Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)

As Deputy Gannon outlined, the Social Democrats will not be supporting the motion. I will outline three clear reasons that is the case. First, it is demonstrative of virtue signalling and performative cruelty, which has not crept into our system but has been recently exposed as being in our system. Second, it is a solution without a problem. I will outline some of the problems we could be directing our energies at in the Dáil and elsewhere within the international protection system. Finally, very serious human rights concern exist within this suggested piece of work.

Last week, and in recent months, we have seen the Minister for Justice tweeting gleefully about deportation flights, which do not represent value for money for the State. They are simply a very expensive PR exercise for the Minister and this Government to seem tough on immigration. All of this is happening when our system for processing international protection, immigration, naturalisation and asylum claims is crumbling and always has been. The focus and priority of our system should be on a fair, kind and quick process of seeking asylum, applying for visas and dealing with immigration in this country. We have seen an overwhelming focus on how to echo the cries of "Get them out". We have heard the far right in this country in our laws and policies, all while immigrants fear for their safety and face increasing racism and discrimination. These people are the backbone of our communities, public services and tax base. It is so frustrating to see public policy from this Government treat them as pests to be controlled and expelled.

As I mentioned, this is a solution without a problem. Twelve people from Kazakhstan have come to Ireland since 2019. There are no direct flights to or from Kazakhstan and Ireland. What is the sense in investing our time and energy, and the work of many people in the Department, on negotiations for a deal that has virtually no effect on our country? The only conclusion my colleagues and I can draw is that we are keen to sign on to anything that makes this Government look tough on immigration. That is performative, not practical. When we have significant priorities both here and at EU level that are falling by the wayside, I cannot see how we can justify spending time and energy on negotiations when other EU states can simply turn around and ask, "Why should we listen to you? You do not have immigration from Kazakhstan".

I will outline some of the things we should be looking at within our international system. How about gender-specific accommodation for those who are here seeking international protection who are the victims of sexual violence? What about the vulnerability assessments and the opt-out system introduced a number of years ago, which has issues around accessibility and language capabilities and simply does not meet the requirements we have signed up to under international law? What about the interpreting services and legal services? Where is the analysis and assessment of how the increasing speed of the process is not impacting on efficiency - that is one question - but on the rights of people to claim asylum in this country? What about the thousands of people who we are not offering accommodation to, and the many people who are languishing in direct provision and staying in accommodation much longer than they should in conditions that provide no family privacy, and no ability or means to even cook their own food or practise their culture or religion? What about those issues? Why are we focusing our energy on this?

I will speak to the human rights concerns I have in respect of this motion. I cannot see how any agreement with a country that imprisons political opposition, tortures prisoners and where freedom of speech and assembly are severely restricted can have the human rights guarantees we need. You do not have to be a bleeding heart liberal to think that deporting people to a country where their fundamental freedoms and rights are denied is wrong. We have heard from the Minister of State that human rights protections will be paramount for the European Commission in these negotiations, but this is the same Commission that is pushing back against eradicating slavery from our supply chains, that is trying to use cohesion funding for arms manufacturers and is failing to respond to the genocide in Gaza. While this Government may argue that the EU will be able to push for a better approach, its track record at EU level on taking the lead on human rights is poor. These are the reasons I will not be supporting this motion.

See this speech in context