"Q May I just stop you? I appreciate what you are saying, but you are not answering my question. If you do not think that the Bill will be adequate to stop people from crossing the channel in an unsafe way, how many legal routes would your organisation want …..." Blake Stephenson - View Speech
Angela Afzal: The opportunity of having safe routes means that the Government can control the numbers and where people come from. That would provide a controlled route. The Government would know where people are coming from and who they are, and could …..." Blake Stephenson - View Speech
"Q Given the concerns that you have raised, how likely is it that the Bill will restore confidence in the asylum system? If that is not likely, what else would you like to see in it that would restore confidence?
"Q The same question, briefly, Will. Do you also have any international experience that it might be worth us hearing about, maybe from Australia and so on?
Dr Prescott: Building on what the others have said, there are obviously bits in the Bill that are very positive. The expansion …..." Blake Stephenson - View Speech
"Q I do not wish to cut you off, but I asked the question to all three panellists. Eleanor, briefly, please.
Eleanor Lyons: Very briefly, touching on part 5 of the Bill in particular, I do not think we will restore confidence in the asylum system by weakening protections …..." Blake Stephenson - View Speech
"Q In answer to Matt Vickers’s question, you said that, as a result of the Bill, exploiting our borders will be less attractive for organised criminals. What specific measures in the Bill does your organisation think contributes to that assessment?
"Q You can do all the things you have described without the Bill, so what in the Bill will make it easier for your organisation to “smash the gangs”?
Helen Rance: Smashing the gangs, to coin a phrase, really comes with a lot of different measures and policies. Target …..." Blake Stephenson - View Speech
"Q Can we briefly return to clause 1(8), which I think you described, Professor Ekins, as a poor attempt at an ouster provision. Would you be able to describe why you think that? If it was better drafted, what would the constitutional and practical benefits be from that clause?
"Q That is very helpful, thank you. Do you want to add anything, Dr Casey?
Dr Casey: Yes, I agree. I will just say that I think that, because the Independent Immigration Appeal Authority will not be a judicial body, the courts might be more anxious in scrutinising whether …..." Blake Stephenson - View Speech