Recommendation 2

HM Government Not Addressed

The £75 million was a maximum limit, not a target. We do not accept the suggestion that unspent funds meant those in need did not receive the repatriation support that they needed. The scale of the initial challenge could never have been met exclusively by HMG charters. We spent against our funding limit where needed—to keep HMG charter flights affordable, in particular where there were fewer British travellers and where there was a need for connecting flights or significant ground transport. To date, we have spent just over £40 million gross and around £15.5 million net (final invoices are being collated). A further £4.3 million, drawn from FCO Administration and the cross-HMG Conflict Stability and Security Fund, was spent in support of the earlier repatriations from Wuhan, Peru, and cruise ships. If we need to spend on further repatriation flights to support British travellers, we will look to find the funds within the department and, if appropriate, apply to the HM Treasury Reserve, and draw down further funding up to the maximum of £75 million. We asked passengers to pay a reasonable share of the overall cost of their flight, just as they would do with a commercial flight. This was a policy followed by all of our partners and peers, including Germany, France, the US and Canada. Flight charges varied, depending on the length of the flight. The policy evolved during the early stages of the operation. During the final phase of the operation ceilings were set at: up to £400 for flights of less than 6 hours; up to £600 for flights between 6 and 10 hours; and up to £800 for flight over 10 hours in duration. International counterparts who ran charters, including the French and German governments, adopted a similar policy; some of which were more than the UK e.g. €1,000 for long haul flights. Some other countries charged substantially more for flights or asked passengers to sign blank Undertakings to Repay and only subsequently set the price. Our policy meant that we subsidised flights where it was necessary, for example where there were fewer British travellers and planes were therefore less likely to be full, even where we were able to make spare seats available to support international partners, and operations were particularly complex. The FCDO also worked with an experienced travel operator, Corporate Travel Management (CTM), to keep costs for travellers down, running competitive tenders and managing efficient delivery of charter flights. Further charters will be considered in line with our existing policy as set out in our published guide on support for British nationals and relevant factors, for example where there are significant numbers of British travellers, or particularly vulnerable British nationals, stranded in a location where there were no commercial options for return. We have not supported the repatriation of British nationals who live permanently overseas, where they have the infrastructure and networks to support themselves, unless they are acutely vulnerable and there are planned repatriation flights that can accommodate them.