Five questions answered on Lloyd Bank’s large pre-tax losses

£570m loss for 2012.

Lloyd Banking Group today posted huge pre-tax losses for 2012. We answer five questions on Lloyd’s current losses.

What’s the amount of Lloyd’s pre-tax losses?

The 39 per cent state owned group is reporting a £570m loss for 2012.

Why so much?

The bank set aside a £1.8bn rise in mis-selling provisions last year, which has dented its profit margins. Last week, it was also fined £4.3m for delaying compensation payments to customers over PPI mis-selling.

However, take away the money set aside for the mis-selling claims - £1.5bn for payment protection insurance and £310m for interest rate swaps – the lender said underlying pre-tax profit jumped from £638m to £2.6bn.

The consumer association Which? estimate that the bank’s latest update took the total amount set aside for PPI by the industry to £15bn.
Will Lloyd’s bankers still be getting their bonuses? 

Most likely. The bank has set aside £365m to pay staff bonuses and would hand its chief executive, Antonio Horta-Osorio, a deferred share award worth £1.49m.

"I came here with the main objective of getting taxpayers' money back and, therefore, I thought it would be appropriate to make my bonus entirely conditional to us getting to the taxpayer entry price," Lloyd’s Chief Executive Mr Horta-Osorio told journalists.

What else has he said in regards to this pre-tax loss?

In Lloyds’s annual report statement he said:

"Since setting out our strategy in June 2011, we have significantly strengthened the balance sheet and substantially improved efficiency and focus, while continuing to work through legacy issues.

"We are investing in our simple, lower-risk, customer-focused UK retail and commercial banking model, and in value-for-money products and better capabilities to continue to support UK households, businesses and communities."

What have the experts said?

The figures provided good news for the government former investment banker Heather McGregor told the BBC . "We hear that the government is looking to exit sooner rather than later, and if I was the government I would be doing that. I'd be looking at these figures going 'yes, I can get my money back much quicker'," she said.

Lloyd Banking Group today posted huge pre-tax losses for 2012. Photograh: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for Nridigital.com

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.