Back to Baghdad and be damned

Last October, the British government decided it was appropriate to start forcing failed asylum seekers from Iraq to return to Baghdad. This, in spite of the fact it was Britain which destabilised the country by invading. And in spite of the fact Britain still advises its own citizens “against all travel to specific parts of Iraq, including Baghdad”.

So it took dozens of Iraqi refugees out of the detention centre where they were being held, put them on a plane against their will and flew them back to Baghdad. When they got there, they refused to disembark and the Iraqi officials did not force them. So most were flown back to Britain, to spend more time in a detention centre. Not a great place to be, but better than being dead.

(The BBC says 40 went to Iraq and 30 came back. But I think they got their numbers wrong when they rewrote the news agency reports without any independent research. New York Times says 50 went out, 41 came back.)

The tabloids barked that the whole botched flight had cost £250,000. Ironic, considering they were being deported to save money. Britain needs to make big savings so we can pay for giving our banks £850 billion.

But the tabloid number was a guess. How much did the failed flight cost really, I wondered? I wanted to know. So I asked the UK Border Agency.

They looked at my request and said: “after careful consideration we have decided that this information is exempt from disclosure by virtue of Section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This provides thati nformation can be withheld where disclosure would, or would be likely to prejudice the commerciali nterests of any persons” (sic).

They argued that telling me how much the flight cost to charter in total would give away how much they pay, and that would mean contractors would know how much to quote and might fix their prices. I don’t think so. I was asking how much in total. That means security goons, in-flight halal meals and entertainment for the Iraqi deportees, and all.

The UKBA went on to tell me all about the public interest: “There will be a public interest in immediate disclosure to ensure that there is full transparency in the UK Border Agency’s use of public funds and in particular to maintain the Agency’s accountability to taxpayers. Disclosure of this information would also enable the public to assess whether or not the UK Border Agency is getting best value for money in terms of its contracts with the broker/agent” (sic).

This was heartening. The UKBA could see why I wanted to know. But although they could, commercial interests, it seemed, were more important:

“However, we have also considered the public interest in maintaining the exemption to communicate. There is a public interest in Government departments being able to securec ontracts that represent value for money and anything that would undermine this is not in the public interest” (sic).

So it seems getting cheap flights for the Border Agency is more important that knowing how much they waste on failed deportation flights.

I went on to ask them how many of these deportation flights had failed, wasting lots of people’s time and our money. They said: “I regret to inform you that the UK Border Agency does not hold the information in the format that you have requested.”

So it appears the government is not keeping count of how many asylum seekers they actually deport, and how many come back after a failed flight debacle. The UKBA said if they looked through every file of every individual asylum seeker they could work it out. But the would not do so, as it would cost them too much.

I had wanted to know how much all these failed flights had cost in total. But they could not tell me that either, of course.

They did tell me how much they spent in total annually on chartering flights to deport failed asylum seekers:

• In 2005 - 2006 they spent £4,339,865.31
• In 2006 - 2007 they spent £4,149,294.35.
• In 2007 - 2008 they spent £4,811,162.12.
• In 2008 - 2009 they spent £8,227,553.38 - almost twice as much.

This does come with the proviso that: “The information has not beenq uality assured under National Statistics protocols and should be treated as provisional and subject to change” (sic).

But I think it shows something interesting. In 2008 the UK government stepped up its deportation of failed asylum seekers a lot.

And it still upping its deportation rate. The government seems really desperate to get rid of the Iraqis now. They are deporting them to Baghdad at a rate of at least 3 flights a week.

And if the asylum seekers don’t want to go back? Well, they are beaten and kicked until they get off the plane, allegedly. And it seems the Iraqi officials are now more cooperative too, with eyewitnesses alleging they are helping to ‘persuade’ the Iraqis to get off the plane.

So to recap, we invaded Iraq. We made it too dangerous to live in. And then those who fled to our country for safety we are forcibly deporting to face the danger we created. It is costing us at least £8 million a year to fly these people back against their will. And we are telling our own citizens not to go to Iraq, because it is too dangerous. Iraq is currently languishing in a political vacuum after inconclusive elections delivered no clear mandate.

So no security, no government, and no national airline to pick up the UK’s unwanted Iraqis, because it went bust – thanks to a British court ruling, of course.