £9.2 million) reflecting the improved UK economic outlook.

    Admiral Money is funded through a combination of internal and external funding sources. The external funding is secured against certain loans via a transfer of the rights to the cash flows to two special purpose entities (‘SPEs’). The securitisation and subsequent issue of notes via SPEs does not result in a significant transfer of risk from the Group.

    Other Group Items

    Other Group items financial review

    £m 2024 2023
    Share scheme charges (62.2) (54.4)
    Other central costs (51.2) (41.7)
    Admiral Pioneer result (11.3) (16.2)
    Business development costs (20.1) (15.3)
    Finance charges1 (26.4) (20.3)
    Compare.com loss before tax (2.6)
    Sale of shares in Insurify 12.5
    Other interest and investment income 13.5 4.6
    Total (145.2) (145.9)

    1 Finance charges within other Group items include £1.8 million (2023: £1.7 million) that relate to intra-group arrangements,
    with the corresponding income presented within the UK Insurance result.

    Share scheme charges relate to the Group’s two employee share schemes. The increase in charge in the period is driven primarily by both higher vesting assumptions and increases in bonuses tied to dividends paid in the year.

    Other central costs consist of Group-related expenses and include an allocation of Group employee costs as well as the cost of a number of significant Group projects. In 2024, these include the cost of a one-off employee bonus of approximately £8 million, along with higher project costs for the internal capital model development and the strategic review of the US Insurance business. In addition, central Group employee expenses increased relative to 2023.

    Admiral launched Admiral Pioneer in 2020 to focus on new product diversification opportunities. Pioneer businesses include Veygo (short-term and learner driver car insurance in the UK) and Admiral Business (small business insurance in the UK). Pioneer’s businesses reported a lower loss of £11.3 million in 2024 (2023: £16.2 million). The 2023 result was impacted by adverse large claims experienced in Veygo (one large claim in particular); the improvement in 2024 arises from continued growth and better claims experience, with Veygo reporting its first profit. The overall loss in Admiral Pioneer reflects continued investment in the development of new products, including for example, the partnership with Insurtech fleet insurer Flock, entered into in 2024.

    Business development costs increased to £20.1 million (2023: £15.3 million), primarily as a result of non-recurring transaction and other costs of £6.5 million related to the More Than acquisition.

    Finance charges of £26.4 million (2023: £20.3 million) primarily related to interest on the £250 million subordinated notes issued in July 2023 at a rate of 8.5%, with the charge in 2023 based on the original £200 million subordinated loan notes issued in July 2014. The increase in finance charges is largely offset by the increase in other interest and investment income, which arises primarily from the higher interest rate environment, with 2023 also including a loss on disposal of £3.6 million.

    A loss of £2.6 million was attributed to compare.com in 2023 following its disposal. As part of the disposal, the Group received shares as a minority interest shareholder of the acquirer. In 2024, the Group sold those shares, realising a one-off gain of £12.5 million.

    Group capital structure and financial position

    The Group manages its capital to ensure that all entities are able to continue as going concerns and that regulated entities comfortably meet regulatory capital requirements. Surplus capital within subsidiaries is paid up to the Group holding company in the form of dividends.

    The Group’s regulatory capital is based on the Solvency II Standard Formula, with a capital add-on to reflect recognised limitations in the Standard Formula with respect to Admiral’s business, predominantly in respect of profit commission arrangements in co-insurance and reinsurance agreements.

    Admiral continues to develop its partial internal model to form the basis of calculating capital requirements post-approval. This programme is ongoing with regular engagement with the regulator on the application process and timing.

    The current approved capital add-on is £24 million.

    The estimated and unaudited Solvency ratio for the Group at the date of this report is as follows:

    Group capital position (estimated and unaudited)

    £bn 2024 2023
    Eligible Own Funds (post-dividend)1 1.74 1.42
    Solvency II capital requirement2 0.86 0.71
    Surplus over capital requirement 0.88 0.71
    Solvency ratio (post-dividend)3 203% 200%

    1 Own Funds include approximately £250 million of Tier 2 capital following the Group’s issue of ten-year subordinated loan notes.

    2 Solvency capital requirement includes updated, unapproved capital add-on.

    3 Solvency ratio calculated on a volatility adjusted basis.

    The Group’s solvency ratio is slightly improved compared with the closing position of 2023 at 203% (2023: 200%). Own funds increased following continued strong generation of economic capital in the core UK motor business as a result of the positive current period underwriting performance of UK Motor and prior period releases, including the impact of the change in Ogden discount rate, which offset a reduction of around 11 points of solvency ratio following the de-recognition of intangible assets recognised in the More Than acquisition due to Solvency II rules, and a higher foreseeable dividend.

    The SCR also increased over the year, though to a lesser extent. The increase of approximately £150 million was primarily due to the increase in premiums across all Group businesses and the associated impact on underwriting and operational risk elements of the capital requirement. The estimated solvency ratio including the fixed Group capital add-on of £24 million, that is calculated at the balance sheet date rather than the date of this report, and is expected to be reported in the Group’s 2024 Solvency and Financial Condition Report (SFCR) is as follows:

    Regulatory solvency ratio (estimated and unaudited) 2024 2023
    Solvency ratio as reported above 203% 200%
    Change in valuation date1 (9%) (11%)
    Other (including impact of updated, unapproved capital add-on) 4% (6%)
    Solvency ratio to be reported (SFCR) 198% 183%

    Solvency ratio sensitivities

      2024 2023
    UK Motor – incurred loss ratio +5% (26%) (11%)
    UK Motor – 1-in-200 catastrophe event (3%) (1%)
    UK Household – 1-in-200 catastrophe event (3%) (5%)
    Interest rate – yield curve up 100 bps (1%) (1%)
    Interest rate – yield curve down 100 bps —% 1%
    Credit spreads widen 100 bps (2%) (5%)
    Currency – 10% (2023: 25%) movement in euro and US dollar (2%) (3%)
    ASHE – long-term inflation assumption up 100 bps (6%) (3%)
    Loans – 100% weighting to ‘severe’ scenario2 (1%) (1%)

    1 The solvency ratio reported above includes additional own funds generated post-year-end up to the date of this report.

    2 Refer to note 7 to the financial statements for further information on the ‘severe’ scenario.

    The increased sensitivity of the incurred loss ratio stress is the result of the growth in premium exposure and relatively profitability of the most recent underwriting year, whilst the increased sensitivity to ASHE is due to both a slight increase in settled periodic payment orders (PPOs), and higher PPO propensity assumptions following the change in Ogden.

    Investments and cash

    Investment strategy

    Admiral Group’s investment strategy focuses on capital preservation and low volatility of returns relative to liabilities, and follows an asset liability matching strategy to control interest rate, inflation and currency risk. A prudent level of liquidity is held and the investment portfolio has a high-quality credit profile. In 2024, the focus remained on matching, and cashflows were invested into high-quality assets to take advantage of healthy risk-free rates, whilst being appropriately cautious on the credit outlook. The Group holds a range of government bonds, corporate bonds, alternative and private credit assets, alongside liquid holdings in cash and money market funds.

    A further aim of the strategy is to reduce the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) related risks in the portfolio whilst continuing to achieve sustainable long-term returns. In 2024, the portfolio weighted average ESG score was upgraded to an MSCI AAA rating.

    Total investment income for 2024 was £175.6 million (2023: £126.7 million).

    The investment return on the Group’s investment portfolio (excluding unrealised gains and losses and the movement in provision for expected credit losses) was £182.1 million (2023: £124.4 million). The annualised rate of return was higher at 4.0% (2023: 3.3%) mainly as a result of higher investment yields, with the increased income driven by a combination of the higher yield and increased asset balances following the growth in the business.

    Investment return

    £m 2024 2023
    Underlying investment income yield 4.0% 3.3%
    Investment return 182.1 124.4
    Unrealised losses on derivatives (0.2) (0.2)
    Movement in provision for expected credit losses (6.3) 2.5
    Total investment return 175.6 126.7

    Cash and investments analysis

    £m 2024 2023
    Fixed income and debt securities 3,335.4 2,825.9
    Money market funds and other fair value through P&L investments 1,421.0 918.8
    Cash deposits 91.7 116.7
    Cash 313.6 353.1
    Total¹ 5,161.7 4,214.5

    1 Total Cash and Investments includes £354.5 million (2023: £278.2 million) of Level 3 investments. Refer to note 6d in the financial statements for further information.

    Cashflow

    £m 2024 2023
    Operating cashflow, before movements in investments 1,303.4 697.5
    Transfers to financial investments (810.3) (285.5)
    Operating cashflow 493.1 412.0
    Tax payments (124.1) (133.0)
    Investing cashflows (capital expenditure) (144.2) (75.9)
    Financing cashflows (436.0) (216.7)
    Loans funding through special purpose entity 178.1 44.9
    Foreign currency translation impact (6.4) 24.8
    Net cash movement (39.5) 56.1
    Unrealised gains on investments 11.4 98.1
    Movement in accrued interest, foreign exchange and unrealised gains on derivatives 165.0 69.0
    Net increase in cash and financial investments 947.2 508.7

    The main items contributing to the operating cash inflow are as follows:

    £m 2024 2023
    Profit after tax 662.9 337.2
    Change in net insurance contract liabilities 606.5 309.5
    Net change in trade receivables and liabilities 46.3 (42.3)
    Change in loans and advances to customers (231.4) (73.6)
    Non-cash Income Statement items 42.8 61.1
    Taxation expense 176.3 105.6
    Operating cashflow, before movements in investments 1,303.4 697.5

    The Group continues to generate significant amounts of cash, particularly notable during 2024, and its capital-efficient business model enables the distribution of the majority of post-tax profits as dividends. Total cash and investments at 31 December 2024 was £5,161.7 million (31 December 2023: £4,214.5 million), the increase reflecting the collections from higher written premium in UK Insurance.

    The net increase in cash and investments in the period is £947.2 million (2023: increase of £508.7 million).

    Taxation

    The tax charge for the period is £176.3 million (2023: £105.6 million), which equates to 21.0% (2023: 23.8%) of profit before tax. The tax rate in 2023 was impacted by the settlement of a non-recurring historic Italian tax matter. In addition, in 2024, a greater proportion of profits has arisen in the Group’s businesses outside the UK, leading to the lower effective tax rate. See note 10 to the financial statements for further details.

    Co-insurance and reinsurance

    Admiral makes significant use of proportional risk sharing agreements, where insurers outside the Group underwrite a majority of the risk generated, either through co-insurance or quota share reinsurance contracts. These arrangements include profit commission terms which allow Admiral to retain a significant portion of the profit generated.

    Although the primary focus and disclosure is in relation to the UK Motor Insurance book, similar longer-term arrangements are in place in the Group’s International Insurance operations and the UK Household and Van businesses.

    UK Motor Insurance

    Munich Re and its subsidiary entity, Great Lakes, currently underwrite 40% of the UK Car business. From 2022, 20% of this total is on a co-insurance basis (via Great Lakes) and will extend to 2029. The remaining 20% is on a quota share reinsurance basis and these arrangements now extend to 2026.

    The Group also has other quota share reinsurance arrangements confirmed to at least 2025 covering 38% of the business written.

    The nature of the co-insurance proportion underwritten by Munich Re (via Great Lakes) in the UK is such that 20% of all Car premium and claims accrue directly to Great Lakes and are not reflected in the Group’s financial statements. Similarly, Great Lakes reimburses the Group for its proportional share of expenses incurred in acquiring and administering this business.

    Admiral’s UK Motor quota share reinsurance arrangements result in all premiums, claims and expenses that are ceded to reinsurers being included within the quota share result in the Group’s financial statements, with a recovery recognised where years are not yet profitable.

    These agreements operate on a funds withheld basis with Admiral retaining ceded premium (net of the reinsurer margin), which then covers claims and expenses. If an underwriting year is not profitable, investment income is allocated to the withheld fund and used to delay the point at which cash recoveries are collected from the reinsurer. Other features of the arrangements include expense ratio caps and commutation options for Admiral that become available 24-36 months after the start of the underwriting year.

    Admiral tends to commute its UK Car Insurance quota share reinsurance contracts 24-36 months after inception of an underwriting year, assuming there is sufficient confidence in the profitability of the business covered by the reinsurance contract.

    In 2024, there were commutations of a small number of remaining contracts from underwriting years 2017-2020. All arrangements covering the 2020 and prior underwriting years have now been commuted. In addition, a majority of contracts from underwriting year 2021 have been commuted during 2024. There was no significant impact on profit before tax as a result of the commutations.

    UK Household Insurance

    The Group’s Household business is supported by long-term proportional reinsurance arrangements covering 70% of the risk, that runs to at least 2027. In addition, the Group has non-proportional reinsurance to cover the risk of catastrophes stemming from weather events.

    International Car Insurance

    In 2023 and 2024, Admiral retained 35% (Italy), 30% (France), 30% (Spain), and 40% (2023) and 60% (2024) (US) of the underwriting risk in each country, respectively. In 2025, Admiral will retain 60% of the underwriting risk in Italy and 100% of the underwriting risk in the US, with the retained share in France and Spain unchanged.

    Excess of loss reinsurance

    The Group also purchases excess of loss reinsurance to provide protection against large claims and reviews this cover annually. The UK Motor excess of loss cover in 2024 remained similar to prior years with cover starting at £10 million.

    Principal Risks and Uncertainties

    The Group’s 2024 Annual Report will contain an analysis of the Principal Risks and Uncertainties identified in the Group’s Enterprise Risk Management Framework, along with the impacts of those risks and actions taken to mitigate them.

    Disclaimer on forward-looking statements

    Certain statements made in this announcement are forward-looking statements. Such statements are based on current expectations and assumptions and are subject to a number of known and unknown risks and uncertainties that may cause actual events or results to differ materially from any expected future events or results expressed or implied in these forward-looking statements.

    Persons receiving this announcement should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Unless otherwise required by applicable law, regulation or accounting standard, the Group does not undertake to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise.

    Consolidated Income Statement
    For the year ended 31 December 2024

        Year ended
      Note 31 December
    2024
    £m
    31 December
    2023
    £m 1
           
    Insurance revenue 5 4,776.2 3,486.1
    Insurance service expenses 5 (3,547.5) (3,093.2)
    Insurance service result before reinsurance   1,228.7 392.9
    Net expense from reinsurance contracts held 5 (518.4) (87.1)
    Insurance service result   710.3 305.8
    Investment return – Effective interest rate 6 106.3 81.1
    Investment return – Other 6 74.6 41.8
    Investment return 6 180.9 122.9
    Finance expenses from insurance contracts issued 5 (128.4) (94.5)
    Finance income from reinsurance contracts held 5 35.9 28.9
    Net insurance finance expenses   (92.5) (65.6)
           
    Net insurance and investment result   798.7 363.1
           
    Interest income from financial services 7 113.5 94.9
    Interest expense related to financial services 7 (37.2) (26.8)
    Net interest income from financial services   76.3 68.1
           
    Other revenue and profit commission 8 189.6 205.7
    Other operating expenses 9 (293.6) (250.8)
    Other operating expenses recoverable from co-insurers 9 129.3 107.8
    Movement in expected credit loss provision and write-offs 6 (34.6) (31.0)
    Other income and expenses   (9.3) 31.7
           
    Operating profit   865.7 462.9
    Finance costs 6 (27.1) (20.5)
    Finance costs recoverable from coinsurers 6 0.6 0.4
    Net finance costs   (26.5) (20.1)
    Profit before tax   839.2 442.8
    Taxation expense 10 (176.3) (105.6)
    Profit after tax   662.9 337.2
    Profit after tax attributable to:      
    Equity holders of the parent   663.3 338.0
    Non-controlling interests (NCI)   (0.4) (0.8)
        662.9 337.2
    Earnings per share      
    Basic 12 216.6p 111.2p
    Diluted 12 216.6p 110.8p
           
    Dividends declared and paid (total) 12 369.8 307.1
    Dividends declared and paid (per share) 12 123.0p 103.0p

    1 The Consolidated Income Statement for the year ended 31 December 2023 has been re-presented to show the breakdown of Investment return between effective interest rate and investment return relating to other transactions, this having been provided within note 6a to the 2023 financial statements. For further detail, see note 6a to the financial statements.

    Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Income
    For the year ended 31 December 2024

      Year ended
      31 December
    2024
    £m
    31 December
    2023
    £m1
    Profit for the period 662.9 337.2
    Other comprehensive income    
    Items that are or may be reclassified to profit or loss    
    Movements in fair value reserve 11.3 98.1
    Deferred tax charge in relation to movement in fair value reserve 2.4 (5.7)
    Movements in insurance finance reserve – insurance contracts 7.9 (128.1)
    Deferred tax in relation to movement in insurance finance reserve – insurance contracts (5.1) 14.5
    Movements in insurance finance reserve – reinsurance contracts 3.3 49.2
    Deferred tax in relation to movement in insurance finance reserve – reinsurance contracts 1.3 (4.8)
    Exchange differences on translation of foreign operations (4.2) 3.7
    Movement in hedging reserve (4.1) (18.1)
    Deferred tax charge in relation to movement in hedging reserve 1.0 4.5
    Other comprehensive income for the period, net of income tax 13.8 13.3
    Total comprehensive income for the period 676.7 350.5
    Total comprehensive income for the period attributable to:    
    Equity holders of the parent 677.1 351.3
    Non-controlling interests (0.4) (0.8)
      676.7 350.5

    1Represented: see note 1 to the financial statements.

    Consolidated Statement of Financial Position

    As at 31 December 2024

        As at
      Note 31 December
    2024
    £m
    31 December
    2023
    £m
    ASSETS      
    Property and equipment 11 87.8 90.1
    Intangible assets 11 321.0 242.9
    Deferred tax asset 10 19.8 46.1
    Corporation tax asset   18.1 20.4
    Reinsurance contract assets 5 988.6 1,191.9
    Loans and advances to customers 7 1,106.9 879.4
    Other receivables 6 225.2 409.9
    Financial investments 6 4,863.2 3,862.4
    Cash and cash equivalents 6 313.6 353.1
    Total assets   7,944.2 7,096.2
    EQUITY      
    Share capital 12 0.3 0.3
    Share premium account   13.1 13.1
    Other reserves 12 (26.7) (40.5)
    Retained earnings   1,383.4 1,018.9
    Total equity attributable to equity holders of the parent   1,370.1 991.8
    Non-controlling interests   0.6 1.0
    Total equity   1,370.7 992.8
    LIABILITIES      
    Lease liabilities 6 79.6 81.2
    Subordinated and other financial liabilities 6 1,322.2 1,129.8
    Corporation tax liabilities   35.0 4.9
    Insurance contracts liabilities 5 4,961.4 4,581.7
    Trade and other payables 6, 11 175.3 305.8
    Total liabilities   6,573.5 6,103.4
    Total equity and total liabilities   7,944.2 7,096.2

    The accompanying notes form part of these financial statements. These financial statements were approved by the Board of Directors on 5 March 2025 and were signed on its behalf by:

    Geraint Jones

    Chief Financial Officer

    Admiral Group plc

    Company Number: 03849958

    Consolidated Cashflow Statement
    For the year ended 31 December 2024

        Year ended
      Note 31 December
    2024
    £m
    31 December
    2023
    £m1
    Profit after tax   662.9 337.2
    Adjustments for non-cash items:      
    – Depreciation of property, plant and equipment and right-of-use assets   18.8 18.2
    – Impairment/ disposal of property, plant and equipment and right-of-use assets   9.1 (4.0)
    – Amortisation and impairment of intangible assets 11 66.7 40.5
    – Movement in expected credit loss provision   10.3 15.7
    – Share scheme charges   67.8 63.3
    – Interest expense on funding for loans and advances to customers   32.3 26.2
    – Investment return 6 (177.4) (119.3)
    – Profit on disposal of Insurify share option 9 (12.5)
    – Finance costs, including unwinding of discounts on lease liabilities 6 27.7 20.5
    – Taxation expense 10 176.3 105.6
    Change in gross insurance contract liabilities 5 421.6 451.3
    Change in reinsurance assets 5 184.9 (141.8)
    Change in insurance and other receivables 6 182.4 (94.7)
    Change in gross loans and advances to customers 7 (231.4) (73.6)
    Change in trade and other payables, including tax and social security 11 (136.1) 52.4
    Cash flows from operating activities, before movements in investments   1,303.4 697.5
    Purchases of financial instruments   (8,083.3) (3,538.4)
    Proceeds on disposal/ maturity of financial instruments   7,182.4 3,176.1
    Interest and investment income received   90.6 76.8
    Cash flows from operating activities, net of movements in investments   493.1 412.0
    Taxation payments   (124.1) (133.0)
    Net cash flow from operating activities   369.0 279.0
    Cash flows from investing activities:      
    Purchases of property, equipment and software   (61.7) (75.9)
    Intangible assets acquired through business combinations   (82.5)
    Net cash used in investing activities   (144.2) (75.9)
    Cash flows from financing activities:      
    Proceeds on issue of loan backed securities   372.2 291.7
    Repayment of loan backed securities   (194.1) (246.8)
    Proceeds from other financial liabilities   177.7 428.4
    Repayment of other financial liabilities   (170.1) (292.2)
    Finance costs paid, including interest expense paid on funding for loans   (76.7) (52.8)
    Proceeds/(repayments) on hedging derivatives   15.6 17.7
    Repayment of lease liabilities   (12.7) (10.7)
    Equity dividends paid 12 (369.8) (307.1)
    Net cash used in financing activities   (257.9) (171.8)
    Net increase in cash and cash equivalents   (33.1) 31.3
    Cash and cash equivalents at 1 January   353.1 297.0
    Effects of changes in foreign exchange rates   (6.4) 24.8
    Cash and cash equivalents at 31 December   313.6 353.1

    1. Represented: see note 1 to the financial statements.

    Consolidated Statement of Changes in Equity
    For the year ended 31 December 2024

      Attributable to the owners of the Company
     

    Note

    Share
    Capital
    £m
    Share premium account
    £m
    Fair value reserve £m Hedging reserve
    £m
    Foreign exchange reserve
    £m
    Insurance finance reserve
    £m
    Retained profit
    and loss
    £m
    Total
    £m
    Non-controlling interests
    £m
    Total equity
    £m
    At 1 January 2023   0.3 13.1 (205.9) 21.1 0.1 134.5 922.6 885.8 1.2 887.0
    Profit/(loss) for the period   338.0 338.0 (0.8) 337.2
    Other comprehensive income   92.4 (13.6) 3.7 (69.2) 13.3 13.3
    Total comprehensive income for the period 92.4 (13.6) 3.7 (69.2) 338.0 351.3 (0.8) 350.5
    Transactions with equity holders                      
    Dividends 12 (307.1) (307.1) (307.1)
    Share scheme credit   63.3 63.3 63.3
    Deferred tax on share scheme credit   2.1 2.1 2.1
    Transfer to loss on disposal of assets held for sale   (3.6) (3.6) 0.6 (3.0)
    Total transactions with equity holders (3.6) (241.7) (245.3) 0.6 (244.7)
    As at 31 December 2023   0.3 13.1 (113.5) 7.5 0.2 65.3 1,018.9 991.8 1.0 992.8

    Consolidated Statement of Changes in Equity (continued)

      Attributable to the owners of the Company
     

    Note

    Share
    Capital
    £m
    Share premium account
    £m
    Fair value reserve £m Hedging reserve
    £m
    Foreign exchange reserve
    £m
    Insurance finance reserve
    £m
    Retained profit
    and loss
    £m
    Total
    £m
    Non-controlling interests
    £m
    Total equity
    £m
    At 1 January 2024   0.3 13.1 (113.5) 7.5 0.2 65.3 1,018.9 991.8 1.0 992.8
    Profit/(loss) for the period   663.3 663.3 (0.4) 662.9
    Other comprehensive income   13.7 (3.1) (4.2) 7.4 13.8 13.8
    Total comprehensive income for the period 13.7 (3.1) (4.2) 7.4 663.3 677.1 (0.4) 676.7
    Transactions with equity holders                      
    Dividends 12 (369.8) (369.8) (369.8)
    Share scheme credit   67.8 67.8 67.8
    Deferred tax on share scheme credit   3.2 3.2 3.2
    Transfer to loss on disposal of assets held for sale  
    Total transactions with equity holders (298.8) (298.8) (298.8)
    As at 31 December 2024   0.3 13.1 (99.8) 4.4 (4.0) 72.7 1,383.4 1,370.1 0.6 1,370.7

    Notes to the consolidated financial statements

    General information

    Admiral Group plc is a public limited Company incorporated in England and Wales. Its registered office is at Tŷ Admiral, David Street, Cardiff, CF10 2EH and its shares are listed on the London Stock Exchange.

    The consolidated financial statements have been prepared and approved by the Directors in accordance with United Kingdom adopted international accounting standards in conformity with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006.

    The financial information included in this preliminary announcement has been prepared in accordance with the recognition and measurement criteria of International Financial Reporting Standards (‘IFRS’) as adopted by the UK. The financial information set out in this preliminary results announcement does not constitute the statutory accounts for the year ended 31 December 2024. The financial information is derived from the statutory accounts, which comply with IFRS, within the Group’s Annual Report & Accounts 2024. These accounts were signed on 5 March 2025 and are expected to be published in March 2025 and delivered to the Registrar of Companies following the Annual General Meeting to be held on 9 May 2025. The independent Auditor’s report on the Group accounts for the year ended 31 December 2024 was signed on 5 March 2025, is unqualified, does not draw attention to any matters by way of emphasis and does not include a statement under S498(2) or (3) of the Companies Act 2006. This audit opinion excludes disclosures surrounding capital adequacy calculated under the Solvency II regime as these are outside of the audit scope.

    1. Basis of preparation

    The consolidated financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis. In considering this requirement, the Directors have taken into account the following:

    • The Group’s profit projections, including:
      • Changes in premium rates and projected policy volumes across the Group’s insurance businesses
      • Projected cost of settling claims across all of the Group’s insurance businesses, including the impact of continuing, albeit reducing, high levels of inflation
      • Projected trends in motor claims frequency
      • Projected trends in other revenue generated by the Group’s insurance business from fees and the sale of ancillary products
      • Projected contributions to profit from businesses other than the UK Motor insurance business
      • Expected trends in unemployment in the context of credit risks and the growth of the Group’s consumer lending business
      • The impact of the More Than acquisition, which completed in the first half of 2024, with renewals starting in the second half of 2024.
    • The Group’s solvency position, which continues to be closely monitored. The Group continues to maintain a strong solvency position above target levels
    • The adequacy of the Group’s liquidity position after considering all the factors noted above
    • The results of business plan scenarios and stress tests on the projected profitability, solvency and liquidity positions including the impact of severe downside scenarios that assume severe adverse economic, credit and trading stresses
    • The regulatory environment, focusing on regulatory guidance issued by the FCA and the PRA in the UK and regular communications between management and regulators
    • A review of the Company’s principal risks and uncertainties and the assessment of emerging risks, including climate-related risks.

    The accounting policies set out in the notes to the financial statements have, unless otherwise stated, been applied consistently to all periods presented in these Group financial statements. The financial statements are prepared on the historical cost basis, except for the revaluation of financial assets classified as fair value through profit or loss or as fair value through other comprehensive income, and insurance and reinsurance contract assets and liabilities which are measured at their fulfilment value in accordance with IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts.

    The Group and Company financial statements are presented in pounds sterling, rounded to the nearest £0.1 million.

    Adoption of new and revised standards

    The Group has adopted the following IFRSs and interpretations during the year, which have been issued and endorsed:

    • Amendments to IAS 7 Statement of Cashflows and IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures: Supplier Finance Arrangements (effective 1 January 2024)
    • Amendments to IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements: Classification of liabilities as Current or Non-current (effective 1 January 2024)
    • Amendments to IFRS 16 Leases: Lease Liability in a Sale and Leaseback (effective 1 January 2024).

    The application of the amendments listed above has not had a material impact on the Group’s results, financial position and cashflows.

    Representation of Consolidated Cashflow Statement

    The 2023 Consolidated Cashflow Statement has been re-presented to reflect the gross cashflows relating to the subordinated loan note, loan backed securities and other borrowings which were previously all presented on a net basis within the financial statement line items ‘proceeds from other financial liabilities’ and ‘proceeds on issue of loan backed securities’. This has resulted in £292.2 million additional cash outflows within ‘repayment of other financial liabilities’ and the same inflow within ‘proceeds from other financial liabilities’ and £246.8 million additional cash outflows within ‘repayment of loan backed securities’ and the same inflow within ‘proceeds on issue of loan backed securities’. There is no overall impact on resulting cash, or the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position, Consolidated Income Statement or the Earnings per share calculations within.

    Representation of Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Income

    The 2023 Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Income has been re-presented to show the breakdown of the movements in the insurance finance reserve between that attributed to insurance contracts and that attributed to reinsurance contracts. The resulting deferred tax movement has also been re-presented. The movements in the insurance finance reserve are included within the Insurance finance reserve within the Statement of Changes in Equity. For the breakdown of the insurance finance reserve between insurance contracts and reinsurance contracts, see note 5e to the financial statements.

    2. Critical accounting judgements and estimates

    In applying the Group’s accounting policies as described in the notes to the financial statements, the Directors are required to make judgements (other than those involving estimations) that have a significant impact on the amounts recognised and to make estimates and assumptions about the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources.

    The estimates and associated assumptions are based on historical experience and various other factors that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis of making the judgements about carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources.

    The estimates and underlying assumptions are reviewed on an ongoing basis. Revisions to accounting estimates are recognised in the year in which the estimate is reviewed. To the extent that a change in an accounting estimate gives rise to changes in assets and liabilities, the movement is recognised by adjusting the carrying amount of the related asset or liability in the period in which the change occurs.

    3. Financial risk

    3a. Insurance risk sensitivity analysis

    The following sensitivity analysis shows the impact on profit for reasonably possible movements in key assumptions with all other assumptions held constant. The correlation of assumptions will have a significant effect in determining the ultimate impacts, but to demonstrate the impact due to changes in each assumption, assumptions have been changed on an individual basis. It should be noted that movements in these assumptions are non-linear.

    The sensitivities are shown for UK motor only, being the line of business where such sensitivities could have a material impact at a Group level. The sensitivities are shown on a gross and net of quota share reinsurance basis to illustrate the impacts on shareholder profit and equity before and after risk mitigation from quota share reinsurance. The sensitivities (both gross and net) include the impacts of movements in co-insurance profit commission, given that underwriting year loss ratios including risk adjustment, are a direct input to the calculation of profit commission. Refer to note 8 to these financial statements for the accounting policy for co-insurance profit commission.

    Risk adjustment

    The sensitivities reflect the impact on profit before tax in 2024 and equity as at the end of 2024 for changes in the selection of the UK motor risk adjustment confidence level at 31 December 2024, with all other assumptions remaining unchanged.

            2024
    £m Impact on profit before tax gross of reinsurance Impact on profit before tax net of reinsurance Impact on equity gross of reinsurance Impact on equity net
    of reinsurance
    Risk adjustment decrease to 90th percentile 123.5 112.2 100.8 91.4
    Risk adjustment decrease to 85th percentile 199.3 180.8 162.5 147.2

    Undiscounted loss ratios, including risk adjustment

    The sensitivities reflect the impact on profit before tax in 2024 and equity as at the end of 2024, of a change in in the booked loss ratios for individual underwriting years (UWY) as at 31 December 2024, with all other assumptions remaining unchanged.   

    £m UWY 2021 impact on: UWY 2022 impact on: UWY 2023 impact on: UWY 2024 impact on:
      PBT Equity PBT Equity PBT Equity PBT Equity
                     
    Increase of 1%: gross of reinsurance (14.8) (11.2) (15.8) (13.1) (21.0) (17.8) (16.4) (13.8)
    Increase of 5%: gross of reinsurance (67.5) (51.2) (72.4) (60.2) (98.5) (83.8) (75.4) (63.9)
    Increase of 10%: gross of reinsurance (133.3) (101.1) (143.2) (119.2) (195.3) (166.3) (149.2) (126.6)
                     
    Decrease of 1%: gross of reinsurance 16.7 12.7 16.1 13.3 22.5 18.9 16.8 14.0
    Decrease of 5%: gross of reinsurance 76.7 58.1 85.7 70.2 118.7 98.9 88.8 73.9
    Decrease of 10%: gross of reinsurance 164.5 124.5 171.8 140.7 232.3 194.1 180.9 150.3
                     
    Increase of 1%: net of reinsurance (11.7) (8.8) (9.0) (7.2) (21.0) (17.8) (16.4) (13.8)
    Increase of 5%: net of reinsurance (51.9) (38.8) (37.6) (30.8) (79.8) (67.7) (69.8) (59.0)
    Increase of 10%: net of reinsurance (102.1) (76.3) (73.5) (60.3) (124.7) (105.4) (111.7) (94.2)
                     
    Decrease of 1%: net of reinsurance 13.6 10.2 9.1 7.3 22.5 18.9 16.8 14.0
    Decrease of 5%: net of reinsurance 63.1 47.2 54.0 43.4 118.7 98.9 88.8 73.9
    Decrease of 10%: net of reinsurance 148.3 111.6 118.0 95.2 232.3 194.1 180.9 150.3

    ‘Booked’ loss ratios are undiscounted underwriting year loss ratios, including risk adjustment.

    3b. Financial risk: Interest rate sensitivity analysis

    The impact on profit (before tax) and equity arising from the impact of 100 basis point and 200 basis point increases and decreases in interest rates on insurance contract liabilities and reinsurance contract assets as at 31 December 2024, is as follows:

      31 December 2024
    £m Impact on profit before tax gross of reinsurance Impact on profit before tax net of reinsurance Impact on equity gross of reinsurance Impact on equity net of reinsurance
    Increase of 100 basis points 60.8 58.3
    Decrease of 100 basis points (69.7) (67.1)
    Increase of 200 basis points 115.1 110.3
    Decrease of 200 basis points (152.2) (146.9)

    The impact on profit (before tax) and equity arising from the impact of 100 basis point and 200 basis point increases and decreases in interest rates on investments and cash as at 31 December 2024, is as follows:

        31 December 2024
    £m Impact on profit before tax Impact on equity
    Increase of 100 basis points (83.4)
    Decrease of 100 basis points 90.4
    Increase of 200 basis points (161.0)
    Decrease of 200 basis points 189.2

    Refer to Appendix 2 for the impact on profit before tax arising from the impact of 100 bps and 200 basis point increases and decreases in interest rates during 2024.

    4. Operating segments

    The Group has four reportable segments, as described below. These segments represent the principal split of business that is regularly reported to the Group’s Board of Directors, which is considered to be the Group’s chief operating decision maker in line with IFRS 8 Operating Segments.

    UK Insurance

    The segment consists of the underwriting of Motor, Household, Pet and Travel insurance and other products that supplement these insurance policies within the UK. It also includes the generation of revenue from additional products and fees from underwriting insurance in the UK. The Directors consider the results of these activities to be reportable as one segment as the activities carried out in generating the revenue are not independent of each other and are performed as one business. This mirrors the approach taken in management reporting.

    International Insurance

    The segment consists of the underwriting of car and home insurance and the generation of revenue from additional products and fees from underwriting car insurance outside of the UK. It specifically covers the Group operations Admiral Seguros in Spain, ConTe in Italy, L’olivier Assurance in France and Elephant Auto in the US. None of these operations are reportable on an individual basis, based on the threshold requirements in IFRS 8.

    Admiral Money

    The segment relates to the Admiral Money business launched in 2017, which provides consumer finance and car finance products in the UK, through the comparison channel, credit scoring applications and direct channels including car dealers and brokers.

    Other

    The ‘Other’ segment is designed to be comprised of all other operating segments that are not separately reported to the Group’s Board of Directors and do not meet the threshold requirements for individual reporting. It includes the results of Admiral Pioneer.

    Taxes are not allocated across the segments and, as with the corporate activities, are included in the reconciliation to the Consolidated Income Statement and Consolidated Statement of Financial Position.

    An analysis of the Group’s revenue and results for the year ended 31 December 2024, by reportable segment, is shown below. The accounting policies of the reportable segments are materially consistent with those presented in the notes to the financial statements for the Group.

        Year ended 31 December 2024
      UK
    Insurance
    £m
    International
    Insurance
    £m
    Admiral
    Money
    £m
    Other
    £m
    Eliminations3
    £m
    Total
    £m
    Turnover1 5,108.5 840.0 108.3 89.9 6,146.7
    Insurance revenue 3,873.4 829.5 73.3 4,776.2
    Insurance revenue net of XoL 3,751.1 794.2 65.8 4,611.1
    Insurance services expenses (745.7) (236.5) (33.7) (1,015.9)
    Insurance claims net of XoL (1,952.1) (564.5) (39.0) (2,555.6)
    Quota share reinsurance result (290.0) (4.1) (294.1)
    Net movement in onerous loss component 1.1 0.4 1.5
    Underwriting result 764.4 (10.5) (6.9) 747.0
    Net investment income2 70.5 6.1 0.3 0.7 (7.9) 69.7
    Net interest income from financial services 69.3 0.9 6.1 76.3
    Net other revenue and operating expenses 141.8 (0.9) (56.6) (12.1) 72.2
    Segment profit/(loss) before tax4 976.7 (5.3) 13.0 (17.4) (1.8) 965.2
    Other central revenue and expenses, including share scheme charges   (115.0)
    Investment and interest income       13.5
    Finance costs           (24.5)
    Consolidated profit before tax           839.2
    Taxation expense           (176.3)
    Consolidated profit after tax         662.9

    Revenue and results for the corresponding reportable segments for the year ended 31 December 2023 are shown below.

        Year ended 31 December 2023
      UK
    Insurance
    £m
    International
    Insurance
    £m
    Admiral
    Money
    £m
    Other
    £m
    Eliminations3
    £m
    Total
    £m
    Turnover1 3,776.0 894.9 92.1 48.5 4,811.5
    Insurance revenue 2,596.8 842.6 46.7 3,486.1
    Insurance revenue net of XoL 2,517.3 811.8 44.4 3,373.5
    Insurance services expenses (559.6) (249.4) (27.9) (836.9)
    Insurance claims net of XoL (1,560.2) (565.2) (33.1) (2,158.5)
    Quota share reinsurance result (18.4) (22.1) 0.1 (40.4)
    Net movement in onerous loss component 4.3 0.6 4.9
    Underwriting result 383.4 (24.3) (16.5) 342.6
    Net investment income2 55.2 4.3 0.3 (3.2) 56.6
    Net interest income from financial services 66.4 0.2 1.5 68.1
    Net other revenue and operating expenses 157.9 2.0 (56.2) (12.4) 91.3
    Segment profit/(loss) before tax4 596.5 (18.0) 10.2 (28.4) (1.7) 558.6
    Other central revenue and expenses, including share scheme charges     (101.8)
    Investment and interest income       4.6
    Finance costs           (18.6)
    Consolidated profit before tax           442.8
    Taxation expense           (105.6)
    Consolidated profit after tax         337.2

    1 Turnover is an Alternative Performance Measure presented before intra-group eliminations. Refer to the glossary and note 14 for further information.

    2 Net Investment income is reported net of impairment of financial assets, in line with management reporting.

    3 Eliminations are in respect of the intra-group interest charges related to the UK Insurance and Admiral Money segment.

    4 Segment results exclude gross share scheme charges, and any quota share reinsurance recoveries; these net share scheme charges are presented within ‘Other central revenue and expenses, including share scheme charges’ in line with internal management reporting.

    5. Insurance Service result

    5a. Accounting policies

    The full accounting policies will be provided in the Group’s 2024 Annual Report.

    Discount rates

    A bottom-up approach has been applied in the determination of discount rates. Under this approach, the discount rate is determined as the risk-free yield adjusted for differences in liquidity characteristics between the financial assets used to derive the risk-free yield and the relevant liability cashflows (known as an illiquidity premium).

    The following weighted average rates, based on the yield curves derived using the above methodology, were used to discount the liability for incurred claims at the end of the current and prior periods:

      31 December 2024 31 December 2023
      1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years
    UK Insurance 5.0% 4.7% 4.5% 4.6% 5.4% 4.3% 4.0% 3.9%
    International (European motor) 2.7% 2.6% 2.6% 2.8% 4.0% 3.1% 3.0% 3.0%

    5b. Insurance revenue

    Insurance revenue for the corresponding reportable segments for the period ended 31 December 2024 are shown below.

      31 December 2024
      UK Motor
    £m
    UK Non-motor
    £m
    Int. Insurance
    £m
    Other
    £m
    Total Group
    £m
    Insurance revenue related movement in liability for remaining coverage 3,369.5 503.9 829.5 73.3 4,776.2

    Insurance revenue for the corresponding reportable segments for the period ended 31 December 2023 are shown below.

      31 December 2023
      UK Motor
    £m
    UK Non-motor
    £m
    Int. Insurance
    £m
    Other
    £m
    Total Group
    £m
    Insurance revenue related movement in liability for remaining coverage 2,250.2 346.6 842.6 46.7 3,486.1

    The Group’s share of its insurance business was underwritten by Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited, Admiral Insurance Company Limited, Admiral Europe Compañia Seguros (‘AECS’) and Elephant Insurance Company. The majority of contracts are short term in duration, lasting for between 6 and 12 months.

    5c. Insurance service expenses

    Insurance service expenses for the corresponding reportable segments for the period ended 31 December 2024 are shown below.

      31 December 2024
      UK Motor
    £m
    UK Non-motor
    £m
    Int. Insurance
    £m
    Other
    £m
    Total Group
    £m
    Incurred claims          
    Claims incurred in the period 2,107.2 298.2 583.7 48.9 3,038.0
    Changes to liabilities for incurred claims (496.1) (51.4) (11.1) (1.3) (559.9)
    Total incurred claims 1,611.1 246.8 572.6 47.6 2,478.1
    Movement in onerous contracts (5.1) 0.1 (0.1) (5.1)
    Directly attributable expenses          
    Administration expenses 461.5 113.7 175.2 18.7 769.1
    Acquisition expenses 125.3 45.2 61.3 15.0 246.8
    Insurance expenses 586.8 158.9 236.5 33.7 1,015.9
    Share scheme expenses 40.7 5.4 11.1 1.4 58.6
    Total insurance expenses including share scheme expenses 627.5 164.3 247.6 35.1 1,074.5
    Total Insurance service expenses 2,233.5 411.2 820.1 82.7 3,547.5

    Insurance service expenses for the corresponding reportable segments for the period ended 31 December 2023 are shown below.

      31 December 2023
      UK Motor
    £m
    UK Non-motor
    £m
    Int. Insurance
    £m
    Other
    £m
    Total Group
    £m
    Incurred claims          
    Claims incurred in the period 1,755.5 255.0 618.2 36.4 2,665.1
    Changes to liabilities for incurred claims (406.9) (9.1) (21.3) (3.3) (440.6)
    Total incurred claims 1,348.6 245.9 596.9 33.1 2,224.5
    Movement in onerous contracts (18.6) (2.4) (2.4) (23.4)
    Directly attributable expenses          
    Administration expenses 377.8 73.5 184.0 19.0 654.3
    Acquisition expenses 73.4 34.8 65.4 8.9 182.5
    Insurance expenses 451.2 108.3 249.4 27.9 836.8
    Share scheme expenses 43.2 2.4 8.9 0.8 55.3
    Total insurance expenses including share scheme expenses 494.4 110.7 258.3 28.7 892.1
    Total Insurance service expenses 1,824.4 354.2 852.8 61.8 3,093.2

    5d. Net expenses from reinsurance contracts held

    Net expenses from reinsurance contracts held for the corresponding reportable segments for the period ended 31 December 2024 are shown below.

      31 December 2024
      UK Motor
    £m
    UK Non-motor
    £m
    Int. Insurance
    £m
    Other
    £m
    Total Group
    £m
    Allocation of reinsurance premiums 145.8 45.8 153.9 7.6 353.1
    Amounts recoverable from reinsurers for incurred insurance service expenses          
    Incurred claims (29.2) 3.1 (275.9) (8.5) (310.5)
    Changes to liabilities for incurred claims 291.6 34.3 146.3 472.2
    Net expense from reinsurance contracts excluding movement in onerous loss component 408.2 83.2 24.3 (0.9) 514.8
    Other reinsurance recoveries including movement in onerous loss component 4.0 (0.1) (0.3) 3.6
    Net expenses/(income) from reinsurance contracts held 412.2 83.1 24.0 (0.9) 518.4

    Net expenses from reinsurance contracts held for the corresponding reportable segments for the period ended 31 December 2023 are shown below.

      31 December 2023
      UK Motor
    £m
    UK Non-motor
    £m
    Int. Insurance
    £m
    Other
    £m
    Total Group
    £m
    Allocation of reinsurance premiums 93.6 49.5 190.0 2.2 335.3
    Amounts recoverable from reinsurers for incurred insurance service expenses          
    Incurred claims (173.8) (52.0) (270.3) (496.1)
    Changes to liabilities for incurred claims 135.1 (1.4) 95.9 (0.1) 229.5
    Net expense from reinsurance contracts excluding movement in onerous loss component 54.9 (3.9) 15.6 2.1 68.7
    Other reinsurance recoveries including movement in loss recovery component 14.5 2.2 1.7 18.4
    Net expenses/(income) from reinsurance contracts held 69.4 (1.7) 17.3 2.1 87.1

    5e. Finance expenses/(income) from insurance contracts held and reinsurance contracts issued

    £m 2024 2023
    Amounts recognised through the income statement    
    Insurance finance expenses from insurance contracts issued 128.4 94.5
    Insurance finance income from reinsurance contracts held (35.9) (28.9)
    Net finance expense from insurance / reinsurance contracts issued 92.5 65.6
         
    £m 2024 2023
    Insurance finance reserve    
    Insurance finance reserve – insurance contracts 119.0 111.1
    Deferred tax in relation to insurance finance reserve – insurance contracts (18.6) (13.5)
    Insurance finance reserve – reinsurance contracts (32.4) (35.7)
    Deferred tax in relation to insurance finance reserve – reinsurance contracts 4.7 3.4
    Total insurance finance reserve 72.7 65.3

    5f. Insurance Liabilities and Reinsurance assets

    (i). Analysis of recognised amounts

      Year ended 31 December 2024 Year ended 31 December 2023
    £m Liability for remaining coverage Liability for incurred claims Total Liability for remaining coverage Liability for incurred claims Total
    Insurance contracts issued          
    UK Motor 883.3 2,691.1 3,574.4 769.0 2,546.7 3,315.7
    UK Non-motor 195.3 214.7 410.0 136.2 217.5 353.7
    International Motor 201.4 690.2 891.6 221.0 641.5 862.5
    Other 8.6 76.8 85.4 3.5 46.3 49.8
    Total insurance contracts issued 1,288.6 3,672.8 4,961.4 1,129.7 3,452.0 4,581.7
                 
      Asset/(liability) for remaining coverage Asset for incurred claims Total Asset/(liability) for remaining coverage Asset for incurred claims Total
    Reinsurance contracts held          
    UK Motor 34.0 236.5 270.5 23.1 496.8 519.9
    UK Non-Motor 11.2 173.5 184.7 21.4 170.2 191.6
    International Motor 43.1 481.5 524.6 (21.0) 502.8 481.8
    Other (0.1) 8.9 8.8 (1.4) (1.4)
    Total reinsurance contracts held 88.2 900.4 988.6 22.1 1,169.8 1,191.9
                 
      Liability/(asset) for remaining coverage Liability/(asset) for incurred claims Total Liability/(asset) for remaining coverage Liability/(asset) for incurred claims Total
    Net            
    UK Motor 849.3 2,454.6 3,303.9 745.9 2,049.9 2,795.8
    UK Non-Motor 184.1 41.2 225.3 114.8 47.3 162.1
    International Motor 158.3 208.7 367.0 242.0 138.7 380.7
    Other 8.7 67.9 76.6 4.9 46.3 51.2
    Total insurance contracts issued 1,200.4 2,772.4 3,972.8 1,107.6 2,282.2 3,389.8

    (ii) Roll-forward of net asset or liability for insurance contracts issued

    UK Motor

    The following tables reconcile the opening and closing balances of the LRC and LIC for UK Motor.

    2024 Liability for remaining coverage Liability for incurred claims Total
    £m Excluding loss component Loss component Total Present value of future cashflows Risk adj. for non-financial risk Total Total
    Opening assets
    Opening liabilities (766.0) (3.0) (769.0) (2,202.8) (343.9) (2,546.7) (3,315.7)
    Net opening balance (766.0) (3.0) (769.0) (2,202.8) (343.9) (2,546.7) (3,315.7)
    Insurance revenue 3,369.5 3,369.5 3,369.5
    Insurance service expenses              
    Incurred claims and insurance service expenses (2,548.7) (186.0) (2,734.7) (2,734.7)
    Changes to liabilities for
    incurred claims
    343.4 152.7 496.1 496.1
    Losses and reversals of losses on onerous contracts 5.1 5.1 5.1
    Insurance service result 3,369.5 5.1 3,374.6 (2,205.3) (33.3) (2,238.6) 1,136.0
    Insurance finance income/(expense) recognised in
    profit or loss
    (2.4) (2.4) (86.5) (15.3) (101.8) (104.2)
    Insurance finance income/(expense) recognised in OCI 0.3 0.3 16.2 2.2 18.4 18.7
    Total changes in comprehensive income 3,369.5 3.0 3,372.5 (2,275.6) (46.4) (2,322.0) 1,050.5
    Other changes 35.9 35.9 79.3 79.3 115.2
    Cashflows              
    Premiums received (3,522.7) (3,522.7) (3,522.7)
    Claims and other insurance service expenses paid 2,098.3 2,098.3 2,098.3
    Other movements
    Total cashflows (3,522.7) (3,522.7) 2,098.3 2,098.3 (1,424.4)
    Net closing balance (883.3) (883.3) (2,300.8) (390.3) (2,691.1) (3,574.4)
    Closing assets
    Closing liabilities (883.3) (883.3) (2,300.8) (390.3) (2,691.1) (3,574.4)
    2023 Liability for remaining coverage Liability for incurred claims Total
    £m Excluding loss component Loss component Total Present value of future cashflows Risk adj. for non-financial risk Total Total
    Opening assets
    Opening liabilities (534.1) (8.1) (542.2) (1,984.5) (426.6) (2,411.1) (2,953.3)
    Net opening balance (534.1) (8.1) (542.2) (1,984.5) (426.6) (2,411.1) (2,953.3)
    Insurance revenue 2,250.2 2,250.2 2,250.2
    Insurance service expenses              
    Incurred claims and insurance service expenses (2,105.1) (144.8) (2,249.9) (2,249.9)
    Changes to liabilities for
    incurred claims
    140.1 266.8 406.9 406.9
    Losses and reversals of losses on onerous contracts 18.6 18.6 18.6
    Insurance service result 2,250.2 18.6 2,268.8 (1,965.0) 122.0 (1,843.0) 425.8
    Insurance finance income/(expense) recognised in
    profit or loss
    (4.1) (4.1) (59.0) (12.3) (71.3) (75.4)
    Insurance finance income/(expense) recognised in OCI (9.4) (9.4) (60.5) (27.0) (87.5) (96.9)
    Total changes in comprehensive income 2,250.2 5.1 2,255.3 (2,084.5) 82.7 (2,001.8) 253.5
    Other changes1   64.0 64.0 64.0
    Cashflows              
    Premiums received (2,482.1) (2,482.1) (2,482.1)
    Claims and other insurance service expenses paid1 1,802.2 1,802.2 1,802.2
    Other movements
    Total cashflows (2,482.1) (2,482.1) 1,802.2 1,802.2 (679.9)
    Net closing balance (766.0) (3.0) (769.0) (2,202.8) (343.9) (2,546.7) (3,315.7)
    Closing assets
    Closing liabilities (766.0) (3.0) (769.0) (2,202.8) (343.9) (2,546.7) (3,315.7)

    1 Claims paid and other changes have been re-presented to separately present the transfer of non-cash insurance service expenses, (primarily depreciation, amortisation and IFRS 2 equity-settled share based payments), out of the LIC. There is no impact on the closing balance.

    (iii) Roll-forward of net asset or liability for reinsurance contracts issued

    UK Motor

    The following tables reconcile the opening and closing balances of the ARC and AIC for UK Motor.

    2024 Asset for remaining coverage Asset for incurred claims Total
    £m Excluding loss component Loss-recovery component Total Present value of future cashflows Risk adj. for non-financial risk Total Total
    Opening assets 20.8 2.3 23.1 313.2 183.6 496.8 519.9
    Opening liabilities
    Net opening balance 20.8 2.3 23.1 313.2 183.6 496.8 519.9
    Allocation of reinsurance premiums (145.8) (145.8) (145.8)
    Amounts recoverable from reinsurers for incurred claims              
    Incurred claims 22.2 7.0 29.2 29.2
    Changes to liabilities for
    incurred claims
    (158.6) (133.0) (291.6) (291.6)
    Changes in the loss
    recovery component
    (4.0) (4.0) (4.0)
    Net income/ (expense) from reinsurance contracts held (145.8) (4.0) (149.8) (136.4) (126.0) (262.4) (412.2)
    Reinsurance finance income/(expense) recognised in
    profit or loss
    1.8 1.8 11.1 7.9 19.0 20.8
    Reinsurance finance income/(expense) recognised in OCI (0.1) (0.1) (2.8) (1.5) (4.3) (4.4)
    Total changes in comprehensive income (145.8) (2.3) (148.1) (128.1) (119.6) (247.7) (395.8)
    Cashflows              
    Premiums paid 159.0 159.0 159.0
    Claims recoveries (0.9) (0.9) (0.9)
    Recoveries as a result of commutations (11.7) (11.7) (11.7)
    Total cashflows 159.0 159.0 (12.6) (12.6) 146.4
    Net closing balance 34.0 34.0 172.5 64.0 236.5 270.5
    Closing assets 34.0 34.0 172.5 64.0 236.5 270.5
    Closing liabilities
    2023 Asset for remaining coverage Asset for incurred claims Total
    £m Excluding loss component Loss-recovery component Total Present value of future cashflows Risk adj. for non-financial risk Total Total
    Opening assets 20.2 6.3 26.5 255.4 175.6 431.0 457.5
    Opening liabilities
    Net opening balance 20.2 6.3 26.5 255.4 175.6 431.0 457.5
    Allocation of reinsurance premiums (93.6) (93.6) (93.6)
    Amounts recoverable from reinsurers for incurred claims
    Incurred claims 96.7 77.1 173.8 173.8
    Changes to liabilities for
    incurred claims
    (43.1) (92.0) (135.1) (135.1)
    Changes in the loss
    recovery component
    (14.5) (14.5) (14.5)
    Net income/ (expense) from reinsurance contracts held (93.6) (14.5) (108.1) 53.6 (14.9) 38.7 (69.4)
    Reinsurance finance income/(expense) recognised in
    profit or loss
    3.2 3.2 9.4 7.5 16.9 20.1
    Reinsurance finance income/(expense) recognised in OCI 7.3 7.3 12.5 15.4 27.9 35.2
    Total changes in comprehensive income (93.6) (4.0) (97.6) 75.5 8.0 83.5 (14.1)
    Cashflows
    Premiums paid 94.2 94.2 94.2
    Claims recoveries (2.2) (2.2) (2.2)
    Recoveries as a result of commutations (15.5) (15.5) (15.5)
    Total cashflows 94.2 94.2 (17.7) (17.7) 76.5
    Net closing balance 20.8 2.3 23.1 313.2 183.6 496.8 519.9
    Closing assets 20.8 2.3 23.1 313.2 183.6 496.8 519.9
    Closing liabilities

    (iv) Claims development

    The tables below illustrate how estimates of cumulative claims for UK Motor have developed over time on a gross and net of reinsurance basis, for each underwriting year, and reconciles the cumulative claims to the amount included in the Statement of Financial Position.

    Gross claims development

    Financial year ended 31 December 2024
    Underwriting year 2014 & prior 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total
      £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m
    UK Motor (core)                        
    At end of year one   394 436 552 686 701 552 688 845 973 1,241  
    At end of year two   701 829 1,144 1,175 1,067 985 1,326 1,584 1,812    
    At end of year three   707 788 994 1,109 1,010 954 1,294 1,544      
    At end of year four   680 727 947 1,064 996 921 1,270        
    At end of year five   636 713 912 1,008 981 910          
    At end of year six   619 690 890 1,000 938            
    At end of year seven   606 656 865 959              
    At end of year eight   594 652 849                
    At end of year nine   585 657                  
    Ten years later   583                    
    Gross best estimates of undiscounted claims 3,803 583 657 849 959 938 910 1,270 1,544 1,812 1,241 14,566
    Cumulative gross claims paid (3,666) (568) (618) (782) (906) (822) (733) (924) (1,104) (1,105) (561) (11,789)
    Gross undiscounted best estimate liabilities 137 15 39 67 53 116 177 346 440 707 680 2,777
    Risk adjustment (undiscounted)                       480
    Effect of discounting                       (673)
    Gross claims liabilities                       2,584
    Ancillary claims and expense liabilities                       107
    UK Motor Gross liabilities for incurred claims                       2,691

    Claims development net of XoL reinsurance

    Financial year ended 31 December 2024
    Underwriting year 2014 & prior 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total
      £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m
    UK Motor (core)                        
    At end of year one   378 427 510 646 675 520 661 825 951 1,220  
    At end of year two   682 783 1,053 1,123 1,033 949 1,292 1,550 1,776    
    At end of year three   667 743 917 1,053 986 927 1,257 1,517      
    At end of year four   637 692 883 1,024 969 892 1,240        
    At end of year five   607 677 860 974 950 886          
    At end of year six   599 663 840 978 925            
    At end of year seven   586 640 820 946              
    At end of year eight   579 635 825                
    At end of year nine   577 644                  
    Ten years later   580                    
    Net of XoL best estimates of undiscounted claims 3,773 580 644 825 946 925 886 1,240 1,517 1,776 1,220 14,332
    Cumulative
    claims paid
    (3,666) (568) (618) (782) (906) (822) (733) (924) (1,104) (1,105) (561) (11,789)
    Net of XoL undiscounted best estimate liabilities 107 12 26 43 40 103 153 316 413 671 659 2,543
    Risk adjustment (undiscounted)                       428
    Effect of discounting                       (543)
    Net of XoL
    claims liabilities
                          2,428
    Ancillary claims and expense liabilities                       107
    UK Motor Net of XoL liabilities for incurred claims                       2,535

    Claims development net of reinsurance

    Financial year ended 31 December 2024
    Underwriting year 2014 & prior 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total
      £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m
    UK Motor (core)                        
    At end of year one   378 427 493 625 626 520 657 762 939 1,220  
    At end of year two   682 783 1,016 1,086 1,033 949 1,259 1,442 1,776    
    At end of year three   667 743 886 1,018 986 927 1,239 1,470      
    At end of year four   637 692 853 990 969 892 1,236        
    At end of year five   607 677 830 957 950 886          
    At end of year six   599 663 811 944 925            
    At end of year seven   586 640 793 913              
    At end of year eight   579 635 798                
    At end of year nine   577 644                  
    Ten years later   580                    
    Net best estimates of undiscounted claims 3,773 580 644 798 913 925 886 1,236 1,470 1,776 1,220 14,221
    Cumulative net
    claims paid
    (3,666) (568) (618) (755) (874) (822) (733) (924) (1,104) (1,105) (561) (11,730)
    Net undiscounted best
    estimate liabilities
    107 12 26 43 39 103 153 312 366 671 659 2,491
    Risk adjustment (undiscounted)                       419
    Effect of discounting                       (528)
    Net claims liabilities                       2,382
    Ancillary claims and
    expense liabilities
                          72
    UK Motor Net liabilities for
    incurred claims
                          2,454

    (v) UK Motor Loss ratios and Changes to liabilities for incurred claims

    The table below shows the development of UK Motor Insurance loss ratios for the past three financial periods, presented on an underwriting year basis, both using undiscounted amounts (i.e. cashflows) and discounted amounts.

      31 December
    UK Motor Insurance loss ratio development – undiscounted*, net of excess of loss reinsurance 2021 2022 2023 2024
    Underwriting year        
    2019 73% 71% 67% 64%
    2020 68% 65% 58% 57%
    2021 95% 91% 86% 82%
    2022 —% 104% 96% 91%
    2023 —% —% 94% 80%
    2024 —% —% —% 77%

    * Booked undiscounted loss ratios presented from the transition date of IFRS 17 (1 January 2022) onwards.

      31 December
    UK Motor Insurance loss ratio development – discounted*, net of excess of loss reinsurance 2021 2022 2023 2024
    Underwriting year        
    2019 71% 69% 65% 63%
    2020 67% 63% 57% 55%
    2021 92% 86% 81% 77%
    2022 —% 97% 88% 83%
    2023 —% —% 86% 72%
    2024 —% —% —% 71%

    * Loss ratios using discounted locked-in curves, excluding finance expenses are presented from the transition date of IFRS 17 (1 January 2022) onwards.

    The following table analyses the impact of movements in changes to liabilities from incurred claims by underwriting year on a gross and net of excess of loss reinsurance basis for UK Motor.

      31 December 2024
    £m
    31 December 2023
    £m
    Gross    
    Underwriting year    
    2019 & prior 173.7 152.9
    2020 41.8 98.2
    2021 87.0 76.4
    2022 107.1 79.4
    2023 83.8 0.0
    2024 0.0 0.0
    Total UK Motor gross changes to liabilities for incurred claims 493.4 406.9
    Net    
    Underwriting year    
    2019 & prior 99.6 145.6
    2020 30.5 97.7
    2021 70.6 80.1
    2022 94.5 69.4
    2023 76.7 0.0
    2024 0.0 0.0
    Total UK Motor net of excess of loss changes to liabilities for incurred claims 371.9 392.8

    6. Investment income and finance costs

    6a. Investment return

      31 December 2024
    £m
    31 December 2023
    £m
      At EIR Other Total At EIR Other Total
    Investment return            
    On assets classified as FVTPL 67.1 67.1 43.3 43.3
    On assets classified as FVOCI1 3 100.4 5.2 105.6 77.0 (3.6) 73.4
    On assets classified as amortised cost1 5.9 5.9 4.1 4.1
                 
    Net unrealised losses            
    Unrealised (loss) / gain on forward contracts (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2)
    Share of associate profit/ loss (1.0) (1.0) (1.3) (1.3)
    Interest income on cash and cash equivalents1 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.4
    Investment fees (2.0) (2.0) (1.8) (1.8)
    Total investment and interest income2 106.3 74.6 180.9 81.1 41.8 122.9

    1 Interest received during the year was £90.6 million (2023: £76.8 million).

    2 Total investment return excludes £7.9 million of intra-group interest (2023: £3.2 million).

    3 Realised losses on sales of debt securities classified as FVOCI are £4.5 million (2023: £0.9 million).

    6b. Finance costs

      31 December 2024
    £m
    31 December 2023
    £m
    Interest expense on subordinated loan notes and other credit facilities1 2 24.5 18.5
    Interest expense on lease liabilities 2.6 2.0
    Interest recoverable from co-insurers (0.6) (0.4)
    Total finance costs 26.5 20.1

    1 Interest paid during the year was £27.0 million (2023: £20.5 million).

    2 See note 7 for details of credit facilities.

    Finance costs represent interest payable on the £250.0 million (2023: £305.1 million) subordinated notes and other financial liabilities.

    Interest expense on lease liabilities represents the unwinding of the discount on lease liabilities under IFRS 16.

    6c. Expected credit losses

      31 December 2024
    £m
    31 December 2023
    £m
    Expected credit (gains)/losses on financial investments 6.3 (2.5)
    Expected credit losses on loans and advances to customers1 28.3 33.5
    Total expense for expected credit losses 34.6 31.0

    1 Includes £26.1 million (2023: £15.0 million) of write-offs, with total movement in the expected credit loss provision being £28.3 million (2023: £33.5 million).

    6d. Financial assets and liabilities

    The Group’s financial assets and liabilities can be analysed as follows:

      31 December 2024
    £m
    31 December 2023
    £m
    Financial investments measured at FVTPL    
    Money market funds 902.6 587.5
    Other funds1 473.9 301.3
    Derivative financial instruments 5.8 17.6
    Equity investments (designated FVTPL) 46.9 12.4
      1,429.2 918.8
    Financial investments classified as FVOCI    
    Corporate debt securities 2,410.9 2,040.6
    Government debt securities2 772.2 519.6
    Private debt securities 152.3 242.7
      3,335.4 2,802.9
    Equity investments (designated FVOCI) 23.0
      3,335.4 2,825.9
    Financial assets measured at amortised cost    
    Deposits with credit institutions 91.7 116.7
    Other    
    Investment in Associate 1.0
    Investment Property 6.9
    Total financial investments 4,863.2 3,862.4
         
    Other financial assets (measured at amortised cost)    
    Insurance related receivables 51.1 272.7
    Trade and other receivables 110.4 75.0
    Insurance related and other receivables 161.5 347.7
    Loans and advances to customers (note 7) 1,106.9 879.4
    Cash and cash equivalents 313.6 353.1
    Total financial assets 6,445.2 5,442.6
    Financial liabilities    
    Subordinated notes 258.9 315.2
    Loan backed securities 937.7 759.6
    Other borrowings 117.4 55.0
    Derivative financial instruments 8.2
    Subordinated and other financial liabilities 1,322.2 1,129.8
    Trade and other payables3 175.3 305.8
    Lease liabilities 79.6 81.2
    Total financial liabilities 1,577.1 1,516.8

    1Other funds include funds which primarily invest in fixed income securities are recognised as fair value through profit and loss
    2Government debt securities include £0.6 million of short term UK government bonds held for collateral against foreign exchange hedging derivatives

    3Trade and other payables include deferred income, accruals and other tax and social security.

    The table below shows how the financial assets and liabilities held at fair value have been measured using the fair value hierarchy:

      31 December 2024 31 December 2023
      FVTPL
    £m
    FVOCI
    £m
    FVTPL
    £m
    FVOCI
    £m
    Level one (quoted prices in active markets) 1,221.2 3,183.1 888.8 2,560.1
    Level two (use of observable inputs) (2.4) 17.6
    Level three (use of significant unobservable inputs) 202.2 152.3 12.4 265.8
    Total 1,421.0 3,335.4 918.8 2,825.9

    Level three investments consist of debt investments and equity investments.

    Debt investments are comprised primarily of investments in funds which invest in debt securities, these are valued at the proportion of the Group’s holding of the Net Asset Value (NAV) reported by the investment vehicle. These include funds that invest in corporate direct lending, residential and commercial mortgages, infrastructure debt and other private debt. In addition, there is a small allocation of privately placed bonds which do not trade on active markets, these are valued using discounted cash-flow models designed to appropriately reflect the credit and illiquidity of these instruments; these valuations are performed by the external fund managers. The key unobservable input across private debt securities is the discount rate which is based on the credit performance of the assets. A deterioration of the credit performance or expected future performance will result in higher discount rates and lower values.

    As these debt investments are held within investment funds where appropriate the Group elects to treat these investments as equity through OCI. Debt investments in which the funds are closed ended are classified as FVTPL within Other funds (2024: £154.8 million).

    Equity securities are primarily comprised of investments in Private Equity and Infrastructure Equity funds, which are valued at the proportion of the Group’s holding of the NAV reported by the investment vehicle. These are based on several unobservable inputs including market multiples and cashflow forecasts. These are held at FVTPL, with realised and unrealised gains/losses flowing through the P&L.

    There were no significant inter-relationships between unobservable inputs that materially affect fair values.

    The table below presents the movement in the period relating to financial instruments valued using a level three valuation:

    31 December 2024
    £m
    Level Three Investments Equity Investments Debt Investments Total
    Balance as at 1 January 2024 35.5 242.7 278.2
    Gains/(losses) recognised in the Income Statement (4.5) 9.6 5.1
    Gains/(losses) recognised in Other Comprehensive Income (2.8) (2.8)
    Purchases 16.1 94.9 111.0
    Disposals (0.2) (36.8) (37.0)
    Balance as at 31 December 2024 46.9 307.6 354.5
    31 December 2023
    £m
    Level Three Investments Equity Investments Debt Investments Total
    Balance as at 1 January 2023 31.6 166.6 198.2
    Gains/(losses) recognised in the Income Statement (0.1) 10.0 9.9
    Gains/(losses) recognised in Other Comprehensive Income (1.0) 0.8 (0.2)
    Purchases 6.1 89.6 95.7
    Disposals (1.1) (24.3) (25.4)
    Balance as at 31 December 2023 35.5 242.7 278.2

    7. Loans and Advances to Customers

      31 December 2024
    £m
    31 December 2023
    £m
    Loans and advances to customers – gross carrying amount 1,174.0 956.8
    Loans and advances to customers – provision (84.3) (81.7)
    Total loans and advances to customers – Admiral Money 1,089.7 875.1
    Total loans and advances to customers – Other 17.2 4.3
    Total loans and advances to customers 1,106.9 879.4

    Loans and advances to customers are comprised of the following:

      31 December 2024
    £m
    31 December 2023
    £m
    Unsecured personal loans 1,155.6 937.7
    Finance leases 18.4 19.1
    Other 18.6 4.4
    Total loans and advances to customers, gross 1,192.6 961.2

    Forward-looking information

    Under IFRS 9 the provision must reflect an unbiased and probability-weighted amount that is determined by evaluating a range of possible outcomes. The means by which the Group has determined this is to run scenario analysis.

    Management judgment has been used to define the weighting and severity of the different scenarios based on available data.

    As at December 2024 there are three key economic drivers of credit losses factored into the scenarios, as follows:

    • UK Unsecured Debt to Income (‘DTI’)
    • UK Employment Hazard Rates
    • Annual UK GDP % Change

    The variables are combined using a statistical model which will estimate the relative change in the PD of an account for each scenario over the life of the loan. The Group has moved from a single variable model as at December 2023 (Unemployment) to model containing three drivers in recognition of the fact that there are multiple macroeconomic drivers which can influence the direction of default rates.

    The scenario weighting assumptions used are detailed below, along with the annual peak for each economic driver assumed in each scenario at 31 December 2024.

      For the Forecast Year Ended
    At 31 December 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
      % % % % %
    Base – 50%          
    Gross domestic product 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7
    Unemployment rate 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.1 4.1
    UK Household Unsecured Debt to Income 13.2 13.7 14.1 14.4 14.5
    Upside – 10%          
    Gross domestic product 2.7 3.0 1.8 1.6 1.8
    Unemployment rate 4.2 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8
    UK Household Unsecured Debt to Income 12.6 12.3 11.9 12.2 12.3
    Downside – 30%          
    Gross domestic product 0.9 0.1 3.0 3.0 2.7
    Unemployment rate 5.6 6.0 5.6 4.9 4.6
    UK Household Unsecured Debt to Income 13.4 14.5 15.0 15.1 15.1
    Severe – 10%          
    Gross domestic product 0.8         (1.1) 2.6 3.4 3.1
    Unemployment rate 6.6 8.0 7.9 6.8 6.1
    UK Household Unsecured Debt to Income 13.6 15.0 15.7 15.9 16.1
    Probability-weighted          
    Gross domestic product 1.4 1.0 2.1 2.3 2.1
    Unemployment rate 5.0 5.1 4.9 4.6 4.4
    UK Household Unsecured Debt to Income 13.2 13.9 14.3 14.5 14.6
      For the Forecast Year Ended
    At 31 December 2023 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
      % % % % %
    Base – 50%          
    Gross domestic product 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.9
    Unemployment rate 4.7 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.1
    UK Household Unsecured Debt to Income 13.8 14.2 14.4 14.5 14.5
    Upside – 10%          
    Gross domestic product 2.7 2.4 2.1 1.6 1.4
    Unemployment rate 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.9
    UK Household Unsecured Debt to Income 12.5 12.4 12.5 12.5 12.4
    Downside – 30%          
    Gross domestic product 0.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.3
    Unemployment rate 6.0 5.7 4.9 4.6 4.5
    UK Household Unsecured Debt to Income 14.5 14.8 15.0 15.2 15.2
    Severe – 10%          
    Gross domestic product         (1.8) 3.0 3.9 3.9 3.0
    Unemployment rate 8.0 8.0 6.7 5.9 5.4
    UK Household Unsecured Debt to Income 15.1 15.7 15.9 16.1 16.2
    Probability-weighted          
    Gross domestic product 0.8 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.1
    Unemployment rate 5.3 4.9 4.6 4.4 4.3
    UK Household Unsecured Debt to Income 14.0 14.4 14.6 14.7 14.7

    The economic scenarios and forecasts have been updated in conjunction with a third party economics provider. The probability weightings reflect the view that there is a probability of 40% attached to recessionary outcomes. 

    Sensitivities to key areas of estimation uncertainty

    The key areas of estimation uncertainty identified, as per note 2 to the financial statements, are in the probability of default (‘PD’) and the forward-looking scenarios.

      31 December 2024
    Weighting
    31 December 2024
    Sensitivity
    31 December 2023
    Weighting
    31 December 2023
    Sensitivity
    Base 50% (1.7) 50% (1.1)
    Upturn 30% (3.3) 10% (5.2)
    Downturn 10% 2.9 30% 2.5
    Severe 10% 6.3 10% 8.2

    The sensitivities in the above tables show the variance to expected credit loss (‘ECL’) that would be expected if the given scenario unfolded rather than the weighted position the provision is based on. At 31 December 2024 the implied weighted peak unemployment rate is 5.0%: the table shows that in a downturn scenario with a 5.6% peak unemployment rate the provision would increase by £2.9 million, whilst the upturn would reduce the provision by £3.3 million, base case reduce by £1.7 million and severe increase the provision by £6.3 million.

    Stage 1 assets represent 86.6% of the total loan assets; 0.1% increase in the stage 1 PD, i.e. from 2.3% to 2.4% would result in a £0.8 million increase in ECL.

    Judgements required – Post Model Adjustments (‘PMA’s)

    As at 31 December 2024, the expected credit loss allowance included PMAs totalling £4.6 million (2023: £9.2 million).

    Post Model Adjustments 31 December 2024
    £m
    31 December 2023
    £m
    Model performance 1.5 2.0
    Cost of Living 1.3 6.5
    Economic scenarios 1.8 0.7
      4.6 9.2

    PMAs are calculated using management judgement and analysis. The key categories of PMAs are as follows:

    Model performance

    The Loss Given Default (‘LGD’) model considers long run recoveries over a period of up to five years post default. A potential shortfall has been identified for customers that roll straight through the arrears buckets up the point of write off. Although this shortfall is immaterial, an adjustment has been made to ensure it is accounted for in our expected credit loss.

    Cost of Living

    This PMA captures the risk of customers falling into a negative affordability position, whereby customers are no longer able to meet their credit commitments due to higher expenditure driven by increased mortgage payments, when their standard variable or fixed term rate comes to an end. A PMA is held to acknowledge this, using both external and internal data.

    Economic scenarios

    A new econometric model has been implemented to derive our forward-looking view of ECL’s. The model is sensitive to the timing of forecasted peaks in, for example, unemployment rates. Given increased uncertainty driven by geo-political events, management has made an adjustment equivalent to a six-month advancement in the peak point of each scenario.

    Write off policy

    Loans are written off where there is no reasonable expectation of recovery. The Group considers there to be no reasonable expectation of recovery where an extensive set of collections processes has been completed, the debt is statute barred, the debtor cannot be traced or is deceased, or in situations involving significant financial hardship. The Group’s policy is to write down balances to their estimated net realisable value. Write offs are actioned on a case-by-case basis taking into account the operational position and the collections strategy.

    Credit grade information

            31 December 2024 31 December 2023
      Stage 1 
    12 month ECL 
    £m 
    Stage 2 
    Lifetime ECL 
    £m
    Stage 3  
    Lifetime ECL 
    £m
    Total 
    £m
    Total 
    £m
    Credit Grade1          
    Higher 786.5 67.6 854.1 649.3
    Medium 171.2 21.3 192.5 186.6
    Lower 53.9 9.1 63.0 65.4
    Credit impaired 64.4 64.4 55.5
    Gross carrying amount 1,011.6 98.0 64.4 1,174.0 956.8
    Expected credit loss allowance (15.5) (19.8) (48.5) (83.8) (81.1)
    Other loss allowance2 (0.5) (0.5) (0.6)
    Carrying amount – Admiral Money 995.6 78.2 15.9 1,089.7 875.1
    Carrying amount – Other 16.8 0.3 0.1 17.2 4.3
    Carrying amount 1,012.4 78.5 16.0 1,106.9 879.4

    1Credit grade is the internal credit banding given to a customer at origination. This is based on external credit rating information.

    2Other loss allowance covers losses due to a reduction in current or future vehicle value or costs associated with recovery and sale of vehicles and those as a result of changes in the performance of the EIR asset.

    8. Other revenue and co-insurer profit commission

      31 December 2024
      UK Insurance
    £m
    International Insurance
    £m
    Admiral Money
    £m
    Other
    £m
    Total Group
    £m
    Major products/service line        
    Fee and commission revenue 119.5 0.1 0.2 0.2 120.0
    Revenue from law firm 16.3 16.3
    Comparison income
    Total other revenue 135.8 0.1 0.2 0.2 136.3
    Profit commission from co-insurers 53.3 53.3
    Total other revenue and co-insurer profit commission 189.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 189.6
               
    Timing of revenue recognition          
    Point in time 139.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 139.5
    Over time 50.1 50.1
      189.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 189.6
      31 December 2023
      UK Insurance
    £m
    International Insurance
    £m
    Admiral Money
    £m
    Other
    £m
    Total Group
    £m
    Major products/service line        
    Fee and commission revenue 107.2 0.1 107.3
    Revenue from law firm 18.3 18.3
    Comparison income 1.6 1.6
    Total other revenue 125.5 0.1 1.6 127.2
    Profit commission from co-insurers 76.5 2.0 78.5
    Total other revenue and co-insurer profit commission 202.0 2.0 0.1 1.6 205.7
               
    Timing of revenue recognition          
    Point in time 160.4 2.0 0.1 1.6 164.1
    Over time 41.6 41.6
      202.0 2.0 0.1 1.6 205.7

    Profit commission

    The cumulative profit commission recognised at each point in time is calculated in aggregate across the contract, in line with contract terms, based on a number of detailed inputs for each individual underwriting year, the most material of which are as follows:

    • Premiums, defined as gross premiums ceded including any instalment income, less reinsurance premium (for excess of loss reinsurance).
    • Insurance expenses incurred.
    • Claims costs incurred.
      • The Group uses the expected value method for the initial calculation of profit commission revenue, based on known premiums and expenses, and the best estimate of claims costs.
      • The variable revenue estimated using the expected value method above is constrained through the inclusion of the risk adjustment within the claims cost element of the calculation, with the profit commission recognised aligned to the IFRS 17 booked loss ratios, discounted at locked-in rates, and inclusive of finance expense. The inclusion of the risk adjustment constrains the cumulative profit commission revenue recognised to a level where there is a high probability of no significant reversal.

    The key methods, inputs and assumptions used to estimate the variable consideration of profit commission are therefore in line with those used for the calculation of claims liabilities, as set out in note 3 to the financial statements, with further detail also included in note 5. There are no further critical accounting estimates or judgements in relation to the recognition of profit commission.

      31 December 2024
    £m
    31 December 2023
    £m
    Underwriting year    
    2020 & prior 51.7 76.5
    2021
    2022
    2023
    2024 1.6
    Total UK motor profit commission 53.3 76.5

    9. Directly attributable and other expenses

      31 December 2024
      Directly attributable expenses
    £m
    Other operating expenses
    £m
    Total expenses
    £m
    Administration and acquisition expenses 1,015.9 121.3 1,137.2
    Expenses relating to additional products and fees 46.2 46.2
    Share scheme expenses 58.6 35.3 93.9
    Loan expenses (excluding movement on ECL provision) 29.9 29.9
    Movement in expected credit loss provision 34.6 34.6
    Profit on disposal of Insurify share option (12.5) (12.5)
    Other1 73.4 73.4
    Total 1,074.5 328.2 1,402.7
      31 December 2023
      Directly attributable expenses
    £m
    Other operating expenses
    £m
    Total expenses
    £m
    Administration and acquisition expenses 836.8 100.8 937.6
    Expenses relating to additional products and fees 41.4 41.4
    Share scheme expenses 55.3 28.5 83.8
    Loan expenses (excluding movement on ECL provision) 23.0 23.0
    Movement in expected credit loss provision 31.0 31.0
    Other1 57.1 57.1
    Total 892.1 281.8 1,173.9

    1 Other includes centralised costs primarily for employees and projects (2024: £49.9 million, 2023: £34.5 million), business development costs (2024: £19.9 million, 2023: £15.3 million) and other costs (2024: £3.6 million, 2023: £7.3 million).

    10. Taxation

      31 December 2024
    £m
    31 December 2023
    £m
    Current tax    
    Corporation tax on profits for the year 139.3 91.6
    Under provision relating to prior periods 1.8 21.3
    Pillar Two income taxes 15.4
    Current tax charge 156.5 112.9
    Deferred tax    
    Current period deferred taxation movement 16.4 0.7
    Under/(over) provision relating to prior periods 3.4 (8.0)
    Total tax charge per Consolidated Income Statement 176.3 105.6

    Factors affecting the total tax charge are:

      31 December 2024
    £m
    31 December 2023
    £m
    Profit before tax 839.2 442.8
    Corporation tax thereon at effective UK corporation tax rate of 25% (2023: 23.5%) 209.8 104.1
    Expenses and provisions not deductible for tax purposes 4.1 3.0
    Non-taxable income (21.3) (13.4)
    Impact of change in UK tax rate on deferred tax balances (0.4)
    Adjustments relating to prior periods 5.2 13.5
    Impact of Pillar Two income taxes 15.4
    Impact of different overseas tax rates (45.5) (8.9)
    Unrecognised deferred tax 8.6 7.7
    Total tax charge for the period as above 176.3 105.6

    Corporation tax assets as at 31 December 2024 totaled £18.1 million, with corporation tax liabilities of £35.0 million (2023: £20.4 million asset and £4.9 million liabilities). Corporation tax liabilities includes £15.4 million (2023: £nil) relating to Pillar Two income taxes.

    The UK corporation tax rate for 2024 is 25% (2023: 23.5%).

    The Group are within the scope of the OECD Pillar Two model rules which aims to ensure that large, multinational corporations pay their fair share of tax in the countries in which they operate by introducing a new global minimum corporate income tax rate of 15%. Under the new rules, top-up taxes can be payable either by the UK ultimate parent company or by an overseas entity if a jurisdiction has an effective tax rate of less than 15%, as calculated under the rules. Legislation has been enacted in various countries (including the United Kingdom), with the rules first coming into effect for the Group from 1 January 2024.

    A current tax expense of £15.4 million has been included in the total tax charge for the year ended 31 December 2024, which relates to estimated top-up taxes payable by a subsidiary undertaking in Gibraltar, where the statutory corporate tax rate applicable for the year ended 31 December 2024 is 13.8% (due to a change in the rate from 12.5% to 15% from 1 July 2024). No top-up taxes for the year ended 31 December 2024 are expected to arise in relation to operations in other countries. The Pillar Two rules are complex and the Group continues to monitor ongoing developments in legislation and guidance to assess the impact.

    The Group has applied the temporary mandatory exception to recognising and disclosing information about deferred tax assets and liabilities related to Pillar Two income taxes, as provided in the amendments to IAS 12 issued in May 2023.

    11. Other Assets and Other Liabilities

    11a. Intangible assets

    Renewal Rights (included within Customer contracts, relationships and brand)

    Renewal rights are recognised as an intangible asset and amortised using the reducing balance method over an expected useful life determined as ranging between nine and fourteen years. Renewal rights on initial recognition have been recognised at fair value arising through an acquisition.

    The carrying value of renewal rights is reviewed every six months for evidence of impairment, with the value being written down if any impairment exists. Impairment may be reversed if conditions subsequently improve.

    Brand (included within Customer contracts, relationships and brand)

    Brand rights are recognised as an intangible asset and amortised using the straight line method over an expected useful life of fifteen years. Brand rights on initial recognition have been recognised at its fair value arising through an acquisition.

    The carrying value of brand rights is reviewed every six months for evidence of impairment, with the value being written down if any impairment exists. Impairment may be reversed if conditions subsequently improve.

    Goodwill

    All business combinations are accounted for using the acquisition method. Goodwill has been recognised on acquisitions of trade and assets representing a business and/or acquisition of subsidiaries and represents the difference between the cost of the acquisition and the fair value of the net identifiable assets acquired.

    Goodwill is stated at cost less any accumulated impairment losses. Goodwill is allocated to cash generating units (CGUs) according to business segment and is reviewed every six months for evidence of impairment and tested annually for impairment.

      Goodwill
    £m
    Customer contracts, relationships and brand
    £m
    Software – Internally generated
    £m
    Software – Other
    £m
    Total
    £m
    At 1 January 2023 62.3 136.4 18.9 217.6
    Additions 7.9 51.1 7.7 66.7
    Amortisation charge (34.8) (5.5) (40.3)
    Disposals (0.1) (0.1)
    Impairment (0.2) (0.2)
    Foreign exchange movement & other movements (0.4) (0.4) (0.8)
    At 31 December 2023 62.3 7.9 152.0 20.7 242.9
    Additions 49.8 44.5 48.8 3.1 146.2
    Amortisation charge (2.8) (54.5) (4.3) (61.6)
    Disposals (0.3) (0.4) (0.7)
    Impairment (3.5) (0.9) (4.4)
    Transfers 6.2 (6.2)
    Foreign exchange movement & other movements (0.3) (0.6) (0.5) (1.4)
    At 31 December 2024 112.1 49.3 148.1 11.5 321.0

    Customer contracts, relationships and brand includes Home and Pet renewal rights which has a net carrying value of £34.5 million as at 31 December 2024 and an amortisation period of 9 years for Home renewal rights and 14 years for Pet renewal rights. See note 13 for further information. Internally generated software includes a new claims system implemented within the UK business in the year which has a carrying amount of £33.2 million as at 31 December 2024 and a remaining amortisation period of 2.8 years.

    Goodwill relates to the acquisition of Group subsidiary EUI Limited (formerly Admiral Insurance Services Limited) in November 1999, and on the purchase of the direct Home and Pet renewal rights from the RSA Insurance Group Limited (‘RSA’) in April 2024. The carrying amount of goodwill as at 31 December 2024 is £112.1 million (2023: £62.3 million).

    11b. Trade and other payables

      31 December 2024
    £m
    31 December 2023
    £m
    Trade payables 52.4 42.3
    Other tax and social security 12.5 11.9
    Amounts owed to co-insurers 156.9
    Other payables 34.0 42.5
    Accruals and deferred income 76.4 52.2
    Total trade and other payables 175.3 305.8
         
    Analysis of accruals and deferred income    
    Accruals 48.2 28.3
    Deferred income 28.2 23.9
    Total accruals and deferred income as above 76.4 52.2

    11c. Contingent liabilities

    The Group’s legal entities operate in numerous tax jurisdictions and on a regular basis are subject to review and enquiry by the relevant tax authority.

    One of the Group’s previously owned subsidiaries was subject to a Spanish Tax Audit which concluded with the Tax Authority denying the application of the VAT exemption relating to insurance intermediary services. The Company has appealed this decision via the Spanish Courts and is confident in defending its position which is, in its view, in line with the EU Directive and is also consistent with the way similar supplies are treated throughout Europe. Whilst the Company is no longer part of the Admiral Group, the contingent liability which the Company is exposed to has been indemnified by the Admiral Group up to a cap of €24 million.

    No material provisions have been made in these financial statements in relation to the matters noted above. 

    The Group notes the ongoing Court of Appeal ruling relating to non-disclosure of commission to dealers in relation to motor finance. Prior to the Group’s re-launch of motor finance lending, all lending was through price comparison websites. The Group had no lending through dealers and no discretionary commission structures in place. Accordingly the Group does not have an ongoing exposure to commission arrangements of this nature and therefore has not recognised any contingent liability in relation to the case.

    The Group continues to monitor regulatory developments, including the Supreme Court decision which is expected later in 2025, ensuring the customer acquisition practices remain fully aligned with legal and regulatory requirements and industry best practices.

    The Group is, from time to time, subject to threatened or actual litigation and/or legal and/or regulatory disputes, investigations or similar actions both in the UK and overseas. All potentially material matters are assessed, with the assistance of external advisors if appropriate, and in cases where it is concluded that it is more likely than not that a payment will be made, a provision is established to reflect the best estimate of the liability. In some cases it will not be possible to form a view, for example if the facts are unclear or because further time is needed to properly assess the merits of the case or form a reliable estimate of its financial effect. In these circumstances, specific disclosure of a contingent liability and an estimate of its financial effect will be made where material, unless it is not practicable to do so.

    The Directors do not consider that the final outcome of any such current case will have a material adverse effect on the Group’s financial position, operations or cashflows, and as such, no material provisions are currently held in relation to such matters.

    A number of the Group’s contractual arrangements with reinsurers include features that, in certain scenarios, allow for reinsurers to recover losses incurred to date. The overall impact of such scenarios would not lead to an overall net economic outflow from the Group.

    12. Dividends, Earnings and Related Parties

    12a. Dividends

    Dividends were proposed, approved and paid as follows:

      31 December 2024
    £m
    31 December 2023
    £m
    Proposed March 2023 (52.0 pence per share, approved April 2023 and paid June 2023) 154.9
    Declared August 2023 (51.0 pence per share, paid October 2023) 152.2
    Proposed March 2024 (52.0 pence per share, approved April 2024 and paid May 2024) 156.2
    Declared August 2024 (71.0 pence per share, paid October 2024) 213.6
    Total dividends 369.8 307.1

    The dividends proposed in March (approved in April) represent the final dividends paid in respect of the 2022 and 2023 financial years. The dividends declared in August are interim distributions in respect of 2023 and 2024.

    A 2024 final dividend of 121.0 pence per share (approximately £366.6 million) has been proposed. Refer to the financial narrative for further detail.

    12b. Earnings per share

      31 December 2024
    £m
    31 December 2023
    £m
    Profit for the financial year after taxation attributable to equity shareholders 663.3 338.0
    Weighted average number of shares – basic 306,304,676 303,989,170
    Unadjusted earnings per share – basic 216.6p 111.2p
    Weighted average number of shares – diluted 306,304,676 305,052,941
    Unadjusted earnings per share – diluted 216.6p 110.8p

    The difference between the basic and diluted number of shares at the end of 2024 (being nil; 2023: 1,063,771) relates to awards committed, but not yet issued under the Group’s share schemes. Refer to note 9 for further detail.

    12c. Share capital

      31 December 2024
    £m
    31 December 2023
    £m
    Authorised    
    500,000,00 ordinary shares of 0.1 pence 0.5 0.5
    Issued, called up and fully paid    
    306,304,676 ordinary shares of 0.1 pence 0.3 0.3

    12d. Related party transactions

    The Board considers that only the Executive and Non-Executive Directors of Admiral Group plc are key management personnel.

    Further detail on the remuneration and shareholdings of key management personnel will be set out in the Directors’ Remuneration Report in the Group’s 2024 Annual Report.

    12e. Post balance sheet events

    During February 2025, the Group entered into an agreement with a third party which resulted in the sale of back book loans with a total carrying value of around £150 million. This agreement, signed after the reporting date, provides for the transfer of these loans to the counterparty in accordance with the agreed terms. Accordingly, no adjustment has been made to the financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2024.

    The financial impact of the sale, including any gain arising from the transaction, will be recognised in the Group’s financial statements for the year ending 31 December 2025.

    In early March 2025, Admiral entered into a memorandum of understanding with a counterparty with a view to signing a purchase agreement to sell Elephant. The agreement, if signed, would be subject to regulatory approval.

    No further events have occurred since the reporting date that materially impact these financial statements.

    13. Business combinations

    As at 2nd April 2024, Admiral successfully completed the purchase of the direct Home and Pet renewal rights from the RSA Insurance Group Limited (‘RSA’), a general insurer based in the UK. The transaction includes the renewal rights, the “More Than” brand and the transfer of more than 280 people but does not include liabilities relating to existing policies which will remain with RSA. The acquisition is closely aligned to Admiral’s strategy to diversify its product offering and build multi-product customer relationships in its core markets. It will strengthen Admiral’s home business and accelerate its direct pet proposition launched in 2022.

    The consideration included an initial cash payment of £82.5 million with contingent consideration of £32.5 million. The contingent consideration has a range of £nil to a maximum of £32.5 million dependent on the number of policies successfully migrated to Admiral. The fair value of the contingent consideration has a value of £2.7 million and is based on a probability weighted scenario including an element of discounting relating to the timing of payments.

    The amounts recognised in respect of the identifiable assets acquired at at the acquisition date are as set out in the table below:

      £m
    Total consideration  
    Amount settled in cash 82.5
    Fair value of contingent consideration 2.7
    Total consideration 85.2
       
    Identifiable assets acquired  
    Renewal Rights 36.4
    Brand 8.1
    Total identifiable assets acquired 44.5
       
    Purchase price recognised as Goodwill 40.7
    Additional Goodwill recognised on Deferred Tax Liability 9.1
    Total Goodwill recognised on acquisition 49.8

    A deferred tax liability has been recognised of £9.1million based upon a tax base cost of £36.4 million representing the fair value of the renewal rights. A corresponding increase in goodwill of £9.1 million is recognised as a result. The goodwill and brand are not considered deductible for tax purposes. The deferred tax liability will unwind in line with the amortisation of the renewal rights acquired.

    The recognition of goodwill reflects the synergies arising through the transaction including operational, capital, pricing and risk synergies, as well as the attributable value to the workforce in place.

    The policies in relation to the acquisition started renewing in July 2024. As at 31 December 2024, transaction costs of £6.5 million have been recognised within operating expenses, along with integration costs of £11.9 million within insurance expenses. The impact of the acquisition if it had happened as at the start of the reporting period is impractical for disclosure given the nature of the trade and assets acquired for integration.

    The acquisition contributed £42.3 million of total premiums written and £9.9 million of insurance revenue, and £3.8 million of expenses for the period between the date of acquisition and the reporting date. Due to the acquired renewal rights being fully integrated into the existing business lines, it is impracticable to separately identify the specific profit contributions.

    14. Reconciliation of turnover to reported insurance premium and other revenue as per the financial statements

    The following table reconciles turnover, a significant Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and non-GAAP measure presented within the Strategic Report, to insurance revenue, as presented in note 4 to the financial statements.

      Consolidated Financial Statement Note 31 December 2024
    £m
    31 December 2023
    £m
    Insurance revenue related movement in liability for remaining coverage 5b 4,776.2 3,486.1
    Less other insurance revenue   (281.7) (202.8)
    Insurance premium revenue   4,494.5 3,283.3
    Movement in unearned premium and cancellations   346.7 528.3
    Premiums written after coinsurance   4,841.2 3,811.6
    Co-insurer share of written premiums   778.4 577.8
    Total premiums written   5,619.6 4,389.4
    Other insurance revenue 5b 281.7 202.8
    Other revenue 8 136.3 127.2
    Interest income on loans to customers   109.1 92.1
    Turnover as per note 4 of financial statements   6,146.7 4,811.5

    APPENDIX 1 TO THE GROUP FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (unaudited)

    1a: Reconciliation of reported loss and expense ratios: Group

            31 December 2024
    £m Consolidated Financial Statement Note Core product Ancillary income Total gross Total, net of XoL reinsurance
    Insurance premium revenue   4,329.9 164.6 4,494.5 4,329.4
    Administration fees, instalment income and non-separable ancillary commission   281.7 281.7 281.7
    Insurance revenue (A) 5b/5d 4,329.9 446.3 4,776.2 4,611.1
    Insurance expenses (B) 5c (951.4) (64.5) (1,015.9) (1,015.9)
    Claims incurred (C) 5c/5d (2,976.9) (61.1) (3,038.0) (2,980.7)
    Claims releases (D) 5c/5d 556.8 3.2 559.9 425.1
    Claims incurred and releases excluding Ogden1 (E)         (2,661.7)
    Quota share reinsurance result2 4         (294.1)
    Onerous loss component movement3         1.5
    Underwriting result (F)         747.0
    Net share scheme costs4         (36.7)
    Insurance service result         710.3
    Reported loss ratio ((C+D)/A)         55.4%
    Reported loss ratio excluding Ogden1(E/A)         57.7%
    Reported expense ratio (B/A)         22.0%
    Insurance service margin (F/A)         16.2%
            31 December 2023
    £m Consolidated Financial Statement Note Core product Ancillary income Total gross Total, net of XoL reinsurance
    Insurance premium revenue   3,152.3 131.0 3,283.3 3,170.6
    Administration fees, instalment income and non-separable ancillary commission   202.8 202.8 202.8
    Insurance revenue (A) 5b/5d 3,152.3 333.8 3,486.1 3,373.4
    Insurance expenses (B) 5c (795.2) (41.6) (836.8) (836.8)
    Claims incurred (C) 5c/5d (2,624.6) (40.5) (2,665.1) (2,605.8)
    Claims releases (D) 5c/5d 440.6 440.6 447.3
    Quota share reinsurance result2 4         (40.4)
    Onerous loss component movement3         4.9
    Underwriting result (E)         342.6
    Net share scheme costs4         (36.8)
    Insurance service result         305.8
    Reported loss ratio ((C+D)/A)         63.9%
    Reported expense ratio (B/A)         24.8%
    Insurance service margin (E/A)         10.2%

    1 Excludes benefit from the Ogden discount rate change
    2 Quota share reinsurance result excludes quota share reinsurers’ share of share scheme costs and movement in onerous loss-recovery component
    3 Onerous loss component movement is shown net of all reinsurance
    4 Net share scheme costs of £36.7 million (2023: £36.8 million), being gross costs of £58.6 million (2023: £55.3 million, see note 5c) less reinsurers’ share of share scheme costs of £21.9 million (2023: £18.5 million) are excluded from the underwriting result.

    1b. Reconciliation of reported loss and expense ratios: UK Motor

              31 December 2024
    £m Consolidated Financial Statement Note Core product Ancillary income1 Total gross Total, net of XoL reinsurance Core product, net of XoL
    Total premiums written   4,006.6 151.1 4,157.7 4,033.3 3,882.2
    Gross premiums written   3,234.1 151.1 3,385.2 3,284.7 3,133.6
    Insurance premium revenue   3,020.7 139.8 3,160.5 3,062.4 2,922.5
    Instalment income   155.9 155.9 155.9
    Administration fees & non-separable ancillary commission   53.1 53.1 53.1
    Insurance revenue (A) 5b/5d 3,020.7 348.8 3,369.5 3,271.4 2,922.5
    Insurance expenses (B) 5c (530.9) (55.9) (586.8) (586.8) (530.9)
    Claims incurred (C) 5c/5d (2,051.5) (55.6) (2,107.2) (2,078.1) (2,022.5)
    Claims incurred excluding Ogden (D)   (2,078.5) (55.6) (2,134.1) (2,105.1) (2,049.5)
    Claims releases (E) 5c/5d 493.4 2.7 496.1 374.6 371.9
    Claims releases excluding Ogden (F)   414.2 2.7 416.9 295.4 292.7
    Insurance service result, gross of quota share reinsurance   931.7 240.0 1,171.7 981.1 741.0
    Quota share reinsurance result2         (228.8) (228.8)
    Onerous loss component movement         1.1 1.1
    Underwriting result (G)         753.4 513.3
    Current period loss ratio (C/A)         63.5% 69.2%
    Claims releases (E/A)         (11.4)% (12.7)%
    Reported loss ratio ((C+E)/A)         52.1% 56.5%
    Reported expense ratio (B/A)         17.9% 18.2%
    Insurance service margin (G/A)         23.0% 17.6%
    Current period loss ratio excluding
    Ogden (D/A)
            64.3% 70.1%
    Claims releases excluding Ogden (F/A)         (9.0)% (10.0)%
    Reported loss ratio excluding
    Ogden ((D+F)/A)
            55.3% 60.1%
              31 December 2023
    £m Consolidated Financial Statement Note Core product Ancillary income1 Total gross Total, net of XoL reinsurance Core product, net of XoL
    Total premiums written   3,004.3 113.9 3,118.2 3,016.8 2,903.0
    Gross premiums written   2,453.9 113.9 2,567.8 2,485.0 2,371.1
    Insurance premium revenue   2,007.6 107.8 2,115.4 2,053.8 1,946.0
    Instalment income   99.0 99.0 99.0
    Administration fees non-separable ancillary commission   35.8 35.8 35.8
    Insurance revenue (A) 5b/5d 2,007.6 242.6 2,250.2 2,188.6 1,946.0
    Insurance expenses (B) 5c (416.8) (34.4) (451.2) (451.2) (416.8)
    Claims incurred (C) 5c/5d (1,719.9) (35.6) (1,755.5) (1,729.0) (1,693.4)
    Claims releases (D) 5c/5d 406.9 406.9 392.8 392.8
    Insurance service result, gross of quota share reinsurance   277.8 172.6 450.4 401.2 228.6
    Quota share reinsurance result2         (16.8) (16.8)
    Onerous loss component movement         4.1 4.1
    Underwriting result (E)         388.5 215.9
    Current period loss ratio (C/A)         79.0% 87.0%
    Claims releases (D/A)         (17.9)% (20.2)%
    Reported loss ratio ((C+D)/A)         61.1% 66.8%
    Reported expense ratio (B/A)         20.6% 21.4%
    Insurance service margin (E/A)         17.8% 11.1%

    1 Ancillary income combined with other net income is presented as part of UK motor insurance other revenue in reporting “Other revenue per vehicle”. Total other revenue was £321.8 million (2023: £247.3 million).

    2 Net share scheme costs of £29.6 million (2023: £32.1 million), being gross costs of £40.7 million (2023: £43.2 million, see note 5c) less reinsurers’ share of share scheme costs of £11.1 million (2023: £11.1 million) are excluded from the underwriting result.

    1c. Reconciliation of reported loss and expense ratios: UK Non-Motor

      31 December 2024
    £m Consolidated Financial Statement Note UK Household UK Travel & Pet UK Non-Motor UK Household, net of XoL reinsurance
    Insurance revenue (A) 5b/5d 399.6 104.3 503.9 376.4
    Insurance expenses (B) 5c (102.9) (56.0) (158.9) (102.9)
    Claims incurred in the period (C) 5c/5d (233.7) (64.5) (298.2) (225.7)
    Changes in liabilities for incurred claims (releases) (D) 5c/5d 46.3 5.1 51.4 37.0
    Insurance service result, gross of quota share reinsurance   109.3 (11.1) 98.2 84.8
    Quota share reinsurance result1         (61.2)
    Onerous loss component movement        
    Underwriting result (E)         23.6
    Current period loss ratio (C/A)         60.0%
    Claims releases (D/A)         (9.9)%
    Reported loss ratio ((C+D)/A)         50.1%
    Reported expense ratio (B/A)         27.3%
    Insurance service margin (E/A)         6.3%
      31 December 2023
    £m Consolidated Financial Statement Note UK Household UK Travel & Pet UK Non-Motor UK Household, net of XoL reinsurance
    Insurance revenue (A) 5b/5d 292.8 53.8 346.6 275.3
    Insurance expenses (B) 5c (80.9) (27.4) (108.3) (80.9)
    Claims incurred in the period (C) 5c/5d (223.5) (31.4) (254.9) (199.8)
    Changes in liabilities for incurred claims (releases) (D) 5c/5d 8.3 0.8 9.1 6.4
    Insurance service result, gross of quota share reinsurance   (3.3) (4.2) (7.5) 1.0
    Quota share reinsurance result1         (1.4)
    Onerous loss component movement        
    Underwriting result (E)         (0.4)
    Current period loss ratio (C/A)         72.6%
    Claims releases (D/A)         (2.4)%
    Reported loss ratio ((C+D)/A)         70.2%
    Reported expense ratio (B/A)         29.4%
    Insurance service margin (E/A)         (0.1)%

    1Net share scheme costs of £1.6 million (2023: £0.7 million), being gross costs of £5.4 million (2023: £2.4 million, see note 5c) less reinsurers’ share of share scheme costs of £3.8 million (2023: £1.7 million) are excluded from the underwriting result.

    1d. Reconciliation of reported loss and expense ratios: International

      31 December 2024
    £m Consolidated Financial Statement Note Total gross Total, net of XoL reinsurance
    Insurance revenue (A) 5b/5d 829.5 794.2
    Insurance expenses (B) 5c (236.5) (236.5)
    Claims incurred in the period less changes in liabilities for incurred claims (C) 5c/5d (572.6) (564.5)
    Insurance service result, gross of quota share reinsurance   20.4 (6.8)
    Quota share reinsurance result1     (4.1)
    Onerous loss component movement     0.4
    Underwriting result (D)     (10.5)
    Reported loss ratio (C/A)     71.1%
    Reported expense ratio (B/A)     29.8%
    Insurance service margin (D/A)     (1.3)%
      31 December 2023
    £m Consolidated Financial Statement Note Total gross Total, net of XoL reinsurance
    Insurance revenue (A) 5b/5d 842.6 811.8
    Insurance expenses (B) 5c (249.4) (249.4)
    Claims incurred in the period less changes in liabilities for incurred claims (C) 5c/5d (596.9) (565.2)
    Insurance service result, gross of quota share reinsurance   (3.7) (2.8)
    Quota share reinsurance result1     (22.1)
    Onerous loss component movement     0.6
    Underwriting result (D)     (24.3)
    Reported loss ratio (C/A)     69.6%
    Reported expense ratio (B/A)     30.7%
    Insurance service margin (D/A)     (3.0)%

    1 Net share scheme costs of £4.3 million (2023: £3.2 million), being gross costs of £11.1 million (2023: £8.9 million, see note 5c) less reinsurers’ share of share scheme costs of £6.8 million (2023: £5.7 million) are excluded from the underwriting result.

    APPENDIX 2 TO THE GROUP FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (unaudited)

    The following table of non-GAAP measures illustrates the sensitivity of profit and loss (before tax) arising from the impact of 100 and 200 basis point increases and decreases in interest rates over the financial year 2024.

    2a. Additional sensitivities to interest rate risk

      31 December 2024
      Insurance contract liabilities and reinsurance contract assets Cash and investments
    £m Impact on profit before tax gross of reinsurance Impact on profit before tax net of reinsurance Impact on profit before tax
    Increase of 100 basis points 25.9 25.9 19.9
    Decrease of 100 basis points (28.5) (28.5) (19.9)
    Increase of 200 basis points 49.8 49.8 39.8
    Decrease of 200 basis points (60.6) (60.6) (39.8)

    Changes impact profit before tax as follows:

    • Interest revenue and other finance costs on floating-rate financial instruments (assuming that interest rates had varied by 100 basis points during the year)
    • Interest revenue and other finance costs on floating-rate financial instruments (assuming that interest rates had varied by 100 basis points during the year)
    • Changes in the discounted fulfilment cashflows of onerous contracts
    • Insurance claims expenses, reinsurance claims recoveries and finance income or expenses recognised in profit or loss, as a result of discounting future cashflows at a revised locked-in rate for the current period (i.e. assuming that interest rates had varied by 100 basis points during the year).

    Glossary

    Alternative Performance Measures

    Throughout this report, the Group uses a number of Alternative Performance Measures (APMs); measures that are not required or commonly reported under International Financial Reporting Standards, the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) under which the Group prepares its financial statements.

    These APMs are used by the Group, alongside GAAP measures, for both internal performance analysis and to help shareholders and other users of the Annual Report and financial statements to better understand the Group’s performance in the period in comparison to previous periods and the Group’s competitors.

    The table below defines and explains the primary APMs used in this report. Financial APMs are usually derived from financial statement items and are calculated using consistent accounting policies to those applied in the financial statements, unless otherwise stated. Non-financial KPIs incorporate information that cannot be derived from the financial statements but provide further insight into the performance and financial position of the Group.

    APMs may not necessarily be defined in a consistent manner to similar APMs used by the Group’s competitors. They should be considered as a supplement rather than a substitute for GAAP measures.

    Turnover Turnover is defined as total premiums written (as below), Other insurance revenue, Other revenue and interest income from Admiral Money. It is reconciled to financial statement line items in note 14 to the financial statements.
    This measure has been presented by the Group in every Annual Report since it became a listed Group in 2004. It reflects the total value of the revenue generated by the Group and analysis of this measure over time provides a clear indication of the size and growth of the Group.
    The measure was developed as a result of the Group’s business model. The UK Car insurance business has historically shared a significant proportion of the risks with Munich Re, a third party reinsurance Group, through a co-insurance arrangement, with the arrangement subsequently being replicated in some of the Group’s international insurance operations. Premiums and claims accruing to the external co-insurer are not reflected in the Group’s income statement and therefore presentation of this metric enables users of the Annual Report to see the scale of the Group’s insurance operations in a way not possible from taking the income statement in isolation.
    Total Premiums Written Total premiums written are the total forecast premiums, net of forecast cancellations written in the underwriting year within the Group, including co-insurance. It is reconciled to financial statement line items in note 14 to the financial statements.
    This measure has been presented by the Group in every Annual Report since it became a listed Group in 2004. It reflects the total premiums written by the Group’s insurance intermediaries and analysis of this measure over time provides a clear indication of the growth in premiums, irrespective of how co-insurance agreements have changed over time.
    The reasons for presenting this measure are consistent with that for the Turnover APM noted above.
    Underwriting result (profit or loss) For each insurance business an underwriting result is presented. This shows the insurance segment result before tax excluding investment income, finance expenses, co-insurer profit commission and other net income. It excludes both gross share scheme costs and any assumed quota share reinsurance recoveries on those share scheme costs.
    The calculations and compositions of the underwriting result are presented within Appendix 1 to these financial statements.
    Loss Ratio Loss ratios are reported as follows:
    Reported loss ratios are expressed as a percentage, of claims incurred, on a gross basis net of XoL reinsurance, divided by insurance revenue net of XoL reinsurance premiums ceded.
    The reported loss ratios use the total claims, and earned premium and related income (instalment income, administration fees and ancillary income where it is highly correlated to the core product). It is understood that this is consistent with the approach taken by peers, and it is considered to reflect the true profitability of products sold.
    Core product loss ratios use the total claims and earned premiums for the core product only (insurance premiums excluding instalment income, administration fees & ancillary income). This measure is more consistent with that used previously, and are reflective of the performance of the core product in a line of business.
    The calculations and compositions of the loss ratios are presented within Appendix 1 to these financial statements.
    Expense Ratio Expense ratios are reported as follows:
    Reported expense ratios are expressed as a percentage, of expenses incurred, on a gross basis excluding share scheme costs, divided by insurance revenue net of XoL reinsurance premiums ceded.The reported expense ratios use the total expenses (excluding share scheme costs), and earned premium and related income (instalment income, administration fees and ancillary income where it is highly correlated to the core product). It is understood that this is consistent with the approach taken by peers, and it is considered to reflect the true profitability of products sold.
    Core product expense ratios use the total expenses (excluding share scheme costs) and earned premiums for the core product only (insurance premiums excluding instalment income, administration fees & ancillary income). This measure is more consistent with that used previously, and are reflective of the performance of the core product in a line of business.
    Written expense ratios are calculated using total expenses (excluding share scheme costs) and written premiums, net of cancellation provision, for the core product only.
    The calculations of the reported expense ratios are presented within Appendix 1 to the financial statements.
    Combined Ratio Combined ratios are the sum of the loss and expense ratios as defined above. Explanation of these figures is noted above.
    Insurance service margin This is the reported insurance segment underwriting result, divided by insurance revenue net of excess of loss premiums ceded. Reconciliation of the calculations are provided in Appendix 1.
    Quota share result The total result (ceded premiums minus ceded recoveries) from contractual quota share arrangements, excluding the quota share reinsurer’s share of share scheme expenses, finance expenses and onerous loss component. Reconciliation of the calculations are provided in Appendix 1.
    Segment result The profit or loss before tax reported for individual business segments, which exclude net share scheme costs and other central expenses.
    Return on Equity Return on equity is calculated as profit after tax for the period attributable to equity holders of the Group divided by the average total equity attributable to equity holders of the Group in the year. This average is determined by dividing the opening and closing positions for the year by two. It excludes the impact of discontinued operations.
    Group Customers Group customer numbers reflect the total number of cars, vans, households and pets on cover at the end of the year, across the Group, and the total number of travel insurance, Admiral Money and Admiral Business customers.
    This measure has been presented by the Group in every Annual Report since it became a listed Group in 2004. It reflects the size of the Group’s customer base and analysis of this measure over time provides a clear indication of the growth. It is also a useful indicator of the growing significance to the Group of the different lines of business and geographic regions.
    The measure has been restated from 2022 onwards to exclude Veygo policies, given the significant fluctuations that can arise at a point in time as a result of the short-term nature of the product.
    Solvency Ratio The Solvency UK regulatory framework requires insurers to hold funds in excess of the Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR). Own funds are available capital resources determined under Solvency UK. The SCR is calculated at a Group level using the standard formula, to reflect the cost of mitigating the risk of insolvency to a 99.5% confidence level over a one-year time horizon – equivalent to a 1 in 200 year event – against financial and non-financial shocks.

    Additional Terminology

    There are many other terms used in this report that are specific to the Group or the markets in which it operates. These are defined as follows:

    Accident year The year in which an accident occurs. Claims incurred may be presented on an accident year basis or an underwriting year basis, the latter sees the claims attach to the year in which the insurance policy incepted.
    Actuarial best estimate The probability-weighted average of all future claims and cost scenarios calculated using historical data, actuarial methods and judgement.
    ASHE ‘Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings’ – a statistical index that is typically used for calculating the inflation of annual payment amounts under Periodic Payment Order (PPO) claims settlements.
    Claims reserves A monetary amount set aside for the future payment of incurred claims that have not yet been settled, thus representing a balance sheet liability.
    Co-insurance An arrangement in which two or more insurance companies agree to underwrite insurance business on a specified portfolio in specified proportions. Each co-insurer is directly liable to the policyholder for their proportional share.
    Commutation An agreement between a ceding insurer and the reinsurer that provides for the valuation, payment, and complete discharge of all obligations between the parties under a particular reinsurance contract.
    The Group typically commutes UK motor insurance quota share contracts after 24-36 months from the start of an underwriting year where it makes economic sense to do so.
    Earnings per share Earnings per share represents the profit after tax attributable to equity shareholders, divided by the weighted average number of basic shares.
    Effective Tax Rate Effective tax rate is defined as the approximate tax rate derived from dividing the tax charge going through the income statement by the Group’s profit before tax. It is a measure historically presented by the Group and enables users to see how the tax cost incurred by the Group compares over time and to current corporation tax rates.
    EIOPA European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority: EIOPA is the European supervisory authority for occupational pensions and insurance.
    Expected credit loss (ECL) Expected Credit Loss (ECL) is the probability-weighted estimate of credit losses over the expected life of a Financial Instrument.
    Insurance market cycle The tendency for the insurance market to swing between highs and lows of profitability over time, with the potential to influence premium rates (also known as the “underwriting cycle”).
    Claims net of XoL reinsurance The cost of claims incurred in the period, less any claims costs recovered via salvage and subrogation arrangements or under XoL reinsurance contracts. It includes both claims payments and movements in claims reserves.
    Excess of Loss (‘XoL’) reinsurance Contractual arrangements whereby the Group transfers part or all of the insurance risk accepted to another insurer on an excess of loss (‘XoL’) basis (full reinsurance for claims over an agreed value).
    Insurance premium revenue Insurance premium revenue reflects the expected premium receipts allocated to the period based on the passage of time, adjusted for seasonality if required. It excludes “Other insurance revenue” as defined below.
    Insurance premium revenue net of XoL Insurance premium revenue less the ceded XoL reinsurance earned in the period.
    Other Insurance revenue Insurance revenue minus insurance premium revenue as defined above. Other insurance revenue is comprised of revenue that is considered non-separable from the core insurance product sold and therefore under IFRS 17 is reported within insurance revenue. For the Group, this is typically the instalment income, administration fees and any other non-separable income related to the Group’s retained share of the underwritten products.
    Net promotor score NPS is currently measured based on a subset of customer responding to a single question: On a scale of 0-10 (10 being the best score), how likely would you recommend our Company to a friend, family or colleague through phone, online or email. Answers are then placed in 3 groups; Detractors: scores ranging from 0 to 6; Passives/neutrals: scores ranging from 7 to 8; Promoters: scores ranging from 9 to 10 and the final NPS score is : % of promoters – % of detractors
    Ogden discount rate The discount rate used in calculation of personal injury claims settlements in the UK.
    Periodic Payment Order (PPO) A compensation award as part of a claims settlement that involves making a series of annual payments to a claimant over their remaining life to cover the costs of the care they will require.
    Premium A series of payments are made by the policyholder, typically monthly or annually, for part of or all of the duration of the contract. Written premium refers to the total amount the policyholder has contracted for, whereas earned premium refers to the recognition of this premium over the life of the contract.
    Profit commission A clause found in some reinsurance and co-insurance agreements that provides for profit sharing. Co-insurer profit commission is presented separately on the income statement whilst reinsurer profit commissions are presented within the reinsurance result, as a part of any recovery for incurred claims.
    Quota share reinsurance result Admiral’s quota share (QS) reinsurance result reflects the net movement on ceded premiums, reinsurer margins and expected recoveries (claims and expenses, excluding share scheme charges) for underwriting years on which quota share reinsurance is in place.
    Regulatory Solvency Capital Requirement (‘SCR’) The Group’s Regulatory Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR) is an amount of capital that it should hold in addition to its liabilities in order to provide a cushion against unexpected events. In line with the rulebook of the Group’s regulator, the PRA, the Group’s SCR is calculated using the Solvency II Standard Formula, and includes a fixed capital add-on to reflect limitations in the Standard Formula with respect to Admiral’s risk profile (predominately in respect of co-and reinsurance profit commission arrangements and risks relating to Periodic Payment Orders (PPOs). The Group’s current fixed capital add-on of £24 million was approved by the PRA during 2023.
    The Group is required to maintain eligible Own Funds ( Solvency II capital) equal to at least 100% of the Group SCR. Both eligible Own Funds and the Group SCR are reported to the PRA on a quarterly basis and reported publicly on an annual basis in the Group’s Solvency and Financial Condition Report.
    Admiral separately calculates a ‘dynamic’ capital add-on and has used this this to report a solvency capital requirement and solvency ratio at the date of this report. A reconciliation between the regulatory solvency ratio and that calculated on a dynamic basis is included in note 3 to the Group financial statements.
    Reinsurance Contractual arrangements whereby the Group transfers part or all of the insurance risk accepted to another insurer. This can be on a quota share basis (a percentage share of premiums, claims and expenses) or an excess of loss (‘XoL’) basis (full reinsurance for claims over an agreed value).
    Scaled Agile Scaled Agile is a framework that uses a set of organisational and workflow patterns for implementing agile practices at an enterprise scale. Scaled agile at Admiral represents the ability to drive agile at the team level whilst applying the same sustainable principles of the group.
    Securitisation A process by which a group of assets, usually loans, is aggregated into a pool, which is used to back the issuance of new securities. A Company transfer assets to a special purpose entity (SPE) which then issues securities backed by the assets.
    Solvency ratio A ratio of an entity’s Solvency II capital (referred to as Own Funds) to Solvency Capital Requirement. Unless otherwise stated, Group solvency ratios include a reduction to Own Funds for a foreseeable dividend (i.e. dividends relating to the relevant financial period that will be paid after the balance sheet date)
    Special Purpose Entity (SPE) An entity that is created to accomplish a narrow and well-defined objective. There are specific restrictions or limited around ongoing activities. The Group uses an SPE set up under a securitisation programme.
    Ultimate loss ratio A projected actuarial best estimate loss ratio for a particular accident year or underwriting year.
    Underwriting year The year in which an insurance policy was incepted.
    Underwriting year basis Also referred to as the written basis. Claims incurred are allocated to the calendar year in which the policy was underwritten. Underwriting year basis results are calculated on the whole account (including co-insurance and reinsurance shares) and include all premiums, claims, expenses incurred and other revenue (for example instalment income and commission income relating to the sale of products that are ancillary to the main insurance policy) relating to policies incepting in the relevant underwriting year.
    Written/Earned basis An insurance policy can be written in one calendar year but earned over a subsequent calendar year.

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-Evening Report: Can the UK prime minister make liberal democracies great again?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Wellings, Associate Professor in Politics and International Relations, Monash University

    There’s been some “great television” this past week for those who like to watch the end of the West.

    The US president and vice-president effectively sided with Russia in an attempt to bring the war in Ukraine to an end in a way that benefits a) the United States, b) the US president’s vanity, and c) Vladimir Putin.

    Starmer and post-Brexit Britain

    But every crisis also provides an opportunity. The UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, grasped the chance to slough off his uninspiring domestic image as he sought to keep the US engaged in negotiations and preserve a semblance of Ukrainian sovereignty.

    In truth, Starmer’s diplomacy continues the policy of the previous government, which made Ukraine the crucible for Britain’s post-Brexit reintegration into European diplomacy.

    Since the Russian invasion of 2022, Britain distinguished itself as one of Ukraine’s most vociferous backers. It provided strident rhetorical support alongside around £13 billion in aid since the conflict began.

    Like his predecessors, Starmer’s support for Ukraine has offered respite from domestic challenges. His recent advocacy has led to a three-month high in the polls, albeit with a still dismal net approval rating of -28.

    But we shouldn’t be overly cynical. His government has provided us with a framework to understand its approach. According to the doctrine of Progressive Realism, the UK government’s foreign policy reflects a “tough-minded” assessment of Britain’s position within the balance of power as it pursues enlightened ends.

    The initial fit is evident: throughout his advocacy, Starmer’s continued appeals for a US backstop indicate awareness of British limitations while championing Ukrainian self-determination.

    However, increasing Britain’s military budget to counter Russia at the expense of the country’s overseas aid budget is hardly progressive, as both Starmer and UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy have previously noted. Most recently, in Lammy’s case, this concerned Trump’s cuts to USAID last month.

    To his credit, Starmer has recognised that Britain cannot deter Russia alone, and is assembling a “coalition of the willing”. However, even with France and smaller players such as the Scandinavians, Canadians and Australians, this may well be insufficient. Hence the ongoing appeals to the US for security guarantees that it is clearly unwilling to provide.

    If we accept Einstein’s famous definition of insanity as doing the same thing and expecting different results, how should we interpret Starmer’s plans?

    Continuities and change

    Amid all the crisis diplomacy and commentary suggesting this might be the end of the trans-Atlantic alliance, continuity as well as change can be observed.

    One of the most striking examples is the extent to which Starmer emphasises Britain’s longstanding self-perception as a “bridge” between the US and Europe. While recent turmoil has prompted Germany’s new Chancellor Friedrich Merz to declare the need for strategic independence from the US, Starmer continues to depict the US as the “indispensable” ally with whom Britain must strengthen ties.

    Considered alongside Britain’s deep integration in the US’s defence and intelligence architecture, including through AUKUS – with which Trump seemed unfamiliar – it is unlikely Britain will break with America. In fact, it may even strengthen its relationship if Trump’s remarks about a UK-US trade agreement are to be believed.

    For some, these structural explanations suffice when considering Britain’s commitment to the “special relationship” and its identity as the transatlantic bridge. However, psychological factors are also worth considering. Britain’s relationship with the US has been a crucial element of Britain’s pretensions to global leadership since the second world war.

    The uncomfortable truth about bridges is that they get walked over, as was evident when Starmer was blindsided by the US decision to suspend military aid to Ukraine.

    Europe between the US and Russia

    With regard to Europe, it is another case of “plus ça change”. As in 1945, Europe again finds itself caught in the middle between Russia and the US. Critics might say the Europeans should have seen this coming.

    Following the 2022 invasion, Germany, Europe’s most significant economy, proclaimed the moment as one of Zeitenwende, or a “turning point”. However, it subsequently failed to fully substantiate the claim.

    Recently, President of the European Commission and former German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen has proposed a “Rearm Europe Plan” that could see up to €800 billion (A$1.36 trillion) allocated to European defence. Whether this materialises remains to be seen.

    France has sought to assume its traditional leading role in advocating for Europe’s strategic autonomy from the US. President Emmanuel Macron has been a prominent figure, but his plan for a partial one-month truce has garnered only lukewarm support.

    However, Putin and Trump do have their admirers in Europe. What is perhaps surprising is that some of this has been too much even for the radical right to stomach – Nigel Farage, for example, leaped to Britain’s defence after Vance’s disparaging remarks. This only underscores the differences in attitudes towards Ukraine between MAGA Americans and Europeans.

    Starmer has undoubtedly secured diplomatic plaudits. However, the structural forces at play suggest that his “coalition of the willing”, if it sticks to outdated ideas, will struggle to make liberal democracy great again, much as that is needed.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Can the UK prime minister make liberal democracies great again? – https://theconversation.com/can-the-uk-prime-minister-make-liberal-democracies-great-again-251360

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI China: Chinese medical assistance team heading for Guinea

    Source: China State Council Information Office 2

    A Chinese medical assistance team left Beijing on Wednesday evening heading for the Republic of Guinea, where they will introduce advanced technologies and assist local healthcare professionals over the next 18 months.
    It is the 31st such team to be sent to this African country, and it consists of 24 members. Of these team members, 22 are from the renowned Beijing Friendship Hospital, with their expertise covering the likes of thoracic surgery, neurosurgery, orthopedics, vascular surgery, neurology, cardiology and more. The other two members are experts in public health and health policy, and are from the Beijing Municipal Health Commission and the Beijing Center for Disease Prevention and Control.
    The team was selected in September last year. Team members then learned French and received systematic training on the treatment of diseases common in this tropical country.
    According to Wang Bin, head of the team, they will quickly adapt to their new environment after arrival, continue to promote the establishment of a joint medical center, collaborate with both local institutions and professionals to conduct field visits and prepare samples, and promote the culture of traditional Chinese medicine, while striving to improve local medical and health conditions and standards.
    China has been sending medical teams overseas for more than six decades. The first team sent overseas went to Algeria in 1963.
    As of the end of 2023, China had dispatched over 30,000 medical personnel to 76 countries and regions across the world — providing medical services to nearly 300 million patients. 

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-Evening Report: Bell Shakespeare brings vitality and cracking pace to Henry 5

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kirk Dodd, Lecturer in English and Writing, University of Sydney

    Brett Boardman/Bell Shakespeare

    Shakespeare’s Henry V (stylised by Bell Shakespeare as Henry 5) is famous for many things. Henry’s rousing speeches. Its chorus directly addressing the audience. Its critical treatment of war. Its comic characters like Fluellen. And the comic exchanges between the French Princess and her maid Alice, trying to speak English.

    For theatre directors, these each serve as different tracks in a mixing deck that can be dialled up or down to temper the treatment of the play.

    Director Marion Potts is a master of this art, bringing vitality and a cracking pace to a big play delivered in less than two hours.

    A world at war

    The play extends the life of Prince Hal from the Henry IV plays. He has forsaken the Boar’s Head Tavern and rejected his friendship with Falstaff, emerging as a politically astute King Henry V: a valiant monarch who will ultimately lead his depleted army to victory over the French at Azincourt.

    This play begins with Henry (JK Kazzi) seeking rightful justifications for his plans to invade France from the Archbishop of Canterbury (Jo Turner). This involves a lengthy speech by Canterbury about detailed legalities; Turner transforms this into a comic tour de force.

    The archbishop could justify just about anything. This brings early and unexpected laughter, but allows the spirit of Shakespeare to shine too, who seems to be showing us the absurdities of war: how quickly politics can be moulded to subjective aims.

    Our world, and the world of our children, continues to be at war. Shakespeare’s canon offers cathartic ways of reflecting on troubled times within the safety of the theatre.

    No specific war is directly paralleled – although the pluck of Zelensky might be echoed in Henry’s costume.
    Brett Boardman/Bell Shakespeare

    Thankfully, no specific war is directly paralleled – although the pluck of Volodymyr Zelensky might be echoed in Henry’s costume (t-shirts, sports jacket, cargo pants). Zelensky’s ethos seems to share some of the youth and people’s touch possessed by King Henry. And Zelensky was recently required to defend his dress code as a leader who remains at war, stating: “I will wear [a] costume after this war will finish”.

    Costumes by Anna Tregloan distribute similar tones across the English and French soldiers, refreshingly devoid of khaki garb. These emphasise the youth of the armies, dressed in streetwear with guerilla flair, sporting boxing boots.

    The prominence of body training throughout serves as an expression of youth and a perpetual readying for conflict.

    Potts states in the program:

    the world of our production carries the vestiges of wars past and the seeds of those to come. A world either in perpetual ‘training’ for wars or delivering on its brutal promise.

    Exposing vulnerabilities

    Nothing is lost in the clarity of the performances, which bring a vocal muscle to Shakespeare’s lines.

    Kazzi is charismatic as the leading man, using fervency and understatement. His first set-piece, urging his troops with “Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more!” stays low, to use a term from cricket, and could be pitched higher in its emphatic urgings, but Kazzi finds excellent range thereafter.

    Kazzi, as Henry, finds excellent range in his performance.
    Brett Boardman/Bell Shakespeare

    The neat set ploy of using a chair and microphone at which various characters sit to deliver the chorus sections works very well with Jethro Woodward’s sound design.

    Perhaps emulating a battleground tribunal, the microphone connected us intimately with individual characters. Westmoreland (Alex Kirwan), the King’s dutiful mate, opens the show with “O for a muse of fire!”, quite articulately from a soldier unaccustomed to public speaking.

    Exeter (Ella Prince) is a warrior amused by all the fuss. English soldiers (Rishab Kern and Harrison Mills) show sensitivity and convey the vulnerabilities of war. And the duo of French Princess Katherine (Ava Madon) and her warm and vibrant attendant, Alice (Odile Le Clezio), hit perfect moments of comic relief as two French women rehearsing the English language.

    Political rhetoric

    The play is otherwise stripped of several comic characters (you won’t see the Welshman Fluellen, or Bardolph, or Pistol on stage), permitting its speedy run with a relentless focus on the war. This breach is filled by the comic subplot of Alice and Princess Katherine, preparing for the outcome of the conflict.

    The movable scaffold of the main set (Tregloan) proves surprisingly versatile, especially with atmospheric lighting and blackouts (Verity Hampson).

    Potts’ use of a screen for subtitles allows her to daringly translate Shakespeare’s lines, so French characters speak mostly French. The musicality of the French language adds ardour and humour, while emphasising the cultural divide of the two warring nations.

    Henry V is a play renowned for showing King Henry as a shrewd leader who must achieve great victories for his country, even by committing war crimes.

    Henry V shows King Henry as a shrewd leader who must achieve great victories, even by committing war crimes.
    Brett Boardman/Bell Shakespeare

    While Henry’s threats of the worst kinds of violence against women and children can be framed as political rhetoric (using harsh words to bring about peaceful ends), he strategically commands the slaying of prisoners when outnumbered by the French.

    While war crimes were beginning to be codified in Shakespeare’s day, he seems to suggest true war heroes are rare, while innocent victims are common.

    Potts’ re-construal of the final scene, often a clumsy betrothal between Henry and Katherine, is made more uncomfortable as Henry flippantly repeats his relentless design to marry her, despite her protestations. While royal weddings were often political instruments at the time, it all seems to be a hollow victory for Henry, who seems suddenly too shell-shocked to care anymore for the rich realm he fought to posses.

    Henry 5, from Bell Shakespeare, is at the Sydney Opera House until April 5, then touring to Wollongong, Canberra and Melbourne.

    Kirk Dodd does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Bell Shakespeare brings vitality and cracking pace to Henry 5 – https://theconversation.com/bell-shakespeare-brings-vitality-and-cracking-pace-to-henry-5-249152

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: Woolly mice are cute and impressive – but they won’t bring back mammoths or save endangered species

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emily Roycroft, Research Group Leader & ARC DECRA Fellow, Monash University

    Colossal Biosciences

    US company Colossal Biosciences has announced the creation of a “woolly mouse” — a laboratory mouse with a series of genetic modifications that lead to a woolly coat. The company claims this is the first step toward “de-extincting” the woolly mammoth.

    The successful genetic modification of a laboratory mouse is a testament to the progress science has made in understanding gene function, developmental biology and genome editing. But does a woolly mouse really teach us anything about the woolly mammoth?

    What has been genetically modified?

    Woolly mammoths were cold-adapted members of the elephant family, which disappeared from mainland Siberia at the end of the last Ice Age around 10,000 years ago. The last surviving population, on Wrangel Island in the Arctic Ocean, went extinct about 4,000 years ago.

    The house mouse (Mus musculus) is a far more familiar creature, which most of us know as a kitchen pest. It is also one of the most studied organisms in biology and medical research. We know more about this laboratory mouse than perhaps any other mammal besides humans.

    Colossal details its new research in a pre-print paper, which has not yet been peer-reviewed. According to the paper, the researchers disrupted the normal function of seven different genes in laboratory mice via gene editing.

    By tinkering with different genes, researchers produced mice with different kinds of fur.
    Colossal Biosciences

    Six of these genes were targeted because a large body of existing research on the mouse model had already demonstrated their roles in hair-related traits, such as coat colour, texture and thickness.

    The modifications in a seventh gene — FABP2 — was based on evidence from the woolly mammoth genome. The gene is involved in the transport of fats in the body.

    Woolly mammoths had a slightly shorter version of the gene, which the researchers believe may have contributed to its adaptation to life in cold climates. However, the “woolly mice” with the mammoth-style variant of FABP2 did not show significant differences in body mass compared to regular lab mice.

    What would it mean to de-extinct a species?

    This work shows the promise of targeted editing of genes of known function in mice. After further testing, this technology may have a future place in conservation efforts. But it’s a long way from holding promise for de-extinction.

    Colossal Biosciences claims it is on track to produce a genetically modified “mammoth-like” elephant by 2028, but what makes a mammoth unique is more than skin-deep.

    De-extinction would need to go beyond modifying an existing species to show superficial traits from an extinct relative. Many aspects of an extinct species’ biology remain unknown. A woolly coat is one thing. Recreating the entire suite of adaptations, including genetic, epigenetic and behavioural traits that allowed mammoths to thrive in ice age environments, is another.

    Prehistoric drawings of an ibex (left) and a mammoth (right) found at Rouffignac cave in France.
    Cave Painter / Wikimedia

    Unlike the thylacine (or Tasmanian tiger) — another species Colossal aims to resurrect — the mammoth has a close living relative in the modern Asian elephant. The closer connections between the genomes of these two species may make mammoth de-extinction more technically feasible than that of the thylacine.

    But whether or not a woolly mouse brings us any closer to that prospect, this story forces us to consider some important ethical questions. Even if we could bring back the woolly mammoth, should we? Is the motivation behind this effort conservation, or entertainment? Is it ethical to bring a species back into an environment that may no longer sustain it?

    Focus on conserving what remains

    In Australia alone, we’ve lost at least 100 species to extinction since European colonisation in 1788, largely due the introduction of feral predators and land clearing.

    The idea of reversing extinction is understandably appealing. We might like to think we could undo the past.

    According to Colossal’s website,

    Extinction is a colossal problem facing the world. And Colossal is the company that’s going to fix it.

    It’s hard to argue with the first part of that. But focusing on bringing back extinct species distracts from a more urgent reality: species are going extinct right now, and we are not doing enough to save them.

    We should first focus on promises to save surviving species, rather than promises to bring back the dead.

    With more investment in threatened species monitoring, new pest control methods, and conservation genetic management, we can turn the tide of extinction and secure the future for species that remain.

    There’s a long list of threatened species that are still alive now. With the right funding and conservation attention, we can do something to save them before it’s too late.

    Emily Roycroft receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the L’Oréal-UNESCO For Women in Science Programme, and the Australian Academy of Science.

    ref. Woolly mice are cute and impressive – but they won’t bring back mammoths or save endangered species – https://theconversation.com/woolly-mice-are-cute-and-impressive-but-they-wont-bring-back-mammoths-or-save-endangered-species-251595

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI China: Macron proposes strategic talks on nuclear deterrence for Europe

    Source: China State Council Information Office

    Flags of European Union (EU) and Ukraine are seen at the EU headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 24, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]

    French President Emmanuel Macron announced on Wednesday that he has decided to open strategic discussions with European allies on potential nuclear protection.

    “Responding to the historic call of the future German chancellor, I have decided to open a strategic debate on the protection of our allies in Europe through our (nuclear) deterrent,” Macron said in a televised address.

    Speaking on Europe’s defense and Ukraine, he emphasized that France’s nuclear deterrent has played a role in maintaining peace and security in Europe.

    On Ukraine, Macron asserted that the country has “the right to peace and security for itself, and it is in the interest of the European continent’s security.” He stressed the need to ensure that any future peace, once achieved, is sustainable.

    “This will certainly require long-term support for the Ukrainian army and could potentially involve deploying European forces,” he said.

    However, Macron clarified that such European forces would not engage in frontline combat but would instead help ensure that peace is upheld once secured.

    He also announced that France would host a meeting next week with countries willing to contribute to future European forces to be deployed in Ukraine.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI Security: Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group Arrives in Busan, Republic of Korea

    Source: United States INDO PACIFIC COMMAND

    The visit to Busan exemplifies the U.S. commitment to the region, further enhancing relationships with ROK leaders and the local population.

    “An aircraft carrier port visit demonstrates our commitment to the alliance between the U.S. and the Republic of Korea,” said Rear Adm. Michael Wosje, commander, CSG-1. “Our alliance remains the linchpin of peace and security in Northeast Asia and the Korean Peninsula, and we are dedicated to working with our ROK Navy counterparts to ensure stability in the region.”

    For 250 years, the U.S. Navy has forged enduring alliances that are essential to its maritime warfighting capabilities. These partnerships have allowed us to project power, protect sea lanes, and safeguard global security.

    Additionally, the visit provides the opportunity for strike group Sailors and civilians to rest and recharge while being able to experience the city of Busan. During the port visit, Vinson is scheduled to host ship tours for several U.S. and ROK leaders, conduct multiple key leader engagements ashore, and participate in community relations and sporting events.

    “We are excited to pay another visit to the Republic of Korea, and we are grateful to the people of Busan for such a warm welcome,” said Capt. Matthew Thomas, commanding officer of Vinson. “Our Sailors look forward to participating in professional engagements and community service projects while meeting and engaging with the local community of South Korea.”

    Prior to their Busan port call, CSG-1 participated in Pacific Steller 2025, a multi-large deck event in the Philippine Sea. The exercise provided the strike group the opportunity to work and train alongside allies and partners to include the French Carrier Strike Group and Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, fostering the alliance and maritime security in support of a secure and prosperous Indo-Pacific.

    CSG-1 consists of Vinson, embarked staffs of CSG-1 and Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) One, Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 2, the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Princeton (CG 59), and Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers USS Sterett (DDG 104) and USS William P. Lawrence (DDG 110).

    CVW-2 is composed of nine squadrons flying the F-35C Lightning II, F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, EA-18G Growler, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, CMV-22 Osprey and MH-60R/S Seahawks.

    The Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group is operating in the U.S. 7th Fleet area of operations. U.S. 7th Fleet is the U.S. Navy’s largest forward-deployed numbered fleet, and routinely interacts and operates with allies and partners in preserving a free and open Indo-Pacific region.

    For more news from CSG-1 and Carl Vinson visit: https://www.dvidshub.net/unit/CSG1, https://www.dvidshub.net/unit/CVN70

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI USA: PREPARED REMARKS: Sanders, Democratic Senators Force Republicans to Confront Hypocrisy on Ukraine and Putin

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Vermont – Bernie Sanders

    WASHINGTON, March 5 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), alongside Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), today asked for unanimous consent on the Senate floor to pass a series of straightforward resolutions condemning Russia’s illegal, unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. The senators offered six resolutions clarifying that the United States stands with the people of Ukraine in defense of their democracy and condemns the dictator Vladimir Putin’s crimes against humanity. Republicans rose in opposition to every one. 

    The senators’ resolutions are statements of fact and principle, backed by evidence and long-standing American foreign policy, including:

    • Clarifying that Russia started the war against Ukraine.
    • Condemning Putin and Russian forces for their widespread war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine.
    • Condemning Russia’s forcible abduction of at least 20,000 Ukrainian children and calls for their return to their families.
    • Reaffirming the support of the United States for Ukraine’s sovereignty in the face of Russia’s invasion.
    • Restating a simple but fundamental principle of international law and global stability: that you do not take the territory of another country by force.
    • Demanding that Putin immediately withdraw Russian forces from Ukraine, cease his attacks, and end this terrible war.

    Sanders’ remarks on the Senate floor were livestreamed here and are available below. 

    I am here tonight with colleagues who have worked extremely hard to protect the sovereignty of Ukraine and to defend democracy in that country and, in fact, throughout the world. 

    And I thank my colleagues for getting on the floor this evening and for the resolutions that they will be bringing forth. 

    M. President, I am not a historian. But I do know that for the last 250 years, since the inception of our great country, despite our imperfections, the United States has stood in the world as a symbol of democracy. And all over the world people have looked to our country as an example of freedom and self-governance to which the rest of the world could aspire. People have long looked to our Declaration of Independence and Constitution as blueprints for how to establish governments of the people, by the people and for the people. 

    M. President, tragically, all of that is now changing. As President Trump moves this country towards authoritarianism, he is aligning himself with dictators and despots who share his disdain for democracy and the rule of law. 

    Just last week, in a radical departure from long-standing U.S. policy, the Trump administration voted against a United Nations resolution which clearly stated that Russia began the horrific war in Ukraine. 

    That U.N. resolution also called on Russia to withdraw its forces from occupied Ukraine, in line with international law. The resolution was brought forward by our closest allies, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan and dozens of other democratic nations. Ninety-three countries at the U.N. voted YES on that resolution. 

    Rather than side with our long-standing allies to preserve democracy and uphold international law, President Trump voted with authoritarian nations like Russia, North Korea, Iran and Belarus to oppose the resolution. Many of the other opponents of that resolution are undemocratic nations propped up by Russian military aid. 

    But it wasn’t just the U.N. vote. Pathetically, President Trump also told an outrageous lie, claiming that it was Ukraine that started the war, not Russia. He also called President Zelensky a dictator, rather than the leader of a democratic nation, as he is. 

    M. President, as we discuss Ukraine tonight, it is terribly important that we not forget who Vladimir Putin is and why he is no friend of the United States, and why we should not be in an alliance with him against Ukraine. 

    Putin is the man who crushed Russia’s movement towards democracy after the end of the Cold War. Putin is a man who steals elections, murders political dissidents and crushes freedom of the press. He has maintained control in Russia by offering the oligarchs there a simple deal: If they grant him absolute power and share the spoils, he would let them steal as much as they wanted from the Russian people. The result: while the vast majority of the Russian population struggles economically, Putin and his fellow oligarchs stash trillions of dollars in offshore tax havens. 

    And so today, 26 years after he took power, Putin is the absolute ruler of Russia. And I think as everyone knows, Russia’s elections are blatantly fraudulent. A sham. 

    And Putin is the man who sparked the bloodiest war in Europe since World War II. 

    More than three years ago, on February 24, 2022, Putin ordered a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and international law. Russian land, air and naval forces have attacked and occupied territory across Ukraine. 

    Since that terrible day, more than a million people have been killed or injured because of Putin’s war. Putin’s forces have massacred civilians and kidnapped thousands of Ukrainian children, bringing them back to Russian “re-education” camps. These atrocities led the International Criminal Court to issue an arrest warrant for Putin in 2023 as a war criminal. That’s who we are allying ourselves with. 

    And still, today, Russia continues its attacks, raining down hundreds of missiles and drones on Ukrainian cities. Russian forces illegally occupy about 20 percent of Ukraine’s sovereign territory. 

    M. President, this war could end today if Putin gave up his outrageous effort to conquer a neighboring country. The war could end today. The killing could stop right now, if Putin gave that order. 

    And that, simply, M. President, is what my resolution says to Vladimir Putin: Stop the killing. Obey international law. Withdraw your forces and cease your attacks on Ukraine. And I, honestly, don’t understand how anyone in the United States Senate could object to that simple demand. 

    M. President, now, more than at any time in recent history, it is imperative that the Senate come together in a bipartisan manner to make it clear that we stand for democracy, not authoritarianism; that we stand for international law, not conquest by force; and that we stand with Ukraine and fellow democracies throughout the world, and not with the murderous dictator of Russia. 

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Global: Ending US birthright citizenship could have consequences for LGBTQ+ couples, lower-income parents and the surrogacy market

    Source: The Conversation – France – By Ashley Mantha-Hollands, Max Weber Fellow, Max Weber Programme for Postdoctoral Studies, European University Institute

    The first month of US President Donald Trump’s second term saw an onslaught of executive orders. The order aiming to change how birthright citizenship – the constitutional guarantee of citizenship to most children born within US territory – is granted could be the most consequential. Federal judges in Maryland, Washington state, Massachusetts and New Hampshire have issued nationwide injunctions against the order, and the San Francisco-based US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the Trump administration’s appeal.

    To date, most media outlets, civil and human rights organisations, and activist groups have expressed concern about how a change to birthright citizenship would impact undocumented people and their children. However, a change could also have a series of further consequences, particularly for children of LGBTQ+ couples and children born through assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as surrogacy.

    There are at least three related outcomes to consider: tension between federal and state definitions of parentage, a heightened administrative burden for establishing proof of citizenship, and the potential harm to what is the world’s largest surrogacy market.

    Who are the parents? Not so simple

    In countries where children obtain citizenship based on the citizenship of their parents, the legal parameters of the family are of utmost importance. For this reason, countries often provide specific definitions of who “counts” as a parent. In the US, this responsibility falls to the states, which provide their own definitions. One common practice is known as the “parturient” rule, which holds that the person giving birth is the legal “mother” and her spouse the legal “father”. This practice is increasingly contested. With the rise of ART and, in particular, surrogacy, the person giving birth is not always the intended parent. In fact, at least 14 US states have recognized that the parturient rule does not encompass many types of family arrangements and have altered their administrative frameworks so that “intended parents” can be immediately placed on birth certificates.

    While the establishment of parentage occurs at the state level, establishing citizenship is a federal responsibility. As a result, the federal government also provides its own legal definition of parenthood. This definition includes the following family roles: a genetic parent, a non-genetic gestational parent, a non-genetic and non-gestational spouse of a genetic and/or gestational parent, and parents of an adopted child. By contrast, the definitions in Trump’s executive order would spark a return to traditional heteronormative definitions of parentage. The mother is defined as “the immediate female biological progenitor” and the father as “the immediate male biological progenitor”. Such definitions leave out not only most LGBTQ+ couples, but also some families seeking ART, because children born through these modalities may not be biologically related to the intended parents.

    If the order comes into force, it would result in a mismatch between federal and state definitions of parentage and likely invite many legal disputes, while leaving some children born through ART at risk of statelessness if their parents are unrecognized as such. Citizenship is vital to an individual’s personal security: stateless children can, in some cases, be separated from their intended parents. Moreover, without a legal status, children and their families cannot benefit from the full range of federal and state services, including access to the child welfare system, funding opportunities for higher education and health care. For example, according to officials in 24 states, children would lose benefits from the Children’s Health Insurance Program and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which all US-born babies are currently eligible to receive.

    The bureaucratic burden

    The administrative burden of citizenship recognition for newborns is another overlooked issue in discussions about Trump’s order. In most cases, a birth certificate from a US state is sufficient to prove one’s citizenship status. After a child is born, hospitals normally transmit birth-certified information to the local municipality. The child’s birth certificate is then issued three-to-five business days later. The certificate suffices for recognition of citizenship and for federal documentation such as a passport.

    The executive order would increase the administrative burden for recognising citizenship. It is unclear, however, whether this burden would fall on the states or the federal government.

    In the first scenario, state bureaucracies would need to check the parents’ immigration status prior to issuing a birth certificate. This would undoubtedly cause confusion, as each state would need to provide new guidance and training to local bureaucrats on the medley of US immigration statuses and their attendant rights. The processing times for issuing birth certificates would increase, as verification procedures would require additional documentation. The fees for issuing certificates, currently between $7 and $35, would likely rise as well, since bureaucrats would need to investigate each birth rather than issue certificates automatically.

    If the administrative burden falls on the federal government, birth certificates would be issued in the same way and at the same cost by the states, but they would no longer be sufficient to prove a child’s citizenship. In this case, the government would need to issue citizenship certificates, which are normally reserved for proof of citizenship for children born abroad. Each case would require an individual investigation rather than being automatic, and while it’s hard to say how much fees could rise, current fees for citizenship certificates for children born abroad are north of $1,300. The processing of passport applications would take longer and likely be more costly, too, because a system to verify the immigration status of a child’s parents will need to be set up.

    In 2012, the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) released a report that outlined the potential impacts of ending the current approach to birthright citizenship. The report estimates, based on the costs of US citizenship certificates for children born abroad, that changing the existing law – which Trump’s order seeks to reinterpret – would cost parents “approximately $600 in government fees to prove the citizenship status of each baby and likely an additional $600 to $1,000 in legal fees”. The report describes these costs as a “tax” on “each baby born in the United States”.

    Alternately, the US could establish a new national ID card system, but this would also have bureaucratic costs. This type of ID card is common in European countries: with some variation between systems, cards can be used for travel within the EU (as an alternative to a passport) and are generally used to prove citizenship status to vote or receive certain social services. But unlike in the European states that issue these cards, the US government has no registry of vital records and would need a new administrative structure to create one. When the UK government discussed such a system in 2007, its total cost was estimated to be at least 5.75 billion pounds.

    The NFAP report mentions the federal systems that rely on the current practice of state-administered birth certificates and automatic citizenship to function. These systems include the Social Security Administration, which handles retirement, disability and family benefits, and the E-Verify system, which determines whether a person has authorisation to work in the US. The report states that systems such as E-Verify “have cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars. There is no reason to believe that a change to the Citizenship Clause requiring the verification of parents’ immigration status would be any less expensive.”

    Costs to the US surrogacy market

    The US surrogacy industry is the largest in the world. It is valued at over $20 billion (and is expected to grow to $195 billion by 2034), and attracts families from European and Asian countries where surrogacy is not as prevalent or is illegal. An important factor in the size of this market is the attractive environment for surrogacy arrangements. First, surrogacy is relatively mainstreamed in the US, and there are many companies that help with finding donors, surrogates and with navigating the legal process. Second, intended parents have the security of knowing their children will have immediate access to travel documents, such as a US passport, after birth. If a new definition of parentage goes into effect, thus removing the guarantee of US citizenship, the status of children born through surrogacy could be at risk. The attractiveness of the US surrogacy market would likely suffer, because parents would face time-consuming and costly steps to secure status and immigration documents to allow travel between the US and their home country.

    An unclear fate

    The approach to parenthood in the executive order on birthright citizenship aligns with the Trump administration’s overall push toward pronatalism and traditional heterosexual family models. Trump has also signed another executive order expanding access to in vitro fertilization (IVF) for “longing mothers and fathers”. The definition of parentage in this order also leaves out same-sex couples, who often receive IVF treatments.

    The fate of the birthright citizenship order is unclear, and it will likely end up reaching the Supreme Court. Legal debates must include the constitutionality of denying automatic citizenship to US-born children, the effect on children born via assisted reproductive technologies, and the bureaucratic and financial burdens placed on states and parents. While an end to birthright citizenship would immediately affect the children of undocumented people, taking a step back reveals other consequences that could impact the broader US public for generations to come.

    Les auteurs ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur organisme de recherche.

    ref. Ending US birthright citizenship could have consequences for LGBTQ+ couples, lower-income parents and the surrogacy market – https://theconversation.com/ending-us-birthright-citizenship-could-have-consequences-for-lgbtq-couples-lower-income-parents-and-the-surrogacy-market-250846

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Experts of the Human Rights Committee Commend Montenegro’s Measures Preventing Violence against Women, Raise Issues Concerning Corruption and Historic Human Rights Violations

    Source: United Nations – Geneva

    The Human Rights Committee today concluded its consideration of the second periodic report of Montenegro on how it implements the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  Committee Experts commended the State for its measures preventing violence against women, while raising issues concerning historic human rights violations committed during the armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia and corruption.

    One Committee Expert said the State Party had made notable progress in addressing violence against women, including adopting the Protocol on Prevention and Treatment in Cases of Domestic Violence and the National Plan for the Implementation of the Istanbul Convention.  What measures were in place to ensure that legal reforms translated into effective enforcement and that penalties reflected the severity of the crimes?

    Regarding serious human rights violations committed during the armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia, one Committee Expert expressed concern that impunity seemed to persist in many aspects.  There was increased negationist discourse, including denial of the Srebrenica genocide. Could the State party shed light on the fight against denialist discourse?  What measures were being taken to speed up investigations and prosecutions?

    Another Expert said that in Montenegro, corruption was perceived as an aspect of great concern for citizens.  What concrete measures had been put in place to ensure that cases of corruption by high-level officials resulted in appropriate convictions and penalties?

    Introducing the report, Bojan Božović, Minister of Justice of Montenegro and head of the delegation, said implementing the Covenant’s standards was of great importance to Montenegro, which was now striving for membership in the community of developed European democracies.

    Regarding violence against women, the delegation said that, in 2023, in addition to legal amendments, a mandatory instruction was adopted mandating all prosecutors to act proactively in cases of domestic violence and to apply the Istanbul Convention. Some 622 final judgements had been enacted on domestic violence cases in 2024, with the majority being convictions.

    Mr. Božović said Montenegro had placed the prevention and suppression of corruption at the top of the policy and law enforcement agenda.  In 2024, shortcomings identified in previous law enforcement practices were eliminated.  There were also plans to adopt new legal amendments to enable the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption to have direct access to public officials’ accounts. Through the adoption of the Law on Lobbying, the State aimed to prevent undue influence in legislative processes.

    Regarding historic human rights violations, the delegation said the most senior members of Government made efforts to memorialise the day of the Srebrenica genocide. Inappropriate statements would be sanctioned when made during elections.  There had also been a resolution adopted in Parliament on the genocide in Srebrenica.  There would no longer be impunity for war crimes in Montenegro and proactive action had been taken in this regard, the delegation said.  Cases which had been finalised would be reopened and thoroughly examined.  The strategy to combat war crimes was adopted in June 2024, which had resulted in four cases previously considered to be finalised being reopened.

    In concluding remarks, Blagoje Gledović, Director General of the Directorate for the International Cooperation and International Legal Aid, Ministry of Justice of Montenegro, and alternative head of the delegation, said that over the reporting period, the State party had undertaken several reforms to promote civil and political rights and to meet the requirements for accession to the European Union.  Montenegro remained committed to the implementation of the Covenant through national legislation and all other available measures.

    Changrok Soh, Committee Chairperson, said in concluding remarks that the dialogue had covered a wide range of topics related to the implementation of the Covenant by the State party, highlighting the progress made and challenges faced.  The Committee was committed to fulfilling its mandate to ensure the highest standard of implementation of the Covenant in Montenegro.

    The delegation of Montenegro was made up of representatives of the Ministry of Justice; the Ministry of Human and Minority Rights; the Ministry of the Interior; the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office; the Supreme Court; the Police Directorate; the Parliament of Montenegro; and the Permanent Mission of Montenegro to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

    The Human Rights Committee’s one hundred and forty-third session is being held from 3 to 28 March 2025. All the documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage.  Meeting summary releases can be found here.  The webcast of the Committee’s public meetings can be accessed via the UN Web TV webpage.

    The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 5 March, to begin its consideration of the second periodic report of Burkina Faso (CCPR/C/BFA/2).

    Report

    The Committee has before it the second periodic report of Montenegro (CCPR/C/MNE/2).

    Presentation of Report

    BOJAN BOŽOVIĆ, Minister of Justice of Montenegro and head of the delegation, said implementing the Covenant’s standards was of great importance to Montenegro as a relatively young United Nations member but an old European state, now striving for membership in the community of developed European democracies.

    Montenegro had placed the prevention and suppression of corruption at the top of the policy and law enforcement agenda.  In 2024, through amendments to the Law on the Prevention of Corruption, the work of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption was enhanced, and shortcomings identified in previous law enforcement practices were eliminated.  The State had continued to strengthen the anti-corruption framework in 2025, with plans to adopt new amendments to the law that would enable the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption to have direct access to public officials’ accounts. Through the adoption of the Law on Lobbying, the State aimed to prevent undue influence in legislative processes, increase institutional transparency, and increase the number of certified lobbyists registered in the official registry.

    Amendments to the Law on the Judicial Council and Judges were adopted in 2024, improving provisions related to the functioning of the Judicial Council, the system of ethical and disciplinary responsibility for judges and their evaluation.  Amendments to the Law on the State Prosecutor’s Office had also been enacted to enhance the autonomy, accountability, and efficiency of the Office and the Prosecutorial Council. In May 2024, the Government of Montenegro adopted the Judicial Reform Strategy 2024- 2027, accompanied by an action plan.  Efforts were also being made to ensure the judiciary’s efficiency and sustainability through the Judicial Network Rationalisation Plan, which provided for the reorganisation of Montenegro’s court network. 

    Regarding domestic violence, Montenegro had largely harmonised its domestic legislation with international standards, with a goal of zero tolerance and maximum protection for vulnerable groups.  The law amending the Law on Legal Aid, enacted in December 2024, guaranteed the right to legal aid for victims of torture, sexual offences, and children initiating proceedings to protect their rights.  The Law on Protection from Domestic Violence would be aligned with the Istanbul Convention, refining the definition of violence and granting victims individual rights.

    In the fight against human trafficking, amendments to the Criminal Code introduced abduction as one of the methods of committing the offence, as well as a non-punishment clause for victims.  For the first time, child trafficking was established as a distinct criminal offence. Montenegro had developed a comprehensive system covering the entire process of trafficking, from victim identification to full integration or reintegration into society.  This system was reinforced by strong and effective cooperation between competent State authorities and civil society organizations and steered by the Strategy for Combating Human Trafficking 2019–2024. Since its adoption, six annual action plans had been implemented.  Following evaluation of the strategy, a new Strategy for 2025–2028 was currently being drafted alongside an action plan.

    In 2023, Montenegro amended its Criminal Code to make the prosecution and execution of sentences for the criminal offence of torture no longer subject to any statute of limitations.  Sentencing guidelines had been tightened, particularly for offences committed by officials.  Additionally, activities had been carried out to improve accommodation capacities, living conditions, and the infrastructure of prison institutions.

    The implementation of the National Strategy for Gender Equality 2021-2025 and its accompanying action plans was progressing successfully, with a focus on promoting gender equality, strengthening the legal framework for gender policies, and preventing discrimination based on sex and gender.  The Ministry of Justice had significantly reinforced criminal law protections for journalists by introducing stricter penalties for attacks on journalists and other media workers.

    In 2024, the Ministry of Justice adopted key amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code, allowing for the unimpeded use of evidence gathered within the framework of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals in The Hague.  The Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office adopted the 2024-2027 Strategy for Investigating War Crimes, accompanied by an action plan.  As a result, new criminal cases were reopened concerning war crimes in countries such as Croatia, with the goal of delivering justice in cases linked to Montenegro.

    Questions by Committee Experts

    A Committee Expert said the Committee would like to receive more information on the various strategies mentioned in the report, as well as specific information on their implementation.  The State had launched a vast movement of reforms to strengthen human rights and the rule of law over the past ten years.  While the European Commission’s 2024 reports issued in the run-up to European Union accession were rather positive on issues including judicial independence, the fight against corruption, equality and non-discrimination, some of the reforms reportedly remained superficial, were not always coherent, and did not include civil society.  For example, there was no real human rights education and civic education was no longer compulsory.  Could information be provided on the inclusion of civil society in the reform process?  How was the second report prepared?  What measures were envisaged to strengthen the independence, impartiality and the effective and efficient functioning of the Ombudsperson?

    The issue of access to justice, truth and reparation for victims of serious human rights violations committed in the 1990s during the armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia was very complex.  The Committee took note of the information provided by the State on ongoing investigations and trials, however impunity seemed to persist in many aspects, which was concerning.  There was increased negationist discourse, including denial of the Srebrenica genocide.  The exercise of criminal justice was said to have been marked by numerous dysfunctions and obstacles, which cast doubt on the State’s willingness to establish responsibility for the commission of these war crimes and crimes against humanity.  There had been no proactive policy to establish criminal responsibility, not only for the direct perpetrators of war crimes but also for those responsible in the chain of command.  A low number of remains of disappeared people had been found and returned to their families.

    Could the State party shed light on the fight against denialist discourse and the policy of preserving memory, an important pillar of transitional justice?  What were the reasons for the persistent legal obstacles, including to the extradition to States requesting it?  What measures were being taken to strengthen the Special State Prosecutor’s Office to speed up investigations and prosecutions?  Was there any specialised training for judges in international human rights law?  What efforts were being undertaken to locate victims of enforced disappearance? Was enforced disappearance criminalised in domestic law in line with the United Nations Convention on Enforced Disappearance?

    A Committee Expert asked if the State party could provide details on the content of the training sessions organised by the Training Centre of the Judiciary, Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Human Resources Management Authority on the Covenant? How many judges, prosecutors, lawyers and parliamentarians had participated in these trainings?  Were these trainings compulsory or voluntary? Had there been specific modules focusing on the direct applicability of the Covenant in domestic law?  Could the State party provide specific examples of domestic courts directly invoking or applying the Covenant in their decisions? Were there any initiatives to raise awareness of the Covenant among the public, civil society or law enforcement officials?  How was it ensured that judges and legal practitioners actively implemented the Covenant in their professional practice?

    The Committee welcomed the State party’s efforts to establish a comprehensive reparations programme for victims of war crimes, which had led to financial compensation for nearly 200 cases up to September 2018 and more than 60 additional decisions from 2018 to 2022.  However, had the State party developed a comprehensive reparations programme that included restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition?  If such a programme had been drawn up, would these measures also be offered retroactively to victims who had already received financial compensation but who had not had access to these types of measures?  Had victims been provided with legal assistance to file their claims for reparations and, if not, did the Government plan to provide such assistance?  What measures were in place to ensure legal and comprehensive support for victims and their families?  What safeguards had been put in place to ensure that such crimes did not happen again? What steps have been taken to ensure that victims of war crimes in vulnerable situations had equal access to justice and redress mechanisms?

    Another Expert said the Committee had learned that in Montenegro, corruption was perceived as an aspect of great concern for citizens.  What concrete measures had been put in place to ensure that cases of corruption by high-level officials resulted in appropriate convictions and penalties?  What measures were being implemented to strengthen the effectiveness of the Anti-Corruption Agency to ensure that it was not pressured by political influences?  In 2022 and 2023, accusations against a former President of the Supreme Court and a former President of the Commercial Court, as well as two high-ranking prosecutors, highlighted the possible penetration of organised crime into judicial structures.  The positive action that those unfortunate incidents generated attested to Montenegro’s progress in its fight against organised crime and corruption.  Was Montenegro planning to improve the mechanisms for monitoring and accountability of judges and prosecutors to avoid conflicts of interest and increase public confidence in the judiciary?  What were the real quantities recovered for corruption cases?  Did the company “13.Jul-Plantaže” pay all the compensation to which it was sentenced?  What efforts had been made to increase public education on corruption perception and prevention?

    What specific mechanisms were in place to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination, particularly regarding discrimination against the Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian communities?  What measures had been taken to ensure the long-term sustainability of the enjoyment of decent housing for these groups, and to address the factors that led to Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian children dropping out of school? What steps were being taken to ensure the inclusion of these groups in high-level political positions and structures? In Montenegro, there was an increase in hate speech directed at minorities.  Was the State aware of this phenomenon?  What measures were being implemented to prevent, control and punish it?

    Another Committee Expert asked about the strategy to improve the quality of life of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons, implemented in the periods 2013-2018 and 2019-2023.  It was alleged that there was limited implementation of this Strategy and that most of the actions were carried out by civil society.  Could more information on the strategy and its results be provided? Could the Committee have more information on the draft Law on the Legal Recognition of Gender Identity Based on Self-Determination, the approval of which was initially scheduled for the end of 2023 and then delayed until the end of 2024?

    In July 2020, the Law on Civil Unions of Persons of the Same Sex was adopted and began to be implemented in July 2021.  Since then, more than 20 civil unions had been registered.  Could the delegation comment on information that amendments to the regulations necessary for the proper implementation of the Law had not been made?  What measures had the State party taken to investigate attacks on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons and punish those responsible?  What was being done to prevent these from reoccurring?

    What had the Strategy for the Execution of Criminal Sanctions 2023-2026 achieved?  Did changes to the Criminal Code bring its definition of torture in line with that of the Convention Against Torture?  Was the Istanbul Protocol being properly applied in places of deprivation of liberty?  It had been alleged that the medical reports issued in these facilities did not properly document traces of torture or ill-treatment in the manner envisaged in the Protocol.  Why was this the case?  Was it due to a lack of staff?  Could the delegation provide updated official figures on the criminal investigations carried out and their results, including the number of officials convicted, for cases of torture and ill-treatment during the period covered by the report?

    A Committee Expert said the State Party had made notable progress in addressing violence against women, including adopting the Protocol on Prevention and Treatment in Cases of Domestic Violence and the National Plan for the Implementation of the Istanbul Convention (2023-2027), as well as amending its Criminal Code to introduce new offences such as stalking and enhanced penalties for domestic violence. Despite these advances, significant gaps in implementation remained.  Could the delegation provide updated data on the classification and prosecution of violence against women, particularly distinguishing between misdemeanours and criminal offences?  What measures were in place to ensure that legal reforms translated into effective enforcement and that penalties reflected the severity of the crimes? What reforms had been undertaken to eliminate harmful usage of confrontation techniques?

    Reports indicated that between 2020 and 2024, four out of six femicides involved victims who had previously sought help.  It was noted with satisfaction that there were plans to recognise femicide as a separate criminal offence.  What were the plans to ensure successful implementation of such a law?  While the State Party had established shelters and helplines for domestic violence victims, these services remained underfunded and insufficient.  Could the delegation provide updated figures on current shelter capacity and measures taken to ensure adequate and sustainable funding for these services? Could the delegation elaborate on plans to expand specialised services, such as psychological and legal assistance, across all regions?  Could an update be provided on the full implementation of the sex offender registry and the enforcement of post-sentence monitoring measures?  What were the main challenges in implementing the 2017-2021 Strategy on Prevention and Protection of Children from Violence and how were these challenges being addressed in the 2025-2029 Strategy? What legislative and policy measures were in place to combat online grooming and digital exploitation of children? How was it ensured that child victims of violence received adequate support?

    Responses by the Delegation 

    The delegation said upon the initiative of the non-governmental organisation Human Rights Action, a new criminal offence of enforced disappearance had been introduced and would be recognised as an offence in the Criminal Code.  The Law on the Prevention of Corruption was being amended, and two-thirds of recommendations from the civil sector had been accepted in this regard.  In Montenegro, there had been three Federal Governments over the past three years, which had led to a large number of decisions enacted in a short period of time.  There had been no intention to leave the civil and non-governmental organisation sector aside.  It was common that the most senior members of Government made efforts to memorialise the day of the Srebrenica genocide.  Sometimes, there were inappropriate statements made. However, it was hoped there would be less of these situations in the future and such statements would be sanctioned when made during elections.  There had also been a resolution adopted in Parliament on the genocide in Srebrenica.

    There would no longer be impunity for war crimes in Montenegro and proactive action had been taken in this regard.  Cases which had been finalised would be reopened, and thoroughly examined.  The strategy to combat war crimes was adopted in June 2024, which had resulted in four cases previously considered to be finalised being reopened.  In addition to this, the Special Case Prosecutor Service would look into other cases which had ended in a final judgement.  The Criminal Procedure Code was amended in June 2024, which had resulted in the inditement of a person for acts against humanity.  Two criminal cases were currently before the courts for alleged war crimes committed on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. These cases were treated as a priority and were given special consideration by judges.  All victims of war crimes and their families were guaranteed access to justice and reparations.  Concrete examples could be provided of cases where courts had already awarded damages.

    In 2024, meetings had been held with the Chief Prosecutor in The Hague, and an initiative had been implemented to ensure training for Montenegro’s judges and prosecutors, based on the practices of The Hague.  Montenegro had signed the Ljubljana Hague Convention on war crimes last year.

    In 2023, the Criminal Code was amended to define the actions which constituted the criminal offence of domestic violence, as well as those who could receive safeguards under the law.  Sanctions for this offence were also increased and verbal threats were criminalised. A mandatory instruction was also adopted, mandating all prosecutors to act proactively in cases of domestic violence and to apply the Istanbul Convention.  A coordinator had been appointed at the level of the Supreme State Prosecutor and across local offices, providing periodic reporting and ensuring the speedy administration of justice.  Some 622 final judgements had been enacted on domestic violence cases in 2024, with the majority being convictions.

    There had been 364 applications for legal aid last year, and 318 of those cases were granted. A campaign had been developed to increase awareness of the availability of legal aid for all victims of domestic violence.  There were also information bulletins on trafficking in human beings available in five languages at legal aid clinics.

    Femicide was a serious, complex and tragic occurrence which needed to be tackled through various sectors.  Monitoring this criminal offence was a key challenge for Montenegro institutions. Special focus was devoted to victims, survivors and surviving family members.  In one case of femicide, the offender had been sentenced to 40 years imprisonment.

    The Judicial Council recently appointed ten judges of the High Court, which was a positive step forward.  The procedure was now simplified for recruiting new officers in the Anti-Corruption Agency.  There were now sixteen prosecutors in the Special Prosecutor’s Office, compared to six a few years ago.  The Centre for Training of Judges and Prosecutors tailored their training programmes annually.  Through the legislation harmonised with the Covenant, Montenegro aimed to implement the top international standards, including those enshrined within the Covenant.

    The Ministry of Human and Minority Rights focused on the protection of vulnerable groups, and the prevention of discrimination and inequality.  There was now a new strategy in place until 2028, focusing on the legislative framework.  This year, two million euros had been allocated for achieving non-governmental organisations’ projects.  During the last Pride event, the organisers had commended the Ministry for its contribution.  The Ministry was currently working on four important laws which addressed discrimination against the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community, defined hate speech, and the forms of punishable behaviour, among other elements.

    Official political representatives and the public shared the view that forced sterilisation and removal of reproductive organs was an inhumane practice which the State needed to do away with. A law had been developed in this regard, which would be enacted in the first quarter of 2025.

    Work was being done to harmonise laws regarding the judiciary and healthcare.  The new law on protecting human rights and freedoms would ensure the Ombudsman would receive “A” status and be in line with the Paris Principles.  There had been imprisonment terms of between four to six months for those who committed attacks against transgender people.  In most cases, courts primarily referred to the European Convention of Human Rights, thereby invoking relevant international standards.  There had also been references to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.  International treaties had supremacy over domestic legislation. 

    Pride events took place in Montenegro’s capital each year.  Last year, the event was held the day before an important local election. In the past, this could have been seen as an opportunity to radicalise the environment, however the event was held in complete peace.  It was hoped this would continue, and that the Pride Festival could be an event of freedom.

    There was zero tolerance for any form of torture and any officer reported was promptly investigated. In 2024, there were 21 cases against 38 police officers, with four resulting in convictions.

    Follow-Up Questions by Committee Experts

    An Expert asked about changes that the State party had observed regarding perceptions of stereotypes. The Committee was pleased that there were awareness campaigns and education initiatives around child marriages, but it was not clear if there had been a documented fall in child marriage. There had been legislative changes for the participation of women; had they given rise to the political participation of women in senior positions or in the Parliament?  When would the next parliamentary elections be held?  Would the State seek to ensure female representation was achieved?  What had been done to monitor and prevent selective abortion practices?

    A Committee Expert said the bill of law on gender determination could be adopted this year. When would it enter into force? Could more information on the restrictions in the bill be provided?  The medical reports issued in detention centres did not faithfully report on allegations of torture following instructions contained in the Istanbul Protocol.  Could the delegation elaborate on this?

    Another Committee Expert asked whether a national mechanism responsible for enacting the recommendations of United Nations treaty bodies existed in Montenegro.

    A Committee Expert asked what was being done to strengthen the institution of the Ombudsperson.

    Another Expert asked if more information could be provided on measures to combat violence against children.

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said there were many politicians who believed that there needed to be a mandatory quota of 50 per cent of women represented in politics.  This was now in the stage of negotiations.  Women were the most active within the judiciary and the State was proud of this.  There were 169 female judges within the Montenegro judiciary, accounting for 64 per cent of all judges.  An association had been established to promote the role of women in the judiciary.

    The Supreme Court had supported analysis of the data, politics and practices in the fight against the exploitation of children.  One of the recommendations of this analysis was for the Supreme Court to adopt guidelines on assessing the trust environment, which would be implemented in all cases of violence against children, including cases of online violence. Courts avoided secondary victimisation of children.  Montenegro foresaw implementation of the Barnahus model, with the support of the United Nations Children’s Fund and the European Union. 

    Parliament made efforts to raise awareness on gender equality issues and to introduce its own gender equality mechanisms.

    ### Day 2

    In 2024, the Government adopted a strategy for the protection of children against violence for 2025 to 2029, promoting a zero tolerance of violence against children. The State party planned to implement recommendations from the Global Status Report on Violence Against Children, and United Nations mechanisms under the strategy, which also aimed to improve the legislative framework and change conservative societal norms that denied children rights.

    The national mechanism for the prevention of torture monitored torture at all levels, including in places of detention.  The State party had accepted Universal Periodic Review recommendations and had established a body for their implementation.

    There were restrictions within the law on self-determination of gender identity, but these were necessary to protect the rights of families.  The law was applicable to Montenegro nationals only and had been well-received by members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community.

    The State party had mechanisms to prevent the misuse and abuse of laws on child marriage. There were exceptions allowing for child marriage, but several conditions needed to be fulfilled for such marriages to be permitted.  In all other cases, child marriage was criminalised.

    The mechanism for the protection of privacy rights in the health sector protected the privacy of patients.  The Government could not access certain information on health cards, such as information on surgeries and abortions.  The Government carried out awareness raising campaigns aiming to stop the practice of selective abortions.

    New legislation was being developed that aimed to bring the Office of the Ombudsman in line with the Paris Principles.

    Questions by Committee Experts

    A Committee Expert said a deinstitutionalisation strategy had been adopted to tackle overcrowding in psychiatric hospitals. Had the Government devoted sufficient resources to the strategy, and did it promote community care?  Detention facilities in police stations reportedly lacked natural light and did not have open-air spaces.  What measures were planned to address this situation?

    One of the judges of the Constitutional Court had reportedly been forced to resign due to a decision that was allegedly not in line with the Constitution.  Was the independence of judges guaranteed by law?  How did the State party prevent interference in the judiciary?  There was a lack of hearing chambers and judicial staff, contributing to a backlog in cases.  What measures were in place to address the backlog?  Did the 2024 changes made to the law on the council of the judiciary help judges with their work?  There were currently two Presidents of first instance courts who were on their third mandates, contrary to the law limiting tenures to two mandates. Why was this?  What measures were in place to raise awareness about the availability of free legal aid?

    Another Committee Expert welcomed the evaluation of the strategy for tackling trafficking in persons and the current strategy and national action plan.  Some improvements had been made in trafficking policies, but significant gaps reportedly remained, including in relation to the identification of victims. The anti-trafficking unit was severely under-resourced and the labour inspection unit lacked the capacity to identify labour exploitation effectively.  What measures would the State party take to strengthen the capacities of these units to better identify victims?  There was only one shelter for women victims of trafficking and none for men. Psychosocial assistance for victims was limited and no victims had received financial compensation.  What measures had the State party taken to separate child and adult victims in shelters, and to fund reintegration programmes for victims?

    The Committee welcomed training initiatives on data protection and privacy rights, but public awareness of privacy issues remained low.  What measures were in place to improve awareness and training for State officials on privacy issues?  How many privacy complaints had been investigated?  Were there plans to develop a data protection law?  One State official had been indicted for ordering the surveillance of 15 members of civil society.  The National Security Agency could access private data without court authorisation.  Were there plans to introduce judicial authorisation for such access?  What measures would the State party take to increase data protections and introduce remedies for victims of unauthorised data access?

    There had been 92 attacks against journalists between 2021 and 2024, a 200 per cent increase from the previous period.  What steps had been taken to enhance the safety of journalists, ensure accountability and prevent future attacks? What work was done by the commission monitoring attacks on journalists?  Recent legal amendments had strengthened protections for journalists, but strategic lawsuits against public participation remained a major concern. How would concerns related to these lawsuits be addressed?  Had the State party consulted with civil society concerning amendments to media regulations?

    A Committee Expert noted laws and other measures implemented to protect the rights of asylum seekers and refugees, which seemed to be in line with European Union laws and policies.  However, there were reports of increasing pushbacks at the border, deportation to unsafe countries and ill-treatment and detention of asylum seekers at the border for up to 28 days.  How was the State party preventing refoulement and protecting asylum seekers’ rights at the border?  Why were persons undergoing legal procedures related to statelessness not eligible for free legal aid?  Reported restrictions on access to healthcare and other State services for stateless persons were worrying.  The Committee welcomed that the State party had provided more than 16,000 Ukrainian refugees with temporary protection, but there were reports of Ukrainian children living in precarious circumstances and not being able to access State services. Could the delegation comment on these issues?

    The environment for non-governmental organizations was reportedly hostile, with some persons who criticised members of the Government or denounced corruption reportedly subjected to reprisals.  There was discourse related to a proposed “foreign agent law”, which would infringe freedom of expression.  Would such a law be implemented?  What measures were in place to protect whistleblowers?

    One Committee Expert welcomed the efforts of the State party to revise its law on access to information in line with international standards.  How did the law promote inclusion and accountability?  There was reportedly a growing trend in classifying public information as restricted.  What measures were in place to prevent the abuse of legislation on restricted information? What independent monitoring bodies could individuals appeal to regarding the restriction of information?

    What measures had the State party taken to ensure that the implementation of legislation on religious practices promoted freedom of religion?  Were the views of religious communities on these laws taken into account?  What measures were in place to punish hate speech, particularly Islamophobic hate speech?  What mechanisms existed to ensure transparency in the moderation of disputes between religious communities, and to protect the rights of minority religious communities?

    A Committee Expert noted progress in the appointment of the Anti-Corruption Agency, which had released reports related to the financing of electoral campaigns.  In the most recent election, regulations aiming to prevent corruption had reportedly not required candidates to record personal expenditure or spending on online advertising.  The Agency had issued 46 proposals to improve measures for the prevention of corruption. How did the State party ensure that these reforms were effectively implemented?  There had been accusations of vote buying; had these been investigated and the perpetrators punished?

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said a strategy for the enforcement of criminal sanctions was in place to prevent acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, and to promote the resocialisation of detainees.  Reforms had been developed to prevent the abuse of prisoners, in line with the recommendations of the European Court of Human Rights.  Construction had started on a special unit at a psychiatric hospital to resolve the issue of overcrowding.  The necessary resources would be devoted to ensuring the proper functioning of this unit.

    In 2023, based on the recommendations of the United Nations Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture, the State party had approved measures to record the activities of police officers and the transfer of detainees, and to improve facilities for detainees in police stations. The deadline for implementing these was 2026.

    The Government had adopted a judicial reform strategy in 2024, which aimed to strengthen independence, accountability, transparency and trust in the judiciary.  Comprehensive legal reforms undertaken in 2024 had aligned the State’s judicial legislation with that of the European Union.  The Justice Minister was a member of the Judicial Council, but only had limited powers; he did not participate in matters concerning the election, discipline and dismissal of judges and could not be the Chair of the Council.  The participation of the Minister in this body did not affect the independence of the judiciary.  Future amendments to the Constitution would remove the Justice Minister from the Judicial Council.  When appointing Presidents of Courts, the Judicial Council took due care to assess whether the candidate had formerly been a President.  Recent reforms called for the work of Supreme Court judges to be evaluated every five years.  Restrictions were placed on the roles that judges could play when they were subject to disciplinary proceedings.  A working group had been set up to regulate the employment rights of judges, including their wages.  There were plans to increase the salaries of judges to ensure their independence.

    The Supreme Court had taken several actions to reduce the backlog of cases and to speed up proceedings.  There had been an increase in cases related to access to information; one individual had lodged 11,000 such cases.  The State party had streamlined proceedings related to the assessment of access to information cases.

    An amendment to the law on free legal aid was adopted in 2024.  It provided for free legal aid for vulnerable persons and persons who lodged claims in specified fields, including domestic violence and child protection.  The Government was implementing training to increase the number of legal aid practitioners, who needed to have specialised knowledge.  An awareness raising campaign on free legal aid had been implemented, targeting victims of domestic violence.  It had led to an increase in applications for legal aid.

    The Government was implementing several measures to combat trafficking in persons.  It had amended the Criminal Code to strengthen its response to trafficking. Abduction had been defined as a means of committing trafficking, and penalties for harming children and the sale of children had been increased.  In 2024, the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office implemented measures to improve the identification of trafficking victims, including through information exchanges with neighbouring countries.  There had been an increase in the number of criminal offences of trafficking prosecuted in 2024.  Some 14 charges were issued against 25 individuals in 2024 for crimes of trafficking for the purposes of forced labour and sexual exploitation.

    The Ministry of Interior had undertaken several activities to strengthen the capacities of police officers and social and healthcare workers, to identify and support trafficking victims.  The system for the protection of victims of trafficking had been improved, thanks to the establishment of a State-funded shelter for women victims of trafficking in 2024.  Another shelter specifically prepared to house children was also operational; it had facilities for children with disabilities.

    Courts had made progress in prosecuting trafficking cases. Imprisonment terms of at least 15 years had recently been issued for two persons found guilty of trafficking, and other persons had received shorter prison terms for trafficking offences. When Montenegro entered the European Union, a law on compensation for victims of trafficking would enter into force. Guidelines had been issued to judges on compensation for victims.

    The Government strongly denied any allegations of violations of the rights of asylum seekers.  Border officials had received training on identifying trafficking victims.  A new law on the international protection of foreign nationals had been adopted in 2018, to increase the protection of their rights and the efficiency of the asylum process.  This law was fully aligned with relevant European Union Directives.  It ensured that decisions on asylum cases were reached within six months.

    A draft law on data protection had been prepared and was currently being assessed.  There were safeguards in place for the protection of personal data, including the personal data protection agency, which was mandated to regulate the processing of personal data by Government bodies.  The law on the National Security Agency required records to be kept of officers who had accessed personal data.  An amendment to the law had been approved by the Parliamentary Committee, which could visit the Agency and conduct checks on its practices.  The new law aimed to increase the transparency of the Agency’s activities.  Three charges had been lodged against the former Director of the Agency and another officer regarding unauthorised surveillance.  These cases were currently pending.

    The Government was promoting freedom of expression and strengthening legislation to protect journalists from attacks.  A commission dedicated to monitoring attacks against journalists had been set up and was operational.  It published reports and held regular meetings with officials on protection measures.  The law on the national public broadcaster was amended in 2024 to prevent undue political interference in its activities and in the election of its members, in line with the recommendations of the Venice Commission.  Prosecution teams had been set up to investigate the murders of three journalists.

    The Parliament organised public hearings and debates on proposed legislation, including the draft law on free access to information.  The Government would prioritise adoption of this law, which would promote transparency in access to information.

    Judges’ terms ceased when they reached statutory retirement age.  The Constitutional Court had failed to inform the Parliament that one of its judges had reached retirement age; the Parliament had issued a statement informing the Court of this fact.  The judge in question had filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court regarding her removal from the Court, but this had been rejected.

    The law on freedom of religious belief was amended in 2021; religious communities were not involved in this process, though they had been involved in drafting of the initial law.  The restitution of property to religious communities would be addressed in a forthcoming law.  Montenegro was committed to promoting the rights of religious communities.

    Follow-Up Questions by Committee Experts

    Committee Experts asked follow-up questions on the State’s response to reports of excessive use of force at the borders and an increase in pushbacks; the availability of legal aid for asylum seekers; how Montenegro prevented third-party actors from influencing political processes; reasons for delays in prosecuting hate crimes; measures to address the low representation of women in political bodies; plans to address the Supreme Court’s case backlog; measures to prevent delayed responses to requests for information; and steps taken to open inquiries into religious hate speech and to punish these acts.

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said the State had not received any allegations of pushbacks at the border.  All individuals who entered the territory of Montenegro had the right to request international protection.  The law on international protection guaranteed legal aid for all asylum seekers, which was provided through a non-governmental organization, financed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.  Legal aid was also guaranteed by law for victims of trafficking, domestic violence and sexual offences.  The State party was developing case management mechanisms to address the Supreme Court’s case backlog.

    One deputy prime minister needed to be of an underrepresented gender.  A women’s club was in place, as well as a quota system, for the management boards of public companies.

    Criticism of public officials was permitted, as long as it did not constitute hate speech.  A law was being drafted that would implement sanctions for hate speech. The Government sought to lift the immunity of one mayor who had discriminated against a religious group in public speeches, so that he could be prosecuted.

    A committee had been set up to develop amendments to legislation on elections and campaign financing.  Its work had been delayed, but it was due to develop this legislation by the end of this year.  Its membership had also been expanded.

    The fourth strategy on deinstitutionalisation was adopted in December 2024, along with its action plan.  Funding was provided for social care under the strategy, which envisaged licencing and training of social service providers, and setting norms and standards for social work.

    Complaints of hate speech against religious communities were handled by the Ombudsperson’s Office.  The State party was currently negotiating agreements with several religious communities.

    Although public statements related to laws on foreign agents had been made, no draft laws on foreign agents had been submitted to Parliament.  The State party promoted freedom of expression.

    Closing Statements

    BLAGOJE GLEDOVIĆ, Director General of the Directorate for the International Cooperation and International Legal Aid, Ministry of Justice of Montenegro, and alternative head of the delegation, said the exchange with the Committee had been lively and exhaustive.  Over the reporting period, the State party had undertaken several reforms to promote civil and political rights and to meet the requirements for accession to the European Union.  Significant efforts had been made by public servants and civil society to achieve Montenegro’s membership of the Union.  Montenegro remained committed to the implementation of the Covenant through national legislation and all other available measures.  The State party looked forward to receiving the Committee’s recommendations, which it would carefully consider and strive to implement.

    CHANGROK SOH, Committee Chairperson, thanked the delegation for engaging in dialogue with the Committee.  Discussions had covered a wide range of topics related to the implementation of the Covenant by the State party, highlighting the progress made and challenges faced.  The Committee was committed to fulfilling its mandate to ensure the highest standard of implementation of the Covenant in Montenegro.  Mr. Soh thanked all persons who had contributed to the dialogue.

     

    Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media; 
    not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.

     

     

    CCPR25.002E

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI Security: Mr Pavel Zeman rejoins Eurojust as National Member for Czech Republic

    Source: Eurojust

    Commenting on his return to Eurojust, Mr Zeman stated: I’m very pleased to come back to Eurojust as it is a unique and necessary institution. I see three goals I want to contribute to: the continuation of effective support to practitioners, the development of Eurojust and the creation of a good working environment. To achieve that, we need perfect cooperation between the National Desks and the administration. Everybody must bear in mind that Eurojust is only successful if our clients – the practitioners – are satisfied with our support. And I want Eurojust to succeed.

    The new National Member for the Czech Republic graduated in Law at the Charles University of Prague in 1998 and became a public prosecutor in 2001. Mr Zeman specialised in cross-border judicial cooperation in criminal matters and later joined the Prosecutor General’s Office. With the entry of the Czech Republic into the European Union, he became the country’s first National Member at Eurojust.

    Mr Zeman was appointed Prosecutor General in 2011, holding this position until 2021. Subsequently, he became a specialised prosecutor in cybercrime, the criminal liability of legal entities and war crimes. He lectures on cybercrime, corporate liability, plea bargaining, judicial ethics and war crimes. He also provides training to prosecutors on media-related matters.

    Mr Zeman left the prosecution service in 2024 to lead the Internal Audit Department of the Czech National Bank. Early this year, he returned to the Prosecutor General’s Office, and as of 1 March was appointed Czech National Member at Eurojust. He remains affiliated with Prague Charles University as well as a lecturer at the Czech and Slovak judicial academies. In addition to his mother tongue, Mr Zeman speaks English, German, French, Slovak and Russian.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Ericsson, Qualcomm and Thales Alenia Space reach milestone in space-based connectivity

    Source: Thales Group

    Headline: Ericsson, Qualcomm and Thales Alenia Space reach milestone in space-based connectivity

    • Ericsson, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Thales Alenia Space have partnered on 5G NR non terrestrial networks (NTN) technology since 2022
    • Demonstration validates key technical functionalities essential for robust satellite communication integration
    • It paves the way towards the seamless integration of terrestrial network (TN) and NTN, laying the groundwork for commercial deployment

    The integration of traditional mobile networks with satellite mobile networks – and the related possibility of truly global connectivity across oceans and continents – has moved a step closer following a significant technology achievement by Ericsson (NASDAQ: ERIC), Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. and Thales Alenia Space.

    The three partners combined expertise in a French test laboratory to successfully connect a 5G standards-based non terrestrial network call with a simulated low earth orbit (LEO) satellite channel.

    5G Skytower LEO satellite ©Thales Alenia Space/ Briot

    In effect, the trial proved that an NR-NTN capable device would never be without mobile coverage where areas are served by either terrestrial or non-terrestrial networks. In other words, if NTN covers an area in the middle of an ocean or deep forest – currently impossible to cover with terrestrial networks – then a device would be able to connect, via mobile connectivity alone, with any other device or service on the mobile network without the need for additional satellite signal receiving equipment, such as a dish. 

    Support applications could include high-definition voice calls and real-time video streaming services.

    The achievement is a significant milestone on the way to non-terrestrial networks becoming a commercial reality. The collaboration launched in 2022 was, at the time, the world’s first publicly announced collaboration for 5G NTN based on 3GPP standards. 

    Fredrik Jejdling, Executive Vice President and Head of Business Area Networks, at Ericsson, says: “This successful 5G non-terrestrial network call represents not just a technological breakthrough but also showcases the practical viability of integrating satellite technology within existing terrestrial frameworks. Ericsson is committed to advancing ubiquitous connectivity, and our collaborative effort with Thales Alenia Space and Qualcomm Technologies will help ensure that future communication systems are more inclusive, resilient, and globally accessible. By leveraging NTN technology, we aim to bridge the digital divide and bring reliable communication to every corner of the world.”

    John Smee, Senior Vice President, Engineering, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., says: “Our collaboration with Ericsson and Thales Alenia Space is crucial in leveraging 3GPP standards for satellite communications, helping to ensure that 5G connectivity is universally accessible to 5G smartphone users. Qualcomm Technologies remains committed to enhancing chipset capabilities that support the seamless integration of 5G non-terrestrial networks and terrestrial networks.”

    Hervé Derrey, CEO of Thales Alenia Space, says: “For years, Thales Alenia Space has been at the heart of all initiatives aimed at seamlessly integrating satellite communications in the 5G network infrastructure – including standardization with 3GPP – and takes 5G NTN standardized solutions into account in the design of its satellite payloads supporting either Broadband or Direct-To-Device (D2D) services. By combining Thales Alenia Space’s expertise in space technologies with Ericsson’s leadership in 5G networks and Qualcomm Technologies’ advanced chipsets, we are making significant headway towards the seamless integration of terrestrial and NTN networks, to provide access to 5G services, anywhere and at any time.”

    Ericsson, Qualcomm Technologies, and Thales Alenia Space are committed to further refinement and development of 5G/6G NTN technologies, aiming to introduce and scale 5G NTN on the market and allow for a full set of services – from multi-orbit satellites including messaging, voice and data, to make seamless communication a reality for everyone, everywhere, and at any time. 

    More on the tech :

    The partners established a 3GPP-based end-to-end New Radio (NR) 5G non-terrestrial networks (NTN) call using a lab-emulated low earth orbit (LEO) satellite.
    The test explored critical components such as handling delays, Doppler effects, and ensuring seamless satellite handovers, which are crucial for maintaining communication integrity in satellite environments.

    About Ericsson:

    Ericsson’s high-performing networks provide connectivity for billions of people every day. For nearly 150 years, we’ve been pioneers in creating technology for communication. We offer mobile communication and connectivity solutions for service providers and enterprises. Together with our customers and partners, we make the digital world of tomorrow a reality. Ercisson 

    Ericsson France press contact:
    Laetitia Suizdak:  laetitia.suizdak@ericsson.com   

    About Qualcomm:

    Qualcomm is enabling a world where everyone and everything can be intelligently connected. Our one technology roadmap allows us to efficiently scale the technologies that launched the mobile revolution – including advanced connectivity, high-performance, low-power compute, on-device intelligence and more – to the next generation of connected smart devices across industries. Innovations from Qualcomm and our families of Snapdragon and Dragonwing platforms will help enable cloud-edge convergence, transform industries, accelerate the digital economy, and revolutionize how we experience the world, for the greater good.     
    Qualcomm Incorporated includes our licensing business, QTL, and the vast majority of our patent portfolio. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., a subsidiary of Qualcomm Incorporated, operates, along with its subsidiaries, substantially all of our engineering, research and development functions, and substantially all of our products and services businesses, including our QCT semiconductor business. Snapdragon, Qualcomm Dragonwing and Qualcomm branded products are products of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. and/or its subsidiaries. Qualcomm patents are licensed by Qualcomm Incorporated. 
    Qualcomm is a trademark or registered trademark of Qualcomm Incorporated.

    About Thales Alenia Space:

    Drawing on over 40 years of experience and a unique combination of skills, expertise and cultures, Thales Alenia Space delivers cost-effective solutions for telecommunications, navigation, Earth observation, environmental management, exploration, science and orbital infrastructures. Governments and private industry alike count on Thales Alenia Space to design satellite-based systems that provide anytime, anywhere connections and positioning, monitor our planet, enhance management of its resources, and explore our Solar System and beyond. Thales Alenia Space sees space as a new horizon, helping to build a better, more sustainable life on Earth. A joint venture between Thales (67%) and Leonardo (33%), Thales Alenia Space also teams up with Telespazio to form the parent companies’ Space Alliance, which offers a complete range of services. Thales Alenia Space posted consolidated revenues of approximately €2.2 billion in 2023 and has around 8,600 employees in 8 countries with 16 sites in Europe. 
     

    MIL OSI Economics

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Transcript of Press Briefing on the Completion of the Third Review for the IMF Extended Fund Facility for Sri Lanka

    Source: IMF – News in Russian

    March 5, 2025

    PARTICIPANTS:

    PETER BREUER

    Senior Mission Chief for Sri Lanka

    KATSIARYNA SVIRYDZENKA

    Deputy Mission Chief for Sri Lanka

    MARTHA TESFAYE WOLDEMICHAEL

    Resident Representative in Sri Lanka

    MODERTOR:

    RANDA ELNAGAR

    Senior Media Officer

    TRANSCRIPT:


    Ms. Elnagar:  
    Good morning to our participants who are joining us from Asia and good evening to our participants in DC. Welcome to the press conference on of the Third review of Sri Lanka’s Extended Fund Facility Arrangement with the International Monetary Fund. I am Randa Elnagar, with the IMF’s communications department.

    I am joined today by three speakers. Peter Breuer, IMF’s Senior Mission Chief for Sri Lanka; Katsiaryna Svirydzenka, Deputy Mission Chief for Sri Lanka; and Martha Tesfaye Woldemichael, IMF’s Resident Representative in Sri Lanka.

    By now you should have seen the press release, which we issued on Friday and the staff report is not on IMF.org. First, Peter will give some opening remarks, and then we will take your questions.

    We are kindly asking you to mute your microphones throughout the briefing, unless you are asking a question. Peter the floor is yours.

    started transcription


    Mr. Breuer:
    Thank you, Randa. Good morning, all, thank you very much for being here and for your interest in Sri Lanka’s IMF-supported economic reform program.

    I am pleased to announce that, on Friday February 28, the IMF Executive Board approved the third review under the 48-month Extended Fund Facility Arrangement with Sri Lanka. This provides the country with immediate access to about US$334 million to support its economic policies and reforms.

    It brings the total IMF financial support dispersed so far to about $1.3 billion.
    The IMF continues to support Sri Lanka’s efforts to restore and maintain macroeconomic stability and debt sustainability while protecting the poor and vulnerable rebuilding external buffers. Safeguarding financial sector stability and enhancing growth oriented structural reforms, including by strengthening governance.

    The IMF Executive Board’s approval to complete the third review recognizes the strong program performance. All quantitative targets for end December 2024 were met, except for the indicative target on social spending.
    Most structural benchmarks do by end January 2025 were either met or implemented with delay.

    Turning to through the macroeconomic situation, it is encouraging to see that reforms in Sri Lanka are bearing fruit with the economic recovery gaining momentum, inflation remains slow.

    Revenue collection is improving and reserves continue to accumulate.
    Economic growth averaged 4.3% since growth resumed in the third quarter of 2023.
    The recovery is expected to continue in two thousand 2025 now. Despite these positive developments, the economy is still vulnerable.
    It is critical to sustain the reform momentum to ensure macroeconomic stability and debt sustainability.

    And to promote long term inclusive growth, there is no room for policy errors.
    Let me emphasize that sustained revenue mobilization is crucial to restoring fiscal sustainability.

    And ensuring that the government can continue to provide essential services.
    Boosting tax compliance and refraining from tax exemptions are key to maintaining support for economic reforms.

    Let me also emphasize that to ease economic hardship and ensure the poor and vulnerable can participate in Sri Lanka’s recovery, it is important to meet social spending targets and continue with reforms of the social safety net going forward. Social support needs to be well targeted towards the.

    Most disadvantaged, so as to promote inclusive growth with limited fiscal space.
    Restoring cost recovery, electricity pricing without delay is needed to contain fiscal risks from state owned enterprises.
    A smoother execution of capital spending within the fiscal envelope would foster medium term growth.

    The recent successful completion of the bond exchange is a major milestone towards restoring debt sustainability, timely finalization of bilateral agreements with creditors in the official creditor committee, and with remaining creditors is a priority now. Regarding monetary policy, I would like to highlight that it should prioritize maintaining price. Stability supported by sustained commitment to prohibit monetary financing and.

    To safeguard central bank independence. Continued exchange rate, flexibility and gradually phasing out the balance of payments measures remain critical to rebuild external buffers and facilitate rebalancing.

    As for the financial sector, resolving non performing loans, strengthening governance and oversight of state owned banks and improving the insolvency and resolution frameworks are important priorities to revive credit growth and support the economic recovery.

    Finally, prolonged structural challenges need to be addressed to unlock Sri Lanka’s long term potential, including steadfast implementation of governance reforms.
    I would like to thank the authorities for their commitment and excellent collaboration.

    Let me also take this opportunity to announce that as part of a standard staff rotation process, I will soon be transitioning from the role of mischief for Sri Lanka.
    And I will be handing over to the next mission Chief Evan Papageorgiou, during the next mission. It has been an honor to accompany Sri Lanka on his journey out of this.

    Severe crisis for nearly three years. While there are more challenges ahead, the IMF team will remain a steadfast partner for Sri Lanka and its people on the road to a more sustainable and inclusive recovery.
    I will be moving to another assignment soon and wish the people of Sri Lanka continued success with the economic recovery.
    With this, let me hand it back to Rhonda. Thank you.


    Ms. Elnagar:
    Thank you so much, Peter.
    Colleagues, please raise your hand and identify yourself if you want to ask your question and turn on your camera, if possible and the mic. Thank you. I see the first hand, please.


    QUESTIONER:
    Thank you, Randa. This is Shihar Anis from economy next.
    I hope you can hear you.


    Ms. Elnagar:
    We can hear you well, Shihar. Thank you.


    QUESTIONER:
    OK. So my question is now there is a delay in the SOE restructuring because we don’t see the same speed that the previous government was doing, the SOE restructuring this government has been. Basically, they are not into privatization, but they are looking into a different model. How concerned are you on that? You know, delay or the current restructuring model.
    Thank you.


    Ms. Elnagar:
    Thank you. We’ll take another couple of questions and then answer them in groups.


    Ms. Elnagar:
    The audio. Zulfiq there is a lot of static on your mic.


    QUESTIONER:
    Hope you can hear me. I have two questions. That is, it has come to light that the Sri Lankan Government plans not to proceed with the imputed rental income tax as a revenue measure. So has this been discussed with the IMF and is there any other alternative that is being put forward and at the same time, what is IMF stake on the budget that was presented recently?


    Ms. Elnagar:
    Let’s take another question. Sampath, please.


    QUESTIONER:
    Hi I’m Sampath Dissanayake from BBC Sinhala service.
    The government is increasing the tax as per the IMF advice to increase government revenue. The number of people receiving Social Security benefit in benefits in Sri Lanka is increasing annually. So do you believe that the increase in tax burden is increase for reason for this?


    Ms. Elnagar: 
    Peter, we can take these three questions.


    Mr. Breuer:
    Yes, thank you very much. So let me answer some of the questions.
    On the budget and fiscal, and maybe Katie can answer the question on the.
    SOE reforms so the. Imputed rental income tax was a measure proposed by the previous administration as part of a possible revenue package for 2025, and the new authorities have proposed a slightly different package that is aligned with their mandate and priorities. And staff and the authorities have assessed that this package is sufficient to meet the revenue targets under the program. Now of course, should those measures prove insufficient, then additional revenue measures would be needed. And so that also. Ties in with the question on the budget and tax revenues. So yes, we have looked at the budget. And have, of course, disgusted with the authorities. There’s more detailed explanation in the staff report that should be online now, so there’s a table on page 12 that kind of lists some of the main measures needed to. reach the goal for tax revenue for next year. Yeah, reallybthe objective here is as you know tax revenue was a key driver of the crisis in 2022.
    Sri Lanka was the lowest that the country with the lowest tax take amongst.
    Middle income countries and low income countries in the world, and so it has made significant progress since then. Tax as a share of GDP, he has increased by 5 percentage points from somewhere. You know 7 to somewhere 12.4% or so last year. So that’s a significant increase, but by no means is excessive and. The essential services that the government provides need to be funded and for that reason.
    Working on ensuring that there is sufficient tax revenue remains a priority.
    And so social services, which was the 3rd question is just a portion of the overall essential services that that the government provides and is just a component on that actually. Maybe Marta can add on that point and cut you a can speak to the SOE reforms.


    Ms. Svirydzenka:
    So should I go first? OK. So on the on the SOE restructuring, the most crucial element is that the state owned enterprises are managed in a prudent manner so as to avoid the accumulation of losses or debts that then would eventually need to be repaid by the taxpayers. And in that sense, the SOEs can be managed prudently while remaining state owned or they can be divested partially or completely.

    We are reassured by the authorities commitment to ensure that this enterprises do not become a burden for the budget or for the government debt in terms of other key elements under the program has been the cost, reflective pricing of services provided by so especially in the area of electricity and fuel prices. Other commitments under the program include making SOEs more transparent, in particular by publishing audited financial statements of the largest, SOEs in a timely manner.

    And then finally, to allow the economy to grow, it is important that the consumers of services receive the best value for the price of being charged. So this involves running, SOEs in the most efficient manner and ensuring that they are following the best governance principles. So in that sense, we’re quite satisfied with the progress, yes.


    Martha Tesfaye Woldemichael:
    So let me maybe come in then to compliment a bit Peter’s response on the social spending, right. So there’s a question. Why social spending is increasing? I think this is a good opportunity to remind that protecting the poor and vulnerable is really an important component of the EFF program. So the EFF supports this objective through the different reforms through macro stabilization. But importantly, there is also a floor on social spending in the program that we assess on a quarterly basis. So this means the government has to spend a minimum amount to protect the poor and vulnerable.

    So in this context, the key commitment is really for the authorities to continue strengthening the coverage, the adequacy and the targeting of social spending. So recent announcement related to the expected decrease in the payments, for instance for the poor and extremely poor categories under a ASWASUMA or the.
    Announcement that the payments would also increase for the elderly, the disabled and chronic kidney patients are aligned with the authorities commitments to continue strengthening, strengthening social safety Nets and I think it is also very important to make sure that this coverage under the ASWASUMA program. Is above the poverty rates that are currently observed. I think I will stop here. Thank you very much. Back to you, Randa.


    Ms. Elnagar:
    Thank you, Martha. We’re first going to take a question from Kelum.
    I think Shihar you had your hand raised, so it’s from the first question. So if you can, please put your hand down because it’s a bit confusing, but we’re going to go to Kellum 1st and then Asante. So Kelum, please go ahead.


    QUESTIONER:
    Thank you. Can you hear me?


    Ms. Elnagar:
    Yes.


    QUESTIONER:
    Yes, I’m Kelum Bandara, from Daily Mirror newspaper. So my question is wanting the overall assessment about the budget, actually that was answered was that next day and the next question is, how important is it for the government to proceed with this Economic Transformation Act to reach the economic targets? Actually in searching by MFN or for the broader infrastructure of the country.


    Ms. Elnagar: 
    Thank you Asante. If you can, please pose your question.


    QUESTIONER:
    Yeah, so, the government has started the import duty on vehicles, which just knocked out earlier. Yeah, I think all the taxes were kind of like excise taxes. And so have you made any assessment on whether this will lead to an increase in assembled vehicles, which earlier didn’t get this tax protection and how much leakage of revenue might happen to the assembled sector and whether any effect to publish a kind of a tax expenditure statement to say how much of the import duties lost due to any increase or the sales of the assembled vehicles which are like got CKD, I think tax free the parts and also have you had any discuss? With the central bank. On offloading their government securities now that the Treasury bills

    Ms. Elnagar: Thank you, Asantha. There is a question in the chat which we’re going to take and then move to the ones online. Amal, you didn’t verify your organization.


    QUESTIONER:
    Oh, and I have actually done that. I’m from AFP, the French news agency, Agence France Press.


    Ms. Elnagar:
    Hi would you like to ask? Yeah, because you post in the in the chat.


    QUESTIONER:
    Oh yeah. I mean, if you want to save time, can just answer that.
    I mean basically I was trying to ask Peter how concerned you are about sort of emerging labor unrest, particularly now in the medical field. The doctors are threatening to go on strike from tomorrow, although there is a pay increase that the increase is less than the. Reduction of their allowances. So this is something that affects a lot of not just the medical sector. So how concerned are you that this kind of growing unrest, labor unrest, how it will affect the overall IMF backed program?


    Ms. Elnagar: 
    Peter, do you want to take another question?
    So they are three. So I think Indiqa is next.


    Mr. Breuer:
     Well, there’s actually an under. It feels like there’s a bunch of questions.
    Should we try and answer these?


    Ms. Elnagar: 
    OK. Sounds good.


    Mr. Breuer:
     And maybe Katya can speak to the Economic Transformation Act.
    And also to the central bank question so. On this important question with respect to the potential for unrest. Well, I suppose there is potential, but I think what really should be remembered is that this budget really sought to address some of the concerns that the government and ourselves have hurt that. You know, civil servants have been concerned about. The wages that they have been receiving and so.
    There is for the first time in a long time, an increase in civil service wages, while at the same time the personal income tax regime is were being changed and reducing personal income taxes considerably, at least for some. Income earners, including civil servants, you have to remember who are the ones who earn an income and pay taxes that really is the upper 20% of income earners in Sri Lanka. There has been a massive crisis in 2022 with huge costs to the population of Sri Lanka and in order for the government to keep on providing the essential services that the citizens of Sri Lanka expected, expect the government to provide and in order to bring along the poorer segments of society. Everyone who can needs to make a sacrifice.
    This is how the society can pull together and continue to function, and so.
    I think we all know how painful this crisis has been there’s no doubt about it.
    We have travelled around the country, we have met with many people.
    You know the plantation workers in Noro, alia have shown us their income statements and their bills. And it was very, very clear that this is a very severe crisis, but how else to address it. So, sticking with the reforms is really the best way out for Sri Lanka to assure its sustainability, and I think it’s important for everyone in Sri Lanka to recognize that.

    If you put it into the broader perspective the adjustment, this is the last budget.
    Where there is still a bit of an increase in in revenue is needed 1.5 percentage points of GDP, but all the hard adjustment has already taken place in the previous two years. You know revenue have increased 5 percentage points of GDP over the last two years. This is, you know, the last sort of big push. Not quite as big as in the previous years, and there after it’ll be much easier going forward.

    So on the cars I mean that’s a specific question. Does is there some import substitution? I can’t answer that. I would assume that after five years or so of a ban of imported cars that there will be some demand for finished cars from overseas.
    I do take your point that it’s possible that there may be some assembly of cars domestically.

    Katya, can you answer the other two questions please?


    Ms. Svirydzenka:
    Sure. So on the economic transformation, bill, we understand there was a recent announcement that the new government will propose amendments to the bill. And so we look forward to reviewing the amended economic transformation bill. We expect it to be consistent with program objectives, including for example with the authorities’ commitment to refrain from granting tax.
    Incentives until the STP act is revised to provide clear and transparent criteria on the granting of tax incentives on the. Central Bank Securities, I understand the question was that the Central Bank has sold T-bills but has a stock of on marketable bonds. And this is correct. And under the program at this point, because there’s no market for this restructured bonds, we do not envision they unwinding of this stock and over the next 12 months you can see it in the program targets in table one on page 95 of the published report under the category of net credit to the government.
    I hope that answers the question. If I understood it correctly.

     

    QUESTIONER: So, I am trying to find out what’s the alternative if you want to sterilize the inflows. I mean, kind of issuing central banks equity or something, but you have reserve target.


    Ms. Svirydzenka:
    Is this more than a question about the operation of monetary policy and how to sterilize reserve accumulation?


    QUESTIONER:
    Yeah. Yeah. Because you don’t you?


    Ms. Svirydzenka
    : Perhaps I misunderstood.


    QUESTIONER:
    You no longer have the tables to sell. What is the alternative securities they can sell to build?


    Ms. Svirydzenka
    : Yes, I understand. Thank you so much for clarifying. Yeah. So there are many alternatives that the Central bank can use. For example, they can engage in repo operations or also issue their own securities. But I guess what is important to highlight for your question is that the Central Bank so far has been able to meet the inflation target and if anything, they’re a little bit undershooting as you saw with the breach of the MPCC clause in June and in December. So in that sense, the central bank is quite effective in terms of reaching the inflation objectives and we think the tools they have in their, in their in their hands should be enough.


    Ms. Elnagar: 
    Thank you, Katya. We have more questions, Peter.
    We have Indika first please.


    QUESTIONER:
     Hi, Randa. Thank you, I think. I hope I’m audible.


    Ms. Elnagar:
    Yes you are.


    QUESTIONER:
    My questions, question to Peter is in the budget, there is a budget proposal to recruit about 30,000 people to the public sector. So we already have a bloated public sector in the country. So what’s your what’s IMF’s opinion on that? And the other question is on their flight, electricity, the price, reflective electricity tariffs. So we were under the impression that that is already happening because the government is already. Adjusting prices periodically, but in the press release that was released on Friday. The sort of insinuated that Sri Lanka S deviated. What is what is the situation there? Thank you.


    Ms. Elnagar
    : Peter, we can take a couple more questions this round.


    QUESTIONER:
    Randa, I hope I’m audible.


    Ms. Elnagar:
    Yes you are.


    QUESTIONER:
    Great. I just have one question. Peter, could you please outline what are the key goal posts that Sri Lanka has to hit as it moves forward to the 4th review now, right. And when will there be an IMF delegation coming to Colombo?
    Thank you.


    Ms. Elnagar:
    We can take more questions. There are two questions in the chat, Peter, One is asking, why was the proposed property tax under the IMF program withdrawn, and why wasn’t the existing under taxed Council tax system rebased instead? How much revenue was expected from the input rental tax and why could this be? Couldn’t this be raised adjusting Council taxes? There’s another one we can take, or that’s enough for now this round.


    Mr. Breuer:
    Yeah. Why don’t we get going with these ones? Thank you.


    Ms. Elnagar: 
    Yeah, because Shehar already had a chance at the beginning, so let’s take a different group now. Thank you.


    Mr. Breuer:
    So thanks so much for these questions. On the size of the public sector, that’s really not for us to judge the government needs to sort of identify the resources it needs to provide the services that it’s expected to provide.
    And do all of that within the envelope of the program. So there may be other institutions. The World Bank, for example, you know that can provide some more assistance, technical assistance to help with making the government as efficient as as possible. But. I don’t really have a comment there. The electricity tariff.
    So there was a reduction in the electricity tariffs in January, and this is when we feel that the cost reflective pricing was no longer met because on a forward-looking basis. That tariff cut meant that Ceb wouldn’t be able to avoid any losses.
    So these cuts. Essentially, at least on a forward-looking basis, implied that losses would be run now of course. These profits and losses by the electricity company depend on many factors, including the weather, the rain and so forth.
    So what turns out ex post may be different from what happens ex ante, but this is a concern that we have because it could mean that that starts building up again in the electricity company. That could ultimately become a contingent liability for the government. This is something that, of course, Sri Lanka has experienced before, and avoiding this and making sure that consumers on average pay for how much it costs to generate and distribute the electricity is an important part of the program.

    And this actually also goes towards answering the question of what are some of the main goal posts for the 4th review. So ensuring that cost reflective energy pricing is restored is of course a key. Part of what we would like to see for the next.
    Review I should say there are some mechanisms that give us hope that this will happen automatically. The SD bulk supply transaction account, which is sort of a mechanism that is supposed to kick in when losses at CB become too large when they are cash balances become. You know, negative beyond a certain value.
    Then there’s meant to be an automatic increase in the tariff. That would prevent these losses from accumulating, so so they are already mechanisms in place.
    It’s important that these mechanisms be allowed to function, and then, of course, at the next tariff setting, it’s important to ensure that tariffs will once again be set to  cover the costs. Another important Issue for the next review will of course be.
    The budget that the budget that is finally passed at the end of this month is in fact consistent with the program parameters. So this is something that we will be watching very carefully. So those are two issues that may matter.

    The next mission we expect to be visiting Colombo.in the coming weeks or months or so. So the exact dates will be announced closer to the time.
    With respect to the property tax. That is a property tax. Is very common in many countries it is a form of wealth tax whereby those who have more wealth, meaning more expensive homes, larger homes that are worth more, need to make larger contributions to the tax coffers and support the government. So, now it’s it had been discussed for quite some time previously, and in fact many preparations have been made under this program for property tax with respect to, you know sales price and rents register, and various databases to estimate the values of homes. So lots of preparations have been have been made. Then there were some concerns and this goes towards the question with respect to the local authorities how this tax could be raised and how it could be shared with at the at the central government level. So some of these issues still need to be resolved and so this is this is something I think that is as yet you know to be addressed. Let me stop there. Thank you.


    Ms. Elnagar: 
    Peter, we can take a couple more questions because we are out of time. So we can take from Sisira, who has been waiting patiently, and then we have a couple of questions in the chat. So Sisira, please go ahead. We can’t hear you.
    Sisira do you have a question? You have your hand raised?


    QUESTIONER:
    Yeah. Can you hear me?


    Elnagar, Randa Mohamed:
    Yes.


    QUESTIONER:
     My question is, what is the impact?


    Ms. Elnagar:
    Your mic is a bit muffled.


    QUESTIONER:
    Can you hear me?


    Ms. Elnagar:
    Peter, can you hear him?


    Mr. Breuer:
    It’s very, very soft. I don’t know whether you can bring the mic closer to him.


    QUESTIONER:
    Yeah, my question is what is the projected impact of Sri Lanka’s foreign reserves?


    Mr. Breuer:
    I think the question is what is the impact of the car imports on reserves? Yeah, OK.


    Ms. Elnagar:
    Vehicle import. Yeah. And then we have a couple of questions here.
    Amal already asked the question, a supplementary question regarding what Asantha raised about vehicle imports. So it’s the same topic and then we have. One from Ishara. Even though the IMF program has put Sri Lanka’s economy on the right track, a recent poverty study revealed that more than 50% of households are below the poverty line. Additionally, the Central bank mentioned that brain drain could severely impact efforts to accelerate growth. In this scenario, how can Sri Lanka reach its anticipated IMF recovery targets? And these are the last questions of the press conference.


    Mr. Breuer:
    :Yeah. Thank you very much. On the car imports. So yes, removing the import restrictions on car imports will allow cars to be imported which means they have to be paid for and so that could have an impact on the balance of payments. But as you know there’s a question to what extent you know the Central bank should intervene to make those reserves available versus allowing the exchange rate to fluctuate in response to market forces. So, that is something that remains to be seen, but maybe just to highlight the fact that reserves have increased. Significantly, so far under the program they have reached about half of the program objective already, which is very impressive.

    On the question with respect to the anticipated IMF recovery targets, so. I think it’s quite clear that things really have turned around significantly in Sri Lanka. I mean, you all live there, so you experience it much more than us. But when I first got to Sri Lanka in June 2022. Everybody was standing in a line somewhere in, you know, to get fuel, to get cooking gas to get food or medications and economic activity was was very subdued, I think in real terms. Sri Lanka lost, you know, 10% or so of its economic activity. As a result of this crisis and since then in the short amount of time.
    That the program has been there basically since 2023 it has already recovered 40% of the income it has lost. In the preceding five years, so in a very short amount of time, you have already a very significant recovery. You have the most recent growth number of 5.5%.

    So I think things are turning around significantly in Sri Lanka and that will have an impact on the indicators that we care about, such as poverty, so.
    As economic opportunities return to Sri Lanka. Incomes will increase and poverty will be reduced, and also it’ll be more attractive to remain in Sri Lanka and not leave and emigrate or those who have emigrated may find opportunities back in in Sri Lanka again so. You know, as you look at our projections, we have increased these quite a bit. For 2025 and beyond and so based on these, I would say I’m quite optimistic about the recovery in Sri Lanka.


    Ms. Elnagar:
    I think we’re out of time, Peter. If you guys have any further questions, please, please feel free to send them by e-mail. We are always very responsive or via WhatsApp. With that I would like to thank our speakers Peter, Katia, and Martha, and I would like to thank you all for participating in this press conference.
    We’re going to be posting the recording and the transcript by tomorrow.
    And we look forward in seeing to seeing you again in the future.
    Thank you very much.


    Mr. Breuer:
     Thank you.

     

    Ms. Woldemichael: Thank you.


    Ms. Svirydzenka:
    Thank you.

    IMF Communications Department
    MEDIA RELATIONS

    PRESS OFFICER: Randa Elnagar

    Phone: +1 202 623-7100Email: MEDIA@IMF.org

    https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2025/03/05/tr-030525-sri-lanka-transcript-of-press-briefing-on-completion-of-3rd-rev-for-eff

    MIL OSI

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Enforcement of the Digital Services Act (DSA) vis-à-vis large social network platforms in the light of recent allegations of algorithmic bias and foreign interference – P-000143/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    Democracy is a core value of the EU, with free and fair elections at its heart. Member States are responsible for organising elections according to national constitutional rules, legislation, international obligations, and EU law.

    The Commission supports Member States and competent authorities in election matters[1]. For example, ahead of the German federal election in February 2025, the Bundesnetzagentur and the Commission organised an election roundtable[2] and a stress test[3], with very large online platforms (VLOPs) and very large online search engines (VLOSEs), German authorities, and civil society organisations.

    Signatories of the EU Code of Conduct on Disinformation, which also contains commitments related to elections, also activated the Rapid Response System (RRS) for the German elections[4].

    The Commission has opened four proceedings[5] to address risks to civic discourse and elections focusing on the design and functioning of online platforms’ systems .

    The Commission recently ordered the provider of X[6] to preserve documents on future changes to the design and functioning of its recommender algorithms for information on past changes and access to certain technical interfaces to allow fact-finding on content moderation and virality of accounts.

    The Digital Services Act (DSA) requires providers of VLOPs and VLOSEs to give researchers access to public data and more far-reaching data to identify systemic risks. For the latter, the Commission is preparing a delegated act[7].

    • [1] The Commission has published guidelines for providers of VLOPs and VLOSEs on the mitigation of systemic risks for electoral processes, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/guidelines-providers-vlops-and-vloses-mitigation-systemic-risks-electoral-processes
    • [2] https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/digital-services-coordinator-germany-hosts-roundtable-online-platforms
    • [3] https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/german-digital-services-coordinator-tests-platforms-readiness-under-digital-services-act
    • [4] Previously used in EU, French and Romanian elections, the RRS allows non-platform signatories to swiftly report time-sensitive content, accounts, or trends that they deem to present threats to the integrity of the electoral process and discuss them with the platforms in light of their respective policies.
    • [5] https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/list-designated-vlops-and-vloses
    • [6] https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-addresses-additional-investigatory-measures-x-ongoing-proceedings-under-digital-services
    • [7] Pursuant to DSA Article 40(13).
    Last updated: 5 March 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Soutien continu aux services en français | Continued support for French-language services

    [. La communauté francophone compte maintenant plus de 261 000 personnes et il est essentiel de préserver et de soutenir ces personnes qui font partie intégrante du tissu social de la province.

    Il est essentiel d’améliorer les services en français et de préserver le patrimoine francophone en Alberta à mesure que la communauté francophone croît. S’il est adopté, le budget de 2025 investira plus de 4 millions de dollars à l’appui d’initiatives qui renforcent les ressources en français et élargissent l’accès aux expériences culturelles et éducatives en français.

    « En investissant dans les services en français, nous renforçons le soutien à notre communauté francophone, et nous veillons à ce que toutes les Albertaines et tous les Albertains puissent se rapprocher de l’histoire et du patrimoine que nous partageons, et les célébrer. Nous nous assurons que les Albertains peuvent accéder à des services du gouvernement, des réseaux de ressources pour les familles aux services de recherche et d’archives, dans la langue de leur choix. »

    Tanya Fir, ministre des Arts, de la Culture et de la Condition féminine

    Grâce au soutien du gouvernement, les Archives provinciales de l’Alberta ont été en mesure d’agrandir leur collection en français, notamment des documents de familles clés et des archives de la communauté francophone. À ce jour, les Archives provinciales ont traduit près de 200 documents aux fins d’accès par le public, et embauché des employés bilingues pour appuyer la recherche sur l’histoire francophone en Alberta.

    « Les Archives provinciales de l’Alberta sont les principaux détenteurs des documents des francophones dans la province. Grâce au financement du Plan d’action, notre archiviste et notre technicien en archivistique bilingues continuent de documenter la communauté francophone, et de rendre ces documents accessibles non seulement aux francophones en Alberta, mais au Canada et ailleurs dans le monde. Nous sommes fiers de notre travail, qui rend ces documents accessibles en ligne et sur place à quiconque souhaite se renseigner au sujet de la culture et de l’histoire des francophones, du français et de l’expérience francophone dans l’Ouest canadien. »

    Heather Innes, directrice générale, Archives provinciales de l’Alberta

    Les investissements prévus au budget de 2025 soutiendraient en outre la Société historique francophone de l’Alberta, qui joue un rôle crucial pour ce qui est de préserver et de partager l’histoire francophone de la province. Par le biais de ressources, de publications et d’outils éducatifs, la Société aide les Albertains francophones à découvrir leur patrimoine, à tisser des liens avec lui et à le transmettre aux générations futures.

    « Préserver, transmettre et faire rayonner l’histoire des francophones en Alberta demande des ressources et un engagement constant. Investir dans les services en français permet non seulement de mieux documenter cette histoire, mais de la rendre plus accessible à tous. Assurer le rayonnement de notre histoire nous permet de mieux la placer dans le récit collectif de l’Alberta. Cela contribue à renforcer notre identité et la vitalité de notre communauté. »

    Claudette D. Roy, C.M., présidente, Société historique francophone de l’Alberta

    Les efforts continus sont en harmonie avec le plan d’action de la Politique en matière de francophonie de l’Alberta, qui décrit les mesures touchant divers secteurs, notamment l’appui aux organismes francophones, l’amélioration de la prestation des services culturels et l’offre de ressources sur la santé et la justice en français.

    Le budget de 2025 est un plan tourné vers l’avenir qui vise à renforcer les services en français, en assurant un meilleur accès et davantage de possibilités à la population albertaine francophone afin qu’elle puisse s’épanouir et contribuer à la prospérité de la province.

    En bref

    • L’Alberta compte plus de 261 000 francophones et le français est la langue la plus couramment parlée après l’anglais dans la province (Statistique Canada, 2021).
    • Statistique Canada prévoit que la croissance de la population francophone en Alberta sera la plus élevée au pays. On prévoit une hausse de 25 % à 50 % d’ici 2036.

    Renseignements connexes

    • Plan d’action 2024-2028 de la Politique en matière de francophonie  
    • Politique en matière de francophonie du gouvernement de l’Alberta 
    • Ressources en français des Archives provinciales de l’Alberta

    Nouvelles connexes

    • Une offre améliorée de services en français partout en Alberta | More French services in every corner of Alberta (16 décembre 2024)

    Multimédia

    • Regarder la conférence de presse (en anglais seulement)

    Alberta’s government is continuing to invest in improving access to programs and services for French-speaking Albertans.

    The French language has been a foundational part of Alberta’s culture and heritage, contributing significantly to the Albertan identity. As the province’s French-speaking community has grown to more than 261,000 people, it is vital to preserve and support this foundational part of Alberta’s societal fabric.

    Enhancing French-language services and sustaining Alberta’s Francophone heritage are crucial as the province’s francophone community grows. If passed, Budget 2025 would invest more than $4 million to support initiatives that boost French resources and broaden access to cultural and educational experiences in French.

    “By investing in French-language services, we are not only strengthening support for our francophone community but also ensuring that all Albertans can connect with and celebrate our shared history and heritage. We are ensuring Albertans can access government services, from family resource networks to research and archival services, in the language of their choice.”

    Tanya Fir, Minister of Arts, Culture and Status of Women

    Through government support, the Provincial Archives of Alberta has been able to expand its French holdings, including key family records and francophone community archives. To date, the provincial archives has translated almost 200 French records for public access and hired bilingual staff to support Albertans researching francophone history.

    “The Provincial Archives of Alberta is the premier holder of records of the francophones in the province. Thanks to this Action Plan funding, our bilingual archivist and archival technician continue to document the French community, and to make these records available not just to Francophones here in Alberta, but in Canada and internationally. We are proud of the work we do to make these records accessible online and onsite at the Archives to anyone that wants to learn about francophone culture, history, French language and the francophone experience in the west.”

    Heather Innes, executive director, Provincial Archives of Alberta

    Investments through Budget 2025 would also support the Société historique francophone de l’Alberta, which plays a crucial role in preserving and sharing Alberta’s francophone history. Through resources, publications and educational tools, the society helps French-speaking Albertans learn, connect with and transmit their heritage to future generations.

    “Preserving, transmitting, and promoting the history of francophones in Alberta requires resources and ongoing commitment. Investing in French-language services not only helps document this history more effectively but also makes it more accessible to everyone. Showcasing our history allows us to better position it within Alberta’s collective narrative, strengthening both our identity and the vitality of our community.”

    Claudette D. Roy, C.M., president, Société historique francophone de l’Alberta

    The ongoing efforts align with Alberta’s French Policy Action Plan, which outlines actions that span various sectors, including supporting francophone organizations, enhancing cultural service delivery and providing health and justice resources in French.

    Budget 2025 is a forward-looking plan to strengthen French-language services, ensuring greater access and opportunities for French-speaking Albertans to thrive and contribute to the province’s prosperity.

    Quick facts

    • With more than 261,000 speakers, French is the most spoken language in Alberta after English (Statistics Canada, 2021).
    • Statistics Canada projects Alberta to lead the country in the growth of the French-speaking population, with an increase between 25 and 50 per cent by 2036.

    Related information 

    • Alberta’s French Policy 2024-28 Action Plan 
    • Alberta’s French Policy 
    • Provincial Archives of Alberta French Resources

    Related news 

    • Une offre améliorée de services en français partout en Alberta | More French services in every corner of Alberta (Dec. 16, 2024)

    Multimedia

    • Watch the news conference

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Transcript of Press Briefing on the Completion of the Third Review for the IMF Extended Fund Facility for Sri Lanka

    Source: International Monetary Fund

    March 5, 2025

    PARTICIPANTS:

    PETER BREUER

    Senior Mission Chief for Sri Lanka

    KATSIARYNA SVIRYDZENKA

    Deputy Mission Chief for Sri Lanka

    MARTHA TESFAYE WOLDEMICHAEL

    Resident Representative in Sri Lanka

    MODERTOR:

    RANDA ELNAGAR

    Senior Media Officer

    TRANSCRIPT:


    Ms. Elnagar:  
    Good morning to our participants who are joining us from Asia and good evening to our participants in DC. Welcome to the press conference on of the Third review of Sri Lanka’s Extended Fund Facility Arrangement with the International Monetary Fund. I am Randa Elnagar, with the IMF’s communications department.

    I am joined today by three speakers. Peter Breuer, IMF’s Senior Mission Chief for Sri Lanka; Katsiaryna Svirydzenka, Deputy Mission Chief for Sri Lanka; and Martha Tesfaye Woldemichael, IMF’s Resident Representative in Sri Lanka.

    By now you should have seen the press release, which we issued on Friday and the staff report is not on IMF.org. First, Peter will give some opening remarks, and then we will take your questions.

    We are kindly asking you to mute your microphones throughout the briefing, unless you are asking a question. Peter the floor is yours.

    started transcription


    Mr. Breuer:
    Thank you, Randa. Good morning, all, thank you very much for being here and for your interest in Sri Lanka’s IMF-supported economic reform program.

    I am pleased to announce that, on Friday February 28, the IMF Executive Board approved the third review under the 48-month Extended Fund Facility Arrangement with Sri Lanka. This provides the country with immediate access to about US$334 million to support its economic policies and reforms.

    It brings the total IMF financial support dispersed so far to about $1.3 billion.
    The IMF continues to support Sri Lanka’s efforts to restore and maintain macroeconomic stability and debt sustainability while protecting the poor and vulnerable rebuilding external buffers. Safeguarding financial sector stability and enhancing growth oriented structural reforms, including by strengthening governance.

    The IMF Executive Board’s approval to complete the third review recognizes the strong program performance. All quantitative targets for end December 2024 were met, except for the indicative target on social spending.
    Most structural benchmarks do by end January 2025 were either met or implemented with delay.

    Turning to through the macroeconomic situation, it is encouraging to see that reforms in Sri Lanka are bearing fruit with the economic recovery gaining momentum, inflation remains slow.

    Revenue collection is improving and reserves continue to accumulate.
    Economic growth averaged 4.3% since growth resumed in the third quarter of 2023.
    The recovery is expected to continue in two thousand 2025 now. Despite these positive developments, the economy is still vulnerable.
    It is critical to sustain the reform momentum to ensure macroeconomic stability and debt sustainability.

    And to promote long term inclusive growth, there is no room for policy errors.
    Let me emphasize that sustained revenue mobilization is crucial to restoring fiscal sustainability.

    And ensuring that the government can continue to provide essential services.
    Boosting tax compliance and refraining from tax exemptions are key to maintaining support for economic reforms.

    Let me also emphasize that to ease economic hardship and ensure the poor and vulnerable can participate in Sri Lanka’s recovery, it is important to meet social spending targets and continue with reforms of the social safety net going forward. Social support needs to be well targeted towards the.

    Most disadvantaged, so as to promote inclusive growth with limited fiscal space.
    Restoring cost recovery, electricity pricing without delay is needed to contain fiscal risks from state owned enterprises.
    A smoother execution of capital spending within the fiscal envelope would foster medium term growth.

    The recent successful completion of the bond exchange is a major milestone towards restoring debt sustainability, timely finalization of bilateral agreements with creditors in the official creditor committee, and with remaining creditors is a priority now. Regarding monetary policy, I would like to highlight that it should prioritize maintaining price. Stability supported by sustained commitment to prohibit monetary financing and.

    To safeguard central bank independence. Continued exchange rate, flexibility and gradually phasing out the balance of payments measures remain critical to rebuild external buffers and facilitate rebalancing.

    As for the financial sector, resolving non performing loans, strengthening governance and oversight of state owned banks and improving the insolvency and resolution frameworks are important priorities to revive credit growth and support the economic recovery.

    Finally, prolonged structural challenges need to be addressed to unlock Sri Lanka’s long term potential, including steadfast implementation of governance reforms.
    I would like to thank the authorities for their commitment and excellent collaboration.

    Let me also take this opportunity to announce that as part of a standard staff rotation process, I will soon be transitioning from the role of mischief for Sri Lanka.
    And I will be handing over to the next mission Chief Evan Papageorgiou, during the next mission. It has been an honor to accompany Sri Lanka on his journey out of this.

    Severe crisis for nearly three years. While there are more challenges ahead, the IMF team will remain a steadfast partner for Sri Lanka and its people on the road to a more sustainable and inclusive recovery.
    I will be moving to another assignment soon and wish the people of Sri Lanka continued success with the economic recovery.
    With this, let me hand it back to Rhonda. Thank you.


    Ms. Elnagar:
    Thank you so much, Peter.
    Colleagues, please raise your hand and identify yourself if you want to ask your question and turn on your camera, if possible and the mic. Thank you. I see the first hand, please.


    QUESTIONER:
    Thank you, Randa. This is Shihar Anis from economy next.
    I hope you can hear you.


    Ms. Elnagar:
    We can hear you well, Shihar. Thank you.


    QUESTIONER:
    OK. So my question is now there is a delay in the SOE restructuring because we don’t see the same speed that the previous government was doing, the SOE restructuring this government has been. Basically, they are not into privatization, but they are looking into a different model. How concerned are you on that? You know, delay or the current restructuring model.
    Thank you.


    Ms. Elnagar:
    Thank you. We’ll take another couple of questions and then answer them in groups.


    Ms. Elnagar:
    The audio. Zulfiq there is a lot of static on your mic.


    QUESTIONER:
    Hope you can hear me. I have two questions. That is, it has come to light that the Sri Lankan Government plans not to proceed with the imputed rental income tax as a revenue measure. So has this been discussed with the IMF and is there any other alternative that is being put forward and at the same time, what is IMF stake on the budget that was presented recently?


    Ms. Elnagar:
    Let’s take another question. Sampath, please.


    QUESTIONER:
    Hi I’m Sampath Dissanayake from BBC Sinhala service.
    The government is increasing the tax as per the IMF advice to increase government revenue. The number of people receiving Social Security benefit in benefits in Sri Lanka is increasing annually. So do you believe that the increase in tax burden is increase for reason for this?


    Ms. Elnagar: 
    Peter, we can take these three questions.


    Mr. Breuer:
    Yes, thank you very much. So let me answer some of the questions.
    On the budget and fiscal, and maybe Katie can answer the question on the.
    SOE reforms so the. Imputed rental income tax was a measure proposed by the previous administration as part of a possible revenue package for 2025, and the new authorities have proposed a slightly different package that is aligned with their mandate and priorities. And staff and the authorities have assessed that this package is sufficient to meet the revenue targets under the program. Now of course, should those measures prove insufficient, then additional revenue measures would be needed. And so that also. Ties in with the question on the budget and tax revenues. So yes, we have looked at the budget. And have, of course, disgusted with the authorities. There’s more detailed explanation in the staff report that should be online now, so there’s a table on page 12 that kind of lists some of the main measures needed to. reach the goal for tax revenue for next year. Yeah, reallybthe objective here is as you know tax revenue was a key driver of the crisis in 2022.
    Sri Lanka was the lowest that the country with the lowest tax take amongst.
    Middle income countries and low income countries in the world, and so it has made significant progress since then. Tax as a share of GDP, he has increased by 5 percentage points from somewhere. You know 7 to somewhere 12.4% or so last year. So that’s a significant increase, but by no means is excessive and. The essential services that the government provides need to be funded and for that reason.
    Working on ensuring that there is sufficient tax revenue remains a priority.
    And so social services, which was the 3rd question is just a portion of the overall essential services that that the government provides and is just a component on that actually. Maybe Marta can add on that point and cut you a can speak to the SOE reforms.


    Ms. Svirydzenka:
    So should I go first? OK. So on the on the SOE restructuring, the most crucial element is that the state owned enterprises are managed in a prudent manner so as to avoid the accumulation of losses or debts that then would eventually need to be repaid by the taxpayers. And in that sense, the SOEs can be managed prudently while remaining state owned or they can be divested partially or completely.

    We are reassured by the authorities commitment to ensure that this enterprises do not become a burden for the budget or for the government debt in terms of other key elements under the program has been the cost, reflective pricing of services provided by so especially in the area of electricity and fuel prices. Other commitments under the program include making SOEs more transparent, in particular by publishing audited financial statements of the largest, SOEs in a timely manner.

    And then finally, to allow the economy to grow, it is important that the consumers of services receive the best value for the price of being charged. So this involves running, SOEs in the most efficient manner and ensuring that they are following the best governance principles. So in that sense, we’re quite satisfied with the progress, yes.


    Martha Tesfaye Woldemichael:
    So let me maybe come in then to compliment a bit Peter’s response on the social spending, right. So there’s a question. Why social spending is increasing? I think this is a good opportunity to remind that protecting the poor and vulnerable is really an important component of the EFF program. So the EFF supports this objective through the different reforms through macro stabilization. But importantly, there is also a floor on social spending in the program that we assess on a quarterly basis. So this means the government has to spend a minimum amount to protect the poor and vulnerable.

    So in this context, the key commitment is really for the authorities to continue strengthening the coverage, the adequacy and the targeting of social spending. So recent announcement related to the expected decrease in the payments, for instance for the poor and extremely poor categories under a ASWASUMA or the.
    Announcement that the payments would also increase for the elderly, the disabled and chronic kidney patients are aligned with the authorities commitments to continue strengthening, strengthening social safety Nets and I think it is also very important to make sure that this coverage under the ASWASUMA program. Is above the poverty rates that are currently observed. I think I will stop here. Thank you very much. Back to you, Randa.


    Ms. Elnagar:
    Thank you, Martha. We’re first going to take a question from Kelum.
    I think Shihar you had your hand raised, so it’s from the first question. So if you can, please put your hand down because it’s a bit confusing, but we’re going to go to Kellum 1st and then Asante. So Kelum, please go ahead.


    QUESTIONER:
    Thank you. Can you hear me?


    Ms. Elnagar:
    Yes.


    QUESTIONER:
    Yes, I’m Kelum Bandara, from Daily Mirror newspaper. So my question is wanting the overall assessment about the budget, actually that was answered was that next day and the next question is, how important is it for the government to proceed with this Economic Transformation Act to reach the economic targets? Actually in searching by MFN or for the broader infrastructure of the country.


    Ms. Elnagar: 
    Thank you Asante. If you can, please pose your question.


    QUESTIONER:
    Yeah, so, the government has started the import duty on vehicles, which just knocked out earlier. Yeah, I think all the taxes were kind of like excise taxes. And so have you made any assessment on whether this will lead to an increase in assembled vehicles, which earlier didn’t get this tax protection and how much leakage of revenue might happen to the assembled sector and whether any effect to publish a kind of a tax expenditure statement to say how much of the import duties lost due to any increase or the sales of the assembled vehicles which are like got CKD, I think tax free the parts and also have you had any discuss? With the central bank. On offloading their government securities now that the Treasury bills

    Ms. Elnagar: Thank you, Asantha. There is a question in the chat which we’re going to take and then move to the ones online. Amal, you didn’t verify your organization.


    QUESTIONER:
    Oh, and I have actually done that. I’m from AFP, the French news agency, Agence France Press.


    Ms. Elnagar:
    Hi would you like to ask? Yeah, because you post in the in the chat.


    QUESTIONER:
    Oh yeah. I mean, if you want to save time, can just answer that.
    I mean basically I was trying to ask Peter how concerned you are about sort of emerging labor unrest, particularly now in the medical field. The doctors are threatening to go on strike from tomorrow, although there is a pay increase that the increase is less than the. Reduction of their allowances. So this is something that affects a lot of not just the medical sector. So how concerned are you that this kind of growing unrest, labor unrest, how it will affect the overall IMF backed program?


    Ms. Elnagar: 
    Peter, do you want to take another question?
    So they are three. So I think Indiqa is next.


    Mr. Breuer:
     Well, there’s actually an under. It feels like there’s a bunch of questions.
    Should we try and answer these?


    Ms. Elnagar: 
    OK. Sounds good.


    Mr. Breuer:
     And maybe Katya can speak to the Economic Transformation Act.
    And also to the central bank question so. On this important question with respect to the potential for unrest. Well, I suppose there is potential, but I think what really should be remembered is that this budget really sought to address some of the concerns that the government and ourselves have hurt that. You know, civil servants have been concerned about. The wages that they have been receiving and so.
    There is for the first time in a long time, an increase in civil service wages, while at the same time the personal income tax regime is were being changed and reducing personal income taxes considerably, at least for some. Income earners, including civil servants, you have to remember who are the ones who earn an income and pay taxes that really is the upper 20% of income earners in Sri Lanka. There has been a massive crisis in 2022 with huge costs to the population of Sri Lanka and in order for the government to keep on providing the essential services that the citizens of Sri Lanka expected, expect the government to provide and in order to bring along the poorer segments of society. Everyone who can needs to make a sacrifice.
    This is how the society can pull together and continue to function, and so.
    I think we all know how painful this crisis has been there’s no doubt about it.
    We have travelled around the country, we have met with many people.
    You know the plantation workers in Noro, alia have shown us their income statements and their bills. And it was very, very clear that this is a very severe crisis, but how else to address it. So, sticking with the reforms is really the best way out for Sri Lanka to assure its sustainability, and I think it’s important for everyone in Sri Lanka to recognize that.

    If you put it into the broader perspective the adjustment, this is the last budget.
    Where there is still a bit of an increase in in revenue is needed 1.5 percentage points of GDP, but all the hard adjustment has already taken place in the previous two years. You know revenue have increased 5 percentage points of GDP over the last two years. This is, you know, the last sort of big push. Not quite as big as in the previous years, and there after it’ll be much easier going forward.

    So on the cars I mean that’s a specific question. Does is there some import substitution? I can’t answer that. I would assume that after five years or so of a ban of imported cars that there will be some demand for finished cars from overseas.
    I do take your point that it’s possible that there may be some assembly of cars domestically.

    Katya, can you answer the other two questions please?


    Ms. Svirydzenka:
    Sure. So on the economic transformation, bill, we understand there was a recent announcement that the new government will propose amendments to the bill. And so we look forward to reviewing the amended economic transformation bill. We expect it to be consistent with program objectives, including for example with the authorities’ commitment to refrain from granting tax.
    Incentives until the STP act is revised to provide clear and transparent criteria on the granting of tax incentives on the. Central Bank Securities, I understand the question was that the Central Bank has sold T-bills but has a stock of on marketable bonds. And this is correct. And under the program at this point, because there’s no market for this restructured bonds, we do not envision they unwinding of this stock and over the next 12 months you can see it in the program targets in table one on page 95 of the published report under the category of net credit to the government.
    I hope that answers the question. If I understood it correctly.

     

    QUESTIONER: So, I am trying to find out what’s the alternative if you want to sterilize the inflows. I mean, kind of issuing central banks equity or something, but you have reserve target.


    Ms. Svirydzenka:
    Is this more than a question about the operation of monetary policy and how to sterilize reserve accumulation?


    QUESTIONER:
    Yeah. Yeah. Because you don’t you?


    Ms. Svirydzenka
    : Perhaps I misunderstood.


    QUESTIONER:
    You no longer have the tables to sell. What is the alternative securities they can sell to build?


    Ms. Svirydzenka
    : Yes, I understand. Thank you so much for clarifying. Yeah. So there are many alternatives that the Central bank can use. For example, they can engage in repo operations or also issue their own securities. But I guess what is important to highlight for your question is that the Central Bank so far has been able to meet the inflation target and if anything, they’re a little bit undershooting as you saw with the breach of the MPCC clause in June and in December. So in that sense, the central bank is quite effective in terms of reaching the inflation objectives and we think the tools they have in their, in their in their hands should be enough.


    Ms. Elnagar: 
    Thank you, Katya. We have more questions, Peter.
    We have Indika first please.


    QUESTIONER:
     Hi, Randa. Thank you, I think. I hope I’m audible.


    Ms. Elnagar:
    Yes you are.


    QUESTIONER:
    My questions, question to Peter is in the budget, there is a budget proposal to recruit about 30,000 people to the public sector. So we already have a bloated public sector in the country. So what’s your what’s IMF’s opinion on that? And the other question is on their flight, electricity, the price, reflective electricity tariffs. So we were under the impression that that is already happening because the government is already. Adjusting prices periodically, but in the press release that was released on Friday. The sort of insinuated that Sri Lanka S deviated. What is what is the situation there? Thank you.


    Ms. Elnagar
    : Peter, we can take a couple more questions this round.


    QUESTIONER:
    Randa, I hope I’m audible.


    Ms. Elnagar:
    Yes you are.


    QUESTIONER:
    Great. I just have one question. Peter, could you please outline what are the key goal posts that Sri Lanka has to hit as it moves forward to the 4th review now, right. And when will there be an IMF delegation coming to Colombo?
    Thank you.


    Ms. Elnagar:
    We can take more questions. There are two questions in the chat, Peter, One is asking, why was the proposed property tax under the IMF program withdrawn, and why wasn’t the existing under taxed Council tax system rebased instead? How much revenue was expected from the input rental tax and why could this be? Couldn’t this be raised adjusting Council taxes? There’s another one we can take, or that’s enough for now this round.


    Mr. Breuer:
    Yeah. Why don’t we get going with these ones? Thank you.


    Ms. Elnagar: 
    Yeah, because Shehar already had a chance at the beginning, so let’s take a different group now. Thank you.


    Mr. Breuer:
    So thanks so much for these questions. On the size of the public sector, that’s really not for us to judge the government needs to sort of identify the resources it needs to provide the services that it’s expected to provide.
    And do all of that within the envelope of the program. So there may be other institutions. The World Bank, for example, you know that can provide some more assistance, technical assistance to help with making the government as efficient as as possible. But. I don’t really have a comment there. The electricity tariff.
    So there was a reduction in the electricity tariffs in January, and this is when we feel that the cost reflective pricing was no longer met because on a forward-looking basis. That tariff cut meant that Ceb wouldn’t be able to avoid any losses.
    So these cuts. Essentially, at least on a forward-looking basis, implied that losses would be run now of course. These profits and losses by the electricity company depend on many factors, including the weather, the rain and so forth.
    So what turns out ex post may be different from what happens ex ante, but this is a concern that we have because it could mean that that starts building up again in the electricity company. That could ultimately become a contingent liability for the government. This is something that, of course, Sri Lanka has experienced before, and avoiding this and making sure that consumers on average pay for how much it costs to generate and distribute the electricity is an important part of the program.

    And this actually also goes towards answering the question of what are some of the main goal posts for the 4th review. So ensuring that cost reflective energy pricing is restored is of course a key. Part of what we would like to see for the next.
    Review I should say there are some mechanisms that give us hope that this will happen automatically. The SD bulk supply transaction account, which is sort of a mechanism that is supposed to kick in when losses at CB become too large when they are cash balances become. You know, negative beyond a certain value.
    Then there’s meant to be an automatic increase in the tariff. That would prevent these losses from accumulating, so so they are already mechanisms in place.
    It’s important that these mechanisms be allowed to function, and then, of course, at the next tariff setting, it’s important to ensure that tariffs will once again be set to  cover the costs. Another important Issue for the next review will of course be.
    The budget that the budget that is finally passed at the end of this month is in fact consistent with the program parameters. So this is something that we will be watching very carefully. So those are two issues that may matter.

    The next mission we expect to be visiting Colombo.in the coming weeks or months or so. So the exact dates will be announced closer to the time.
    With respect to the property tax. That is a property tax. Is very common in many countries it is a form of wealth tax whereby those who have more wealth, meaning more expensive homes, larger homes that are worth more, need to make larger contributions to the tax coffers and support the government. So, now it’s it had been discussed for quite some time previously, and in fact many preparations have been made under this program for property tax with respect to, you know sales price and rents register, and various databases to estimate the values of homes. So lots of preparations have been have been made. Then there were some concerns and this goes towards the question with respect to the local authorities how this tax could be raised and how it could be shared with at the at the central government level. So some of these issues still need to be resolved and so this is this is something I think that is as yet you know to be addressed. Let me stop there. Thank you.


    Ms. Elnagar: 
    Peter, we can take a couple more questions because we are out of time. So we can take from Sisira, who has been waiting patiently, and then we have a couple of questions in the chat. So Sisira, please go ahead. We can’t hear you.
    Sisira do you have a question? You have your hand raised?


    QUESTIONER:
    Yeah. Can you hear me?


    Elnagar, Randa Mohamed:
    Yes.


    QUESTIONER:
     My question is, what is the impact?


    Ms. Elnagar:
    Your mic is a bit muffled.


    QUESTIONER:
    Can you hear me?


    Ms. Elnagar:
    Peter, can you hear him?


    Mr. Breuer:
    It’s very, very soft. I don’t know whether you can bring the mic closer to him.


    QUESTIONER:
    Yeah, my question is what is the projected impact of Sri Lanka’s foreign reserves?


    Mr. Breuer:
    I think the question is what is the impact of the car imports on reserves? Yeah, OK.


    Ms. Elnagar:
    Vehicle import. Yeah. And then we have a couple of questions here.
    Amal already asked the question, a supplementary question regarding what Asantha raised about vehicle imports. So it’s the same topic and then we have. One from Ishara. Even though the IMF program has put Sri Lanka’s economy on the right track, a recent poverty study revealed that more than 50% of households are below the poverty line. Additionally, the Central bank mentioned that brain drain could severely impact efforts to accelerate growth. In this scenario, how can Sri Lanka reach its anticipated IMF recovery targets? And these are the last questions of the press conference.


    Mr. Breuer:
    :Yeah. Thank you very much. On the car imports. So yes, removing the import restrictions on car imports will allow cars to be imported which means they have to be paid for and so that could have an impact on the balance of payments. But as you know there’s a question to what extent you know the Central bank should intervene to make those reserves available versus allowing the exchange rate to fluctuate in response to market forces. So, that is something that remains to be seen, but maybe just to highlight the fact that reserves have increased. Significantly, so far under the program they have reached about half of the program objective already, which is very impressive.

    On the question with respect to the anticipated IMF recovery targets, so. I think it’s quite clear that things really have turned around significantly in Sri Lanka. I mean, you all live there, so you experience it much more than us. But when I first got to Sri Lanka in June 2022. Everybody was standing in a line somewhere in, you know, to get fuel, to get cooking gas to get food or medications and economic activity was was very subdued, I think in real terms. Sri Lanka lost, you know, 10% or so of its economic activity. As a result of this crisis and since then in the short amount of time.
    That the program has been there basically since 2023 it has already recovered 40% of the income it has lost. In the preceding five years, so in a very short amount of time, you have already a very significant recovery. You have the most recent growth number of 5.5%.

    So I think things are turning around significantly in Sri Lanka and that will have an impact on the indicators that we care about, such as poverty, so.
    As economic opportunities return to Sri Lanka. Incomes will increase and poverty will be reduced, and also it’ll be more attractive to remain in Sri Lanka and not leave and emigrate or those who have emigrated may find opportunities back in in Sri Lanka again so. You know, as you look at our projections, we have increased these quite a bit. For 2025 and beyond and so based on these, I would say I’m quite optimistic about the recovery in Sri Lanka.


    Ms. Elnagar:
    I think we’re out of time, Peter. If you guys have any further questions, please, please feel free to send them by e-mail. We are always very responsive or via WhatsApp. With that I would like to thank our speakers Peter, Katia, and Martha, and I would like to thank you all for participating in this press conference.
    We’re going to be posting the recording and the transcript by tomorrow.
    And we look forward in seeing to seeing you again in the future.
    Thank you very much.


    Mr. Breuer:
     Thank you.

     

    Ms. Woldemichael: Thank you.


    Ms. Svirydzenka:
    Thank you.

    IMF Communications Department
    MEDIA RELATIONS

    PRESS OFFICER: Randa Elnagar

    Phone: +1 202 623-7100Email: MEDIA@IMF.org

    MIL OSI Economics

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Aberdeen filmmaker inspired by story of soprano supported by Lord Strathcona A film created by an Aberdeen academic exploring the life of a soprano whose musical rise was supported by a former University chancellor has won awards and been included in the official selection of a number of international film festivals.

    Source: University of Aberdeen

    Pauline Donalda c1906A film created by an Aberdeen academic exploring the life of a soprano whose musical rise was supported by a former University chancellor has won awards and been included in the official selection of a number of international film festivals.
    Madame Donalda by Professor Alan Marcus, Chair in Creative and Cultural Practice, examines the life of Pauline Lightstone, who performed as Madame Donalda. Filmed in Montreal, London and Aberdeen, it has generated much international interest.  
    Donalda’s stage name was a tribute to Donald Smith, who became Lord Strathcona (1820-1914) a Scottish-born Canadian businessman who became a leading philanthropist after making his fortune from investments in land, railways, and banking.  
    Born in Forres, Moray, in 1899 he was appointed Lord Rector of the University of Aberdeen and later became its Chancellor.
    As a 15-year-old, the purity of Pauline’s voice was recognised during musical rehearsals at a synagogue and she was then awarded a place at the Royal Victoria College (RVC), originally the women’s college at McGill University.
    Lord Strathcona was a champion of women’s education at McGill and was a proponent of the education of women and furthering women’s opportunities.
    He agreed to support Pauline’s ‘fully rounded musical education’ including study at Conservatoire de Paris.
    Lord Strathcona’s second benefaction to the College was made under his middle name of Donald and the women supported by ‘the Donalda Endowment’ proudly called themselves ‘the Donaldas’ – a tradition adopted by Pauline Lighthouse who appeared on stage as Pauline Donalda.
    After a successful debut in Nice, France, in 1904, her artistic career quickly took off. In 1905, she sang at London’s Covent Garden for the Queen and at The Brussels Royal Opera House.
    These performances earned her tremendous acclaim and for many years she sang the leading operatic roles at Covent Garden and the great opera houses of Europe. She also toured Britain and sang at Aberdeen’s Musical Hall.  When World War I broke out, she suspended her international career and organised benefit concerts to support the war effort.
    From 1922 she devoted herself to teaching voice and in 1942 founded the Opera Guild of Montreal, which went on to stage the first Canadian performances of many operas.
    Professor Marcus, whose own father Rudy Marcus received his degrees from McGill including an honorary doctorate, and at 101 is the oldest living Nobel laureate (Chemistry, 1992) in North America, said he was inspired by a story which pulls together many threads of his own life.
    “I was told the story of Madame Donalda aka Pauline Lightstone by a great uncle of mine some 35 years ago when I learned that she was a relative of ours, and it made a sufficient impression on me that I was hopeful one day I might be able to tell it in film form,” he added.
    “The key elements of the story involving a daughter of European immigrants to Montreal, who against the odds rose to become in her early-20s one of the great sopranos of her day, adapts well to film, because through moving image and sound one can provide a more vivid impression and sense of presence. 
    “During the years of research and drawing upon archives in London, Montreal and Ottawa, I was able to piece together through news items and her personal correspondence and much archival imagery, the various components of Donalda’s life. 
    “What was unexpected was the Aberdeen connection and the fact that her patron, from whom she took her stage name, Madame Donalda, was a keen proponent of women’s education and served both as Chancellor of McGill, where she studied, and the University of Aberdeen.  The personal connection I and my family have with Aberdeen and McGill added an immediacy to the story.”
    The film has received Best Documentary and Best Editing awards at the Experimental Dance and Music Film Festival 2024 in Toronto, the Best Classical Music film award at the Buenos Aires 11th Music Film Festival 2025, and official selection at ten other film festivals including the Los Angeles Film and Documentary Awards 2024.
    Professor Marcus said: “It is gratifying that the film has been included in various international film festivals and won awards, but what I hope is that when people view the film they not only learn of Donalda’s talents and be intrigued with her extraordinary accomplishments, but also be enthralled by the short performances in her old recordings, and more recently through the participation in the film of Bulgarian soprano, Sofia Dimitrova, who brings the musical pieces to life with great passion.”

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: NPT Safeguards Agreement with Iran: Quad statement to the IAEA Board, March 2025

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments 3

    Speech

    NPT Safeguards Agreement with Iran: Quad statement to the IAEA Board, March 2025

    UK Ambassador Corinne Kitsell’s statement on behalf of France, Germany, the UK and United States (the Quad) to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board meeting about Iran’s implementation of its obligations under its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Safeguards Agreement

    Chair,

    France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States commend the Agency for its continued efforts to engage Iran to clarify the outstanding issues related to the implementation of Iran’s NPT-required Safeguards Agreement.  We thank the Director General for his report on these issues, which are critical to understanding the nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.

    We deeply regret that, for more than five years, Iran has refused to provide required clarifications regarding nuclear material detected at multiple undeclared locations in Iran. The Director General and the Board have made clear repeatedly that Iran is legally required to provide this cooperation.  Iran has failed to do so despite the concerted efforts of the Director General and this Board to provide Iran every opportunity.  As a result of Iran’s longstanding denials, the Agency is still unable to provide critical assurances that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful and that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran.  These issues are fundamental to Iran’s safeguards obligations and the broader non-proliferation regime.  No State can be allowed to violate its safeguards obligations with impunity.  Iran must fully cooperate, or the Board must be prepared to find Iran in noncompliance.  Until now, Iran has made its choice.  Let us be clear: unless Iran changes course, it will force the Board to make its own choice.  Time is not on Iran’s side.

    This report recalls the IAEA’s assessment of some of the deeply concerning activities that Iran did not declare, at Turquzabad, Varamin, Marivan and Lavisan-Shian.  It is of significant concern that due to the lack of information being provided by Iran, the IAEA concluded it would be unable to continue its efforts to resolve the safeguards issues at Lavisan-Shian.  We note that the IAEA’s technical assessment of the activities at Marivan has not changed, that Iran has not provided technically credible information, and therefore the issue remains unresolved.  We also want to highlight the lack of progress towards resolving the discrepancy issue at Jaber Ibn Hayan Laboratory, which still has to be explained by Iran.  Iran continues to reject and challenge the IAEA’s technical assessment of the activities at these undeclared sites rather than engaging the IAEA constructively towards resolving the outstanding issues.  We reiterate our support for the IAEA’s critical work.  We underscore the value of the IAEA’s technical expertise and authority to investigate these issues to address concerns around the possibility of undeclared nuclear material and activity in Iran today.  

    Chair,

    In his latest report, the Director General reiterates that Iran continues to refuse to provide design information for new nuclear facilities as legally required under modified Code 3.1.  This is in contravention of Iran’s safeguards agreement.  Iran’s unwillingness to provide the Agency with this information should be especially concerning given Iran’s history of building covert nuclear facilities.  We also note that Iran has refused to accept the designation of four additional experienced inspectors.  We recall the Director General’s statement that Iran’s previous decision to withdraw the designations of inspectors seriously affects the Agency’s ability to conduct its verification activities in Iran.  We echo his deep regret that Iran did not accept these new designations.

    Iran’s refusal to cooperate with the IAEA and its refusal to abide by its obligations under its safeguards agreement is deeply concerning in the context of Iran’s continuous escalation of its nuclear programme to levels with no credible civilian justification.  Our concern is intensified by the increasing number of senior Iranian officials who have publicly claimed that Iran has the technical capability to build a nuclear weapon and called for a change to Iran’s so-called “nuclear doctrine”.  We recall that the Director General assessed in his report in May 2024 that such remarks increased his concerns about the correctness and completeness of Iran’s safeguards declarations.

    We commend the Agency’s efforts to engage Iran to seek progress.  However, after years of delay, Iran must finally and fully meet its commitments and obligations rather than dangle promises of discussions in the future which we have heard many times before.

    Chair,

    It is important that the Board supports the IAEA by the strongest means necessary to pursue clarity on the nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.  The Board adopted two resolutions in 2024, which once again urged Iran to cooperate.  Iran ignored these, as it has ignored opportunities in previous years.  We reiterate our call on Iran to resume urgently full cooperation with the IAEA and to implement fully its safeguards agreement.  

    We recall that this Board, in its last resolution of November 2024, mandated the Director General to produce a comprehensive and updated assessment of the possible presence or use of undeclared nuclear material in Iran in connection with past and present outstanding issues.  This document will provide a clear, technical and objective foundation to assess Iran’s compliance with its safeguards agreement.  As the resolution sets out, it will include the Agency’s assessment of its ability to verify the implementation of Iran’s safeguards obligations and the non-diversion of nuclear material.  The assessment will also include a full account of Iran’s cooperation with the Agency on the issues to date.

    It is up to Iran to provide the technically credible explanations and substantive cooperation needed to inform the Agency.  We regret that despite having the time and opportunity to do so, Iran has not made any progress in the four months since this resolution was adopted.  In recognition of the Director General’s last report, which states that “the Agency is at an impasse” with regard to resolving these issues, we believe the comprehensive assessment should be delivered as soon as possible.  It should be based on all information available to the Agency to provide the full picture, in order to inform the Board’s next steps on these issues.  Iran has had many opportunities to resolve the issues.

    Chair,

    Our patience has been long, but it is not unlimited.  We underscore, if there is no concrete, technically credible progress reported by the Director General, the Board must be prepared to consider finding Iran in non-compliance with its safeguards agreement.

    We do not take such a course lightly.  We reiterate that our efforts are intended to provide resolute support to the Agency in its safeguards investigations in Iran, for the sake of international security and the integrity of the global non-proliferation architecture.

    More than ever, there is an urgent need to address the lack of transparency and assurances on the nature of Iran’s advancing nuclear programme.  Iran’s full cooperation with the IAEA on its safeguards obligations is long overdue.  Iran has had many chances over many years to cooperate, but Iran has instead chosen a path of escalation, obfuscation, and delay.  Iran must be held to account if it continues along this path.  

    We again express our thanks for the IAEA’s continued efforts and ask for the report to be made public.

    Thank you, Chair.

    Updates to this page

    Published 5 March 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI Global: Two great war leaders united by American isolationism: Charles de Gaulle and Volodymyr Zelensky

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tim Luckhurst, Principal of South College, Durham University

    Difficult relationship: Franklin D. Roosevelt, with Charles de Gaulle, and Winston Churchill at a conference in Casablanca January 1943. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration

    Eighty-five years before Volodymyr Zelensky visited Downing Street in search of support for Ukrainian democracy, a Frenchman arrived in London with a similar request.

    Charles de Gaulle was not the French prime minister. That job belonged to Paul Reynaud. De Gaulle had been undersecretary of state for defence in Reynaud’s government for less than two weeks.

    He started June 1940 as commander of a tank squadron fighting to stem the German advance. But his decision later that month to leave France rather than surrender – and to proclaim himself the leader of all Frenchmen who wished to fight on – was the foundation of his political career.

    French citizens became aware of de Gaulle as a wartime political leader through his broadcasts on the BBC. The most famous of these, the “Appeal of 18th June”, was actually heard by very few in France – but for those that did listen, it contained the core of de Gaulle’s message of defiance.

    He arrived at the BBC at 6pm to record the four-minute speech which was transmitted by the BBC at 10pm. De Gaulle said: “Nothing is lost for France.” He insisted that: “She has a vast Empire behind her. She can align with the British Empire that holds the sea and can continue the fight. She can, like England, use without limit the immense industry of the United States.”

    Transmission of this speech is widely regarded as the moment when French resistance was born. The BBC describes it as “one of the most remarkable pieces in the history of radio broadcasting”.

    Had the US president, Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), responded positively to Churchill and Reynaud’s impassioned pleas in June 1940, to actively support France and Britain, de Gaulle might have remained a dynamic and courageous military officer. But Roosevelt refused, Reynaud resigned, and Marshall Henri Philippe Pétain led France into collaboration.

    FDR was a Democrat and author of the new deal, the economic policy that helped America recover from the Great Depression. He had little in common with Donald Trump, but they shared one instinct: a reluctance to spend American blood and treasure in foreign wars.

    When Churchill honoured his promise to Reynaud and told the 32nd US president now “is the moment for you to strengthen Reynaud the utmost you can, and try to tip the balance in favour of the best and longest possible French resistance”. Roosevelt replied that he was not committed to military participation. He reminded Churchill that only Congress could declare war.

    When Zelensky arrived at the White House on February 28, he hoped to sign a minerals deal and secure continued American support for his country’s battle for freedom and independence. Instead he found himself accused by Trump of risking a third world war and showing too little gratitude to the US.

    In an extraordinary failure of diplomatic norms, Trump and his viscerally isolationist vice-president, J.D. Vance, berated and humiliated Zelensky before a worldwide television audience.

    Roosevelt’s contempt for de Gaulle was less bluntly expressed, but it was real. The US recognised Pétain’s regime and granted Vichy France, the collaborationist regime which governed southern France during the German occupation of northern France, full diplomatic recognition.

    Roosevelt agreed when his ambassador to Vichy, Admiral William D. Leahy, described de Gaulle as “an apprentice dictator”. There is a chilling echo in Trump’s description of Volodymyr Zelensky as a “dictator” who refuses to have elections and has done “a terrible job”.

    US and France: ‘difficult’ relationship

    At the end of June 1940, Roosevelt decided that France was beaten – and that Britain was likely to follow its ally and neighbour into defeat and collapse. He dismissed de Gaulle as an irritation with no democratic credentials.

    His opinion did not change when the US entered the war in December 1941. Indeed, Roosevelt believed France could not have a recognised leader until it had been liberated by American arms and helped to organise fully democratic elections.

    When he needed someone to represent French interests, Roosevelt preferred to choose senior French military officers who would obey US orders. His choices included Admiral François Darlan who had served Marshall Pétain as Vichy’s minister of foreign affairs and minister of national defence. Darlan, who was loathed by the Free French and scorned by Churchill, nevertheless attracted favourable coverage in the US.

    De Gaulle’s June 22 broadcast to the free French people.

    Well aware of Roosevelt’s hostility, de Gaulle never gave up. The BBC microphone allowed him to reach a growing audience in Vichy and German occupied France. He ended his initial June 18 talk by announcing that he would broadcast again.

    The BBC had not actually made any commitment to a second broadcast – but the ruse worked, and de Gaulle made a second appeal to French public on June 22. This broadcast was heard more widely (in fact very few people heard the June 18 speech and no recording survives). Soon the Free French were given five minutes per day on BBC radio.

    De Gaulle was a soldier who used radio to inspire hope and organise resistance. When he returned to France in 1944, many of his countrymen recognised his voice before they became familiar with his appearance.

    Zelensky began his career as a comedian and appeared as a fictional president of Ukraine in a TV series called Servant of the People. He was widely recognised before he became a war leader.

    Both have provoked the enmity of US presidents and reminded different generations that America first isolationism is a deep-seated and enduring instinct that can cross political divides.

    Tim Luckhurst has received funding from News UK and Ireland Ltd. He is a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and a member of the Society of Editors and the Free Speech Union.

    ref. Two great war leaders united by American isolationism: Charles de Gaulle and Volodymyr Zelensky – https://theconversation.com/two-great-war-leaders-united-by-american-isolationism-charles-de-gaulle-and-volodymyr-zelensky-251328

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI: Neurones: Net profit up 7.8% in 2024

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    PRESS INFORMATION
    Heading: 2024 annual results        Nanterre, March 5, 2025 (after trading)

    Net profit up 7.8% in 2024

    Financial statements at December 31 (1) 2023 2024
    Revenues 741.2 810.4
    Business operating profit (2) 81.5 (11%) 84.1 (10.4%)
    Operating profit 75.9 (10.2%) 77.9 (9.6%)
    Financial profit 4.9 10.2
    Tax on earnings (22.2) (24.9)
    Net profit 58.6 (7.9%) 63.2 (7.8%)
    – of which, group share 49.4 52.5
    Free cash flow (3) 51.6 74.6
    Cash and cash equivalents net of financial debt (4) 290.4 319.5
    Staff at year-end 6,749 7,087

    (1)        In millions of euros, 2024 financial statements approved by the Board of Directors on March 5, 2025.
    (2)        Before cost of bonus shares
    (3)        Cash flow from operational activities, plus financial profit/loss and less net industrial investments.
    (4)        Excluding IFRS16 lease liabilities.

    Achievements

    NEURONES enjoyed another year of sustained growth in 2024 (+ 9.3%, of which + 8.6% organic compared with + 0.7% for the Consulting and Digital Services market), while net profit grew by 7.8%.

    Free cash flow rose sharply, with a reduction in working capital requirement (- €8.5m) and capital expenditure (Capex) back to its usual level (€11.8m after €17.9m invested in the previous financial year, mainly in the Group’s SecNumCloud sovereign and secure cloud platform).

    Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the year rose to €319.5m (or €13 per share).

    Outlook

    As usual, forecasts for the current year will be posted along with the Group’s 1st quarter revenues (on May 7, after the closing of the stock exchange). Driven by solid underlying trends (AI, cloud, cybersecurity, digital, data), NEURONES is well positioned to achieve another year of profitable growth.

    At the Shareholders’ Meeting on June 5, the Board will suggest paying a dividend of €1.3 per share for 2024 (compared with €1.2 the previous year).

    About NEURONES
    With close to 7,200 experts, and ranking among the French leaders in consulting and digital services, NEURONES helps large companies and organizations implement their digital projects, transform their IT infrastructures and adopt new uses.

    Euronext Paris (compartment B – NRO) – Euronext Tech Leaders – DSS mid-caps – ‘PEA-PME’ eligible
    www.neurones.net

    Attachment

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI Global: Academic freedom and democracy under siege: how a Nobel peace prize could help defend them

    Source: The Conversation – France – By Stéphanie Balme, Director, CERI (Centre de recherches internationales), Sciences Po

    A rally for science drew a big crowd during the American Geophysical Union’s meeting in San Francisco. MarcioJoseSanchez/AP, CC BY

    March 7 has been recognized as the “Day of the Stand Up for Science Movement”, launched in 2017 in response to the anti-science actions of the first Trump administration. Under the second, attacks on scientists and scientific inquiry have escalated into a systematic assault–tantamount to a coup d’Etat against science itself.

    While Donald Trump is often portrayed as erratic, his policies in this area have followed a consistent trajectory. His new administration has once again declared ‘war’ on evidence-based national policymaking and science diplomacy in foreign affairs as evidenced by several early actions. Immediately after taking office, Donald Trump issued executive orders freezing or canceling tens of billions in research funding. All National Science Foundation projects have been halted pending review, while the National Institutes of Health faces suspensions under Health and Human Services directives. The US has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization, alongside a sweeping review of 90% of USAID-funded projects, signaling a major retreat from climate and global health diplomacy. Federal agencies and universities are in turmoil, leaving thousands of research-professors in limbo amid a politically driven funding freeze. The 2025 March simply calls for the restoration of federal research funding and an end to government censorship and political interference in science.

    Du lundi au vendredi + le dimanche, recevez gratuitement les analyses et décryptages de nos experts pour un autre regard sur l’actualité. Abonnez-vous dès aujourd’hui !

    The US is the world’s undisputed scientific superpower–for now

    While the Trump administration is not the sole force undermining academia worldwide, its actions are particularly striking coming from the world’s leading scientific superpower. Moreover, the situation is especially concerning because developments in the United States often have a ripple effect, shaping policies in other regions in the years that follow.

    Neither of the world’s top two scientific superpowers–Washington and Beijing–is positioned to champion academic freedom. China, having failed a liberal constitutional tradition and academic independence since the 1920s, restricts academic freedom to the confines of one-party rule. Caught between these rival scientific giants–both partners and competitors–the “old” Europe and like-minded coutries remain the only actors capable of setting new standards for academic freedom.

    A Nobel prize for academic freedom

    A decisive step toward its legal protection would be formal recognition by the Nobel Committees for Peace and Science of academic freedom’s fundamental role–both in ensuring scientific excellence and as a pillar of free, democratic societies.

    For the past decade, the Scholars at Risk association (SAR) has documented a broader global decline in academic freedom in its annual Free to Think Report. The 2024 edition highlights particularly alarming situations in 18 countries and territories (including the United States), which recorded 391 attacks on scholars, students, or institutions across 51 regions in a year. Data from the Academic Freedom Index in Berlin confirm that more than half of the world’s population lives in regions where academic freedom is either entirely or severely restricted. Some of the most concerning conditions are in emerging scientific ecosystems such as Turkey, Brazil, Egypt, South Africa, or Saudi Arabia. The overall trend is deteriorating: only 10 out of 179 countries have improved, while many democratic regimes are increasingly affected.

    Academic freedom in the European Union remains relatively high compared to the rest of the world. However, nine EU member states fall below the regional average, and in eight of them, it has declined over the past decade–signaling a gradual erosion of this fundamental value. Hungary ranks the lowest among EU countries, placing in the bottom 20–30% worldwide. Recent laws have further weakened university autonomy across the EU: financial autonomy in Austria, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Slovakia; organizational autonomy in Slovenia, Estonia, and Denmark; staffing autonomy in Croatia and Slovakia; and academic autonomy in Denmark and Estonia. Moreover, the European Parliament’s first report on academic freedom (2023) highlights emerging threats in France–political, educational, and societal–that impact the freedom of research, teaching, and study.

    Academic freedom, a professional right granted to a few for the benefit of all

    Freedom of expression, a fundamental pillar of academic freedom, has long been established as a human right, overcoming centuries of censorship and authoritarian control. In contrast, academic freedom is a more recent principle, granting scholars–recognized by their peers–the right and responsibility to research and teach freely in pursuit of knowledge. Like press freedom for journalists, it is a right granted to a few for the benefit of all.

    Rooted in medieval Europe, academic freedom has evolved from a privilege granted to students in the Quartier Latin to a recognized principle in international rights frameworks. It gained a collective and concrete dimension in the late 18th and early 19th centuries with the rise of the modern university. Wilhelm von Humboldt, founder of the modern public university in Berlin (1810), articulated the concept of ‘freedom of science’ (Wissenschaftsfreiheit), later enshrined in the Weimar Constitution of 1919, which declared that “art, science, and education are free.” The rise of American universities around the same time reshaped the concept, giving rise to “professional academic freedom.” This was formalized in the American Association of University Professors’ 1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, which affirmed the scholar’s primary duty to seek and establish truth. Though its roots lie in Germany, academic freedom ultimately became a cornerstone of American academic discourse.

    In the United States, academic freedom draws from multiple sources, with its protection varying by state laws, customs, institutional practices, and the status of higher education institutions. However, U.S. Supreme Court rulings have gradually reinforced its constitutional foundation, particularly after the McCarthy era, by invoking the First Amendment. Landmark cases such as Adler v. Board of Education (1952), Wieman v. Updegraff (1952), and Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957) helped establish a constitutional doctrine on academic freedom. Finally, Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967) extended First Amendment protections to academia, ruling that mandatory loyalty oaths violated both academic freedom and freedom of association.

    Interestingly, the American interpretation of academic freedom is currently more restrictive than the German model in certain respects. Article 5(3) of the 1989 Basic Law affirms the “right to adopt public organizational measures essential to protect a space of freedom, fostering independent scientific activity”. In contrast, the U.S. places greater emphasis on prohibitions and prioritizing individual rights over institutional autonomy.

    The ‘right to be wrong’

    Despite local variations, academic freedom is fundamentally tied to a shared vision of the university that upholds freedom of thought, with rationality and pluralism at its core. It includes the genuine “right to be wrong”–the understanding that a scientific opinion may be incorrect or even proven so does not diminish its protection. This stands in stark contrast to the anti-science, scientistic, or techno-nationalist approach, which views knowledge as a tool of power to serve a predetermined truth and objective of dominance. Authoritarian science, driven by power interests, seeks to diminish critical humanities and social sciences while elevating religion. It tends to reject interdisciplinary work, is exclusively mathematized, and is oriented toward a centralized yet deregulated autocratic tech-utopian state model.

    Since 1945, we have operated under the illusion that academic freedom is an indispensable condition for scientific excellence. However, we have recently learned that no systematic link exists between academic freedom and breakthrough scientific innovation in our era of new technologies. Given these circumstances, this proposal advocates for a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize, for the first time in its history, in recognition of academic freedom.

    The Nobel Prize Committees for Science and Peace share the responsibility of using their prestigious platforms to uphold fundamental scientific and democratic values. They are uniquely positioned to champion humanist science, reinforcing its importance for scholars, students, and civil societies worldwide. Since the 1950s, around 90% of Nobel Prize laureates in scientific fields have either been US citizens or have studied and worked at Ivy League research institutions.

    While some US scientists are contesting actions of the Trump administration in court, academics worldwide should stand in solidarity with their American colleagues in resisting the erosion of science. To strengthen their efforts, they require the support of the Nobel Prize Committees.

    Stéphanie Balme ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

    ref. Academic freedom and democracy under siege: how a Nobel peace prize could help defend them – https://theconversation.com/academic-freedom-and-democracy-under-siege-how-a-nobel-peace-prize-could-help-defend-them-251494

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: French nuclear deterrence for Europe: how effective could it be against Russia?

    Source: The Conversation – France – By Benoît Grémare, Chercheur associé à l’Institut d’Etudes de Stratégie et de Défense, Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3

    In February 2020, French President Emmanuel Macron said it was time to reflect on the European dimension of French nuclear deterrence. He proposed a strategic dialogue as well as joint nuclear exercises between European partners. Five years later, Germany’s likely next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, responded to this call, advocating an extension of the French nuclear umbrella to Germany – while a US led by President Donald Trump no longer appears to be a reliable partner for protecting Europe.

    But does France have the capacity to defend Europe? Would the deployment of the French nuclear umbrella in Eastern Europe make Europe strategically autonomous, giving it the means to defend itself independently?

    French nuclear deterrence against the Russian threat

    France originally developed its nuclear arsenal in response to the threat of Soviet invasion and to avoid any dependence on the US. According to a stable doctrine that political leaders regularly reaffirmed, the state [would use] its strategic arsenal by air and submarine in the event of an attack against its vital interests.

    But the fact remains that without US support, the balance of power appears largely unfavourable to France, which has a total of 290 nuclear warheads compared to at least 1,600 deployed warheads and nearly 2,800 stockpiled warheads on the Russian side.

    Certainly, the explosive power of thermonuclear warheads, combined with the range of the French M51 strategic sea-to-land ballistic missile, would make it possible to destroy the main Russian cities, including Moscow.

    However, the Russians would only need “200 seconds to atomise Paris”, according to an estimate given on Russian television about “Satan II” thermonuclear missiles.

    These scenarios recall the spectre of adversaries destroying enemy cities in a piecemeal atomic exchange, in which Russia could rely on its vastness to win through attrition. This potential for reciprocity must be kept in mind amid the mutual bet of nuclear deterrence.

    To boost the impact of French nuclear deterrence, a partnership could be envisaged with the United Kingdom. A nuclear power since 1952, London now only has ballistic missiles launched by submarine and has decided, since Brexit, to increase its arsenal to 260 warheads. But although they share common interests, these two European nuclear powers are not equivalent.

    Unlike the UK, which is a member of NATO’s nuclear planning group and whose warheads are designed in the US, France produces its weapons on its own territory and is not subject to any NATO obligations. This gives Paris a great deal of leeway in defining its doctrine. France can also speak on behalf of the European Union, of which it has been a part since its creation.

    French nuclear power: an alternative to US deterrence

    France officially became an atomic power in 1960 by relying on its own resources, with US support fluctuating according to events. The emergence of an independent French strategic force long annoyed Washington, which sought to restrict it by means of international accords such as the 1963 treaty limiting atmospheric nuclear tests and the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty. Since 1974, the French nuclear force has officially had a specific dissuasive role within NATO, contributing to the overall security of the transatlantic alliance by complicating the calculations of potential adversaries.

    Almost 60 years ago, US president Lyndon Johnson reinforced doubts about the White House’s determination to fully commit to the defence of Europe. Today, Trump’s desire to end US support for Ukraine confirms these suspicions. Consequently, increasingly insistent voices are calling for the acceptance of a French nuclear force that would extend to the European level.

    A French nuclear umbrella in Eastern Europe

    Merz’s call for the French nuclear umbrella to extend to Germany aligns with Paris’s proposal to establish a dialogue involving Europeans in a common approach. As France’s defence minister has pointed out, the precise definition of vital interest is up to its president. However, the use of nuclear weapons to protect Europe requires a strategic discussion to define the power to be acquired, the interests to be defended and the method of nuclear fire command.

    Moving toward a Europeanisation of nuclear force means increasing deterrent capabilities and, therefore, expanding the French arsenal so it can respond to threats affecting all 27 EU member states. This would require the creation of additional stocks of fissile material and the reactivation of production plants in Pierrelatte and Marcoule, which were dismantled in the late 1990s.

    Dogma about what constitutes a sufficient arsenal must also be questioned. If 290 nuclear warheads represent the value that France places on defending its existence, this price seems to neglect the scale of the European continent, and logic confirms it: continent-sized nuclear powers such as the US and Russia – and soon, China – are deploying an arsenal of around 1,000 thermonuclear warheads.

    Ramping up power would take time and require a budgetary effort to increase the number of missiles and carrier aircraft. In addition to the construction of new infrastructure in European partner countries, the cost could exceed €10 billion per year, not including indirect costs related to maintenance and logistics. This is a lot to take into account, especially since the political and strategic offer of extended nuclear protection evolves according to circumstances.

    Until now, Germany preferred that France assume a role that was simply complementary to the extended deterrence of the US, but Washington’s threatened abandonment of Ukraine increases the Russian threat. As Macron has indicated, France could respond by proposing the pre-positioning of its nuclear forces in Eastern European countries with the idea of eventually replacing the US.

    This French nuclear umbrella would give concrete form to European strategic autonomy through the deployment of nuclear-capable combat aircraft, a sign of European political solidarity that would make Moscow’s calculations more difficult.

    The visible presence of these aircraft in Eastern Europe could prevent Russia from attacking countries in the region with conventional means, as such an attack could provoke a French nuclear response on behalf of Europe.

    Benoît Grémare ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

    ref. French nuclear deterrence for Europe: how effective could it be against Russia? – https://theconversation.com/french-nuclear-deterrence-for-europe-how-effective-could-it-be-against-russia-251512

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: There will be no let-up in the UK’s support to Ukraine: UK statement to the OSCE

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Speech

    There will be no let-up in the UK’s support to Ukraine: UK statement to the OSCE

    The UK sets out plan agreed with leaders in London on 2 March to work with Ukraine and the United States on a strong, just and durable peace.

    Thank you, Mr Chair.  On Sunday 2 March, the UK hosted in London leaders from various European countries and Canada, the NATO Secretary General and the Presidents of the EU Commission and the EU Council to discuss our support for Ukraine.

    Together we reaffirmed our determination to work for a permanent peace in Ukraine, in partnership with the United States.

    The UK Prime Minister made clear that we must not repeat the mistakes of the past when weak deals allowed President Putin to invade again.  The UK, France and our international partners will work closely with Ukraine on a plan to stop the fighting.  And we will work directly with the United States on a strong, just and lasting peace that ensures Ukraine’s sovereignty and security.

    The plan agreed with leaders in London has four clear principles.

    First, we must keep military aid flowing and keep increasing the economic pressure on Russia.  To that end, we are doubling down on military aid.  At the weekend the UK agreed a new £2.2 billion loan for Ukraine, backed by profits from frozen Russian assets.

    Second, we agreed that any lasting peace must guarantee Ukraine’s sovereignty and security – and that Ukraine must be at the table when negotiating their future.

    Third, in the event of a peace deal, we would continue boosting Ukraine’s own defensive capabilities to deter any future invasion.

    And lastly, we will develop a “coalition of the willing” to defend a deal in Ukraine and to guarantee the peace. Those willing to contribute will intensify planning now.

    Mr Chair, Ukraine has been clear that it wants to reach a durable peace as soon as possible. This can happen only if we continue to show strength and provide Ukraine with the support it needs to defend itself against continued Russian aggression. There will be no let-up in the UK’s support, which we will continue for as long as it is necessary.

    Updates to this page

    Published 5 March 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Maintenance begins across several Recreational Areas

    Source: City of Preston

    5 March 2025

    Maintenance has begun across several Preston Recreational Areas

    Maintenance has begun across several play areas in Preston and will be ongoing throughout the month of March.

    The work includes painting play equipment, ball court fencing and Multi Use Games Areas (MUGAs), and is being carried out by Holden Building Solutions.

    What sites will the maintenance take place

    The maintenance will take place at the following sites;

    • Summer Trees Avenue
    • Conway Park
    • Garstang Road
    • Meadow Park
    • Brookfield MUGA
    • Oxheys Recreational Ground
    • Barlow Street
    • Haighton Drive
    • Williams Lane
    • Haslam Park MUGA
    • Moor Park MUGA
    • Frenchwood MUGA
    • Fishwick MUGA

    The play areas will be temporarily closed whilst work is being carried out. All work should be completed by the end of March, weather dependent.

    This project is funded by the UK Shared Prosperity Fund.

    Share this page

    Print

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: IAEA Board of Governors on the JCPoA, March 2025: E3 statement

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Speech

    IAEA Board of Governors on the JCPoA, March 2025: E3 statement

    France, Germany and the UK (E3) gave a joint statement to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors on Iran’s implementation of its nuclear commitments under the JCPoA

    Chair,

    On behalf of France, Germany and the United Kingdom, I thank Director General Grossi for his latest report on Iran’s nuclear programme.

    Once again, we commend the Agency’s professional, independent and impartial work and their objective reporting on Iran’s nuclear programme. Unfortunately, the Agency’s findings are gravely concerning. The IAEA’s latest report confirms that Iran continues to undertake activities in blatant violation of the JCPoA and that there has been no improvement in its cooperation with the IAEA. The extent of Iran’s enrichment activities is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons, and have no credible civilian justification. The IAEA is currently unable to verify that Iran’s escalating nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful. This taken together with the recent statements by high-ranking Iranian officials calling for a change in Iran’s so-called nuclear doctrine, poses a serious threat to international security, and the non-proliferation regime.

    Chair,

    In the reporting period Iran has further expanded its enriched uranium stockpile and enrichment capacity. Iran has increased its stockpile of high enriched uranium by an alarming 50% since the last reporting period. Iran now has six significant quantities of high enriched uranium, which the Agency defines as six times the approximate amount of nuclear material from which the possibility of manufacturing a nuclear explosive device cannot be excluded. Iran’s overall stockpile of enriched uranium is now approximately 40 times the limit Iran committed to in the JCPoA.

    Iran has increased the rate of production of high enriched uranium at the underground Fordow facility by seven times compared to the previous reporting period. And overall, Iran is now producing roughly one significant quantity of highly enriched uranium every six weeks. In addition, Iran has substantially expanded its enriched uranium production capacity by installing and operating new advanced centrifuges. In the reporting period, it has begun operating 5 new cascades in Fordow and 13 cascades in Natanz. It remains particularly concerning that enrichment continues to take place at Fordow, which we recall is a former undeclared enrichment facility.

    As a result of Iran’s continued non-cooperation and lack of transparency, the DG’s latest report restates that the Agency has lost and will not be able to restore continuity of knowledge in relation to the production and inventory of centrifuges, rotors and bellows, heavy water and uranium ore concentrate.

    Iran refuses to re-designate several experienced Agency inspectors. This is a politically motivated decision which seriously affects the IAEA’s ability to conduct its verification in Iran, particularly at its enrichment facilities. We deeply regret that Iran has not accepted the designation of the four additional experienced inspectors after pledging to consider it ahead of the November 2024 Board of Governors meeting.

    The DG’s report also notes that it has been four years since Iran stopped provisionally applying its Additional Protocol, depriving the Agency of complementary access to critical sites and locations in Iran. Alongside this we remain alarmed by Iran’s repeated threats to leave the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This poses a serious threat to the non-proliferation system upon which we all rely.

    Chair,

    The E3 have consistently worked towards a diplomatic solution to address Iran’s nuclear programme. In 2022 it was Iran who twice refused a negotiated outcome and instead escalated and expanded its nuclear programme. Let us be clear: Iran has chosen to escalate its nuclear programme, far beyond the limits it committed to in the JCPoA and far beyond any credible civilian use, thereby causing a proliferation crisis.

    We therefore urgently call on Iran to change course, and:

    (i) Halt and reverse its nuclear escalation and refrain from making threats regarding nuclear weapons; (ii) Return to the limits imposed by the JCPoA, in particular those regarding enrichment levels and enriched uranium stockpiles; (iii) Implement the Iran-IAEA March 2023 Joint statement and the commitments it made regarding transparency and cooperation with the IAEA including re-applying all transparency measures that it stopped in February 2021; (iv) Allow the Agency to install surveillance and monitoring equipment where requested; (v) Re-implement and swiftly ratify the Additional Protocol; and (vi) Fully reverse its September 2023 decision to withdraw the designations of experienced inspectors.

    Chair,

    In light of the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear programme, there is an urgent need to address these concerns. The international community must remain united and firm in its determination to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The E3 will continue to work towards a diplomatic solution, and we stand ready to use all diplomatic levers to achieve this goal.

    We ask the Director General to keep the Board informed on all relevant activities and developments within Iran’s alarming nuclear programme by regular and, if deemed necessary, extraordinary reporting. We ask for this report to be made public.

    Thank you.

    Updates to this page

    Published 5 March 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: E3 Foreign Ministers’ statement on humanitarian access in Gaza

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments 3

    Press release

    E3 Foreign Ministers’ statement on humanitarian access in Gaza

    Statement from the Foreign Ministers of the UK, France and Germany on humanitarian access in Gaza

    Joint Statement on behalf of the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and the UK (E3)

    We, the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and the United Kingdom recall our continued support for the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.

    It is vital that the ceasefire is sustained, all the hostages are released, and continued flows of humanitarian aid to Gaza are ensured. We urge all parties to engage constructively in negotiating the subsequent phases of the deal to help ensure its full implementation and a permanent end to hostilities. We welcome Egyptian, Qatari and US efforts in mediating and seeking to agree an extension to the ceasefire.

    The humanitarian situation in Gaza is catastrophic. We express our deep concern at the Government of Israel’s announcement on 2 March to halt all entry of goods and supplies into Gaza. We call on the Government of Israel to abide by its international obligations to ensure full, rapid, safe and unhindered provision of humanitarian assistance to the population in Gaza.  This includes supply of items such as medical equipment, shelter items, and water and sanitation equipment, essential to meet humanitarian and early recovery needs in Gaza, but which face restrictions under Israel’s “dual use” list. A halt on goods and supplies entering Gaza, such as that announced by the Government of Israel would risk violating International Humanitarian Law. Humanitarian aid should never be contingent on a ceasefire or used as a political tool. We reiterate that the civilians of Gaza who have suffered so much must be allowed to return to their homes and rebuild their lives.

    All hostages must be unconditionally released and Hamas must end their degrading and humiliating treatment. We reiterate our unwavering solidarity with their families and with the Israeli people in the face of the terrorist attacks committed by Hamas on 7 October 2023.

    We need all parties to uphold the ceasefire and ensure it leads to a sustainable peace, the reconstruction of Gaza, and to allow for a credible pathway towards a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in peace.

    Updates to this page

    Published 5 March 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Deepening UK-US defence relations and peace in Ukraine to top agenda for Defence Secretary’s Washington visit

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Press release

    Deepening UK-US defence relations and peace in Ukraine to top agenda for Defence Secretary’s Washington visit

    During meetings, the Defence Secretary will hail the unparalleled depth of the UK-US relationship, which bolsters security and supports economic growth

    Securing a lasting peace in Ukraine and strengthening bonds between NATO allies will be the focus of discussions during the Defence Secretary’s visit to Washington DC on Wednesday and Thursday – including a meeting with his US counterpart Pete Hegseth.

    John Healey MP will hail the unparalleled depth of the UK’s special relationship with the US – the UK’s closest security ally – as both nations continue to collaborate on military operations, peacekeeping, intelligence gathering, and development of advanced technologies – bolstering security and supporting economic growth. 

    The Defence Secretary’s arrival in Washington DC comes as the UK receives the last of an order of 50 of the latest generation AH-64E attack helicopters for the British Army, the most advanced attack helicopter in the world. The helicopter was handed over yesterday (4 March) at the Boeing site in Arizona under a programme that supports more than 300 UK jobs, helping to grow the UK economy – underscoring defence as an engine for driving economic growth. 

    The visit also comes at the conclusion of the 50th occurrence of Exercise Red Flag in Nevada, a joint exercise with the UK, United States and Australia. The training is designed to test equally matched air forces in a realistic combat scenario and involves more than 3,000 military personnel in high-intensity training, such as dogfighting, air-policing and practicing bombing runs, at Nellis Air Force Base. 

    At their bilateral meeting tomorrow [Thursday], the two Defence Secretaries are due to discuss the plan for peace in Ukraine being worked on by the US, UK, France, and European allies. It comes after Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s visit to Washington last week, where the Prime Minister and the President confirmed both nations will work together on security arrangements to deliver a lasting peace in Ukraine. The discussions follow the Prime Minister’s meeting of international leaders in London last weekend, where allies discussed the need for a lasting peace settlement, with US support.    

    The latest defence engagement with the new US administration follows a first meeting between the two Defence Secretaries last month, when the UK convened the 50-nation strong Ukraine Defence Contact Group, which coordinates urgent military support for Ukraine. 

    On Wednesday, the Defence Secretary will attend a reception to mark the 250th Anniversary of the US Marine Corps, held at the British Ambassador’s Residence in Washington DC.

    Defence Secretary, John Healey MP, said: 

    Amid a period of growing global instability, the unique and special relationship between the UK and US is as strong as ever – underlined by a shared commitment to freedom and democracy. 

    It is crucial that the UK and Europe step up further to take more responsibility for our security, and we are doing so. In the face of increasing global threats, we are cementing our ties as NATO allies, bolstering our national security and economic security, too. 

    The Prime Minister was clear following his meetings over the past week, that we will continue our dialogue with friends and allies to secure a path to a lasting peace in Ukraine. We will advance that work in Washington over the coming days.

    Discussions are also expected to cover deepening the UK-US defence relationship. The British and US Armed Forces operate in close alignment around the world, from the long-standing global coalition to combat Daesh in the Middle East to joint maritime security patrols in the Indo-Pacific.  

    Collective security and stability also support both nations’ economies and delivers on our Plan for Change.

    The AUKUS programme to develop a fleet of world-class nuclear powered, conventionally armed submarines for the UK and Australia, is a perfect example of this work – with a £9 billion contract with Rolls Royce awarded in January as part of the programme, creating more than 1,000 jobs and supporting a further 4,000 roles. 

    The Apache programme also supports the UK economy, with numerous components manufactured in the UK. This benefits 75 British companies, including 33 SMEs, with jobs being supported at the Army Aviation Centre at Middle Wallop in Hampshire and Wattisham Flying Station in Suffolk.

    Updates to this page

    Published 5 March 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom