2
Recommendation
Third Report: Flying Home: The FCO’s co…
Rejected
The FCO was given £75 million to help UK citizens return home. However, only £40 million of this was spent. While no one would advocate waste, these funds were allocated to rescue British citizens and the amount unspent suggests that the lifelines that many needed were available but not used. …
Read more
The FCO was given £75 million to help UK citizens return home. However, only £40 million of this was spent. While no one would advocate waste, these funds were allocated to rescue British citizens and the amount unspent suggests that the lifelines that many needed were available but not used. We were given no explanation as to why the remaining £35 million wasn’t used to provide a better service for those UK citizens stranded abroad. We recommend that the Government ensures remaining funds are kept aside should a second wave of COVID-19 infections see more UK citizens stuck abroad. The FCO should also consider allocating some of its remaining funds to help those British nationals who permanently reside overseas but who need to return to the UK due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejected the premise that unspent funds meant insufficient support, stating they will find funds if needed for further repatriations. They also clarified that they have not supported the repatriation of British nationals who permanently reside overseas, except for acutely vulnerable individuals on planned …
Read full response →
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
3
Conclusion
Third Report: Flying Home: The FCO’s co…
Rejected
The Government placed too much reliance on commercial carriers at the start of the crisis. We were surprised that the Permanent Under-Secretary and the Minister gave different explanations for their Department’s decision to rely upon commercial flights. This decision was clearly made with cost saving in mind.
Read more
The Government placed too much reliance on commercial carriers at the start of the crisis. We were surprised that the Permanent Under-Secretary and the Minister gave different explanations for their Department’s decision to rely upon commercial flights. This decision was clearly made with cost saving in mind.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government defends its reliance on commercial carriers, explaining that it was necessary due to overwhelming demand, to avoid undercutting airlines, and to leverage existing air links, rather than being solely driven by cost-saving.
Read full response →
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
4
Conclusion
Third Report: Flying Home: The FCO’s co…
Rejected
Whilst reliance on the commercial system may have been the most cost effective and convenient way to help the majority of travellers return to the UK, for some people this was not a practical solution. This included travellers who were vulnerable, those in the ‘high risk’ category and those who …
Read more
Whilst reliance on the commercial system may have been the most cost effective and convenient way to help the majority of travellers return to the UK, for some people this was not a practical solution. This included travellers who were vulnerable, those in the ‘high risk’ category and those who were travelling in countries with strict lockdown rules and thus were unable to access the commercial flights available. By running a small number of chartered repatriation flights in parallel to the commercial options the FCO could have successfully brought home the travellers in the most vulnerable situations.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejected the idea of parallel chartered repatriation flights for vulnerable travellers, explaining that a dual approach with commercial routes was necessary to handle demand, avoid undermining airlines, and that financial assistance was provided to those in need.
Read full response →
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office