I think the case for action against those who wilfully commit fraud in the application process is more straightforward and an easier case to make. I think the ability to consolidate the process in terms of appeals that can be presented by the defendant would be helpful in ensuring that justice is done in a timely kind of way.
But I do think there is indeed not just value but also a legal and moral imperative to maintain those kinds of provisions, which I think in every respect are different from the debate about revocation after the fact. Somebody who is intending to misrepresent or to commit fraud can't benefit from the results of that fraud having been perpetrated.