Diplomats posted to six overseas locations, including Buenos Aires and Santiago, will no longer receive hardship payments previously granted for working in difficult or risky postings. The Foreign Office confirmed the change after publishing an updated list of qualifying locations last week, with Panama City, Pyongyang, Bamako and Sarajevo also removed alongside the two South American capitals.
The hardship allowance scheme, which has existed for roughly three decades, provides extra pay and additional leave to staff working in locations deemed dangerous or physically demanding, such as Beirut, or those with significant health risks, such as Mexico City due to air pollution. The latest revision leaves 144 locations on the list, a number that still includes destinations popular with tourists, such as Bali and Rio de Janeiro, alongside recognised trouble spots.
What prompted the update?
The changes came to light after Conservative peer Lord Moylan submitted a written parliamentary question on the subject. According to Lord Moylan's official record of the exchange, the question—tabled on 14 July 2026 as HL2091—specifically asked about Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office hardship postings, prompting the release of the current list.
The same source indicates that the roster of qualifying locations had already shrunk by six entries in the two years leading up to July 2026, with Buenos Aires, Panama City, Pyongyang, Santiago, Bamako and Sarajevo all dropped in that period. Separately, the parliamentary record notes that the list stood at 150 locations at the end of the previous government's term, before these six removals brought the total down to its current level.
How much money was involved?
Precise figures for hardship payments are not routinely disclosed, but the last detailed breakdown, published in 2009, offers a benchmark. That schedule showed the highest payments at the time went to postings in Karachi, Pakistan, worth an extra £26,647 for civil servants and their spouses, and Abuja, Nigeria, worth £14,804.
For the two South American postings now removed from the list, the 2009 figures were considerably smaller: an accompanied officer posted to Buenos Aires received £1,517, while a Santiago posting was worth £777, according to the 2009 Diplomatic Services Allowances schedule. These figures are corroborated by the same 2009 record referenced in the parliamentary exchange, which noted identical amounts for Buenos Aires and Santiago.
Why does the allowance exist?
Foreign Office minister Lord Wood of Anfield responded to the parliamentary question by explaining that hardship assessments account for factors requiring staff to take additional breaks for their physical or mental wellbeing. He stated:
These arrangements are not new, and indeed have applied consistently under successive governments for a number of decades.
The allowance system is built around an independently scored classification of hardship, weighing factors such as security conditions and socio-political tension, according to a 2009 parliamentary debate on diplomatic allowances. The list is reviewed on an annual basis, taking into account security measures, climate, natural disaster risk, isolation, and broader quality-of-life impacts.
What criticism has the scheme faced?
Conservative Party chairman Kevin Hollinrake argued that it is unreasonable for taxpayers to fund extra payments for civil servants stationed in what he characterised as desirable locations. He said:
Whilst businesses and families are paying higher taxes to fund this government's policies, civil servants are being sent on taxpayer-funded jollies to places like Bali, Cape Town and the Maldives.
This kind of nonsense has no place in government.
Hollinrake also committed to reducing the size of the civil service should the Conservatives return to government, framing the hardship payments as an example of wasteful spending. Locations such as Bangkok, Cape Town, Kuala Lumpur, Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Muscat remain on the qualifying list despite the recent trimming.
How has the government responded?
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office defended the allowance system, with a spokesperson emphasising the difficult conditions many diplomats face abroad. The spokesperson said:
British diplomats serve their country around the globe, including in some of the toughest and most challenging physical and political environments in the world.
We have a duty of care to ensure our staff are properly supported, and compensation and other provisions reflect the circumstances of the posting, as it would be in any private sector job.
The department maintains that the scheme mirrors practices found in private sector employment, where compensation is adjusted to reflect the difficulty of a given posting rather than its perceived desirability as a location.
