Lynn Ruane (Independent)

I understand the idea and it sounds reasonable when you say this is just opening a conversation. However, a conversation is being opened that nobody has contributed to because we do not have the information. That means we are trusting a particular group to go into negotiations when we have not had any sort of public discussion with anybody on the content people want to see as part of the agreement. Does the Minister know what I mean? Neither the politicians nor the public have any say in what is being negotiated. Opening up a discussion and then opting in or opting out at a later stage really does not matter because we will never have that input because we are not part of the negotiation. There are serious questions around Kazakhstan. Even in recent years, it has imprisoned activists. There are questions about people's politics and LGBTQ rights. There are a great many issues. A recent Amnesty report highlighted the forcible return and the risk of further forcible return of activists from Uzbekistan. There are serious questions in respect of Kazakhstan in general and the fact that we do not get to engage in any conversation or to speak about human rights in Kazakhstan and what negotiations should entail and look like, rather than just opting in or opting out after the second stage of the conversation. Will the Minister clearly state why this is of any benefit to us when we can have a bilateral direct agreement such as we have with other countries? What is the benefit of being part of a readmissions agreement as opposed to doing things as they have been done before?