The Rwanda ruling is a victory for common decency

The Supreme Court’s unanimous verdict on the Rwanda scheme is a victory for common decency and the rule of both British and international law.

This will hopefully remind the current government that they are in place to govern the country on our behalf within the rule of law, not rule the country while ignoring the law.

The amount of money that has been spent on developing the Rwanda scheme and the failed appeal could have been much better used to deal with the backlog of asylum claims, which is where the real problem lies.

Steve Brooks

North Shields

I welcome the judgement from the Supreme Court declaring the egregious Rwanda deal unlawful. I could list all the reasons along with costs and various implications, but most of that is superfluous in the bigger picture.

If the Conservative government did not take us out of the EU, none of this would have occurred. Many of us including me warned about the consequences of leaving the Dublin accord. Likewise, the unnecessary austerity cut back countless civil servants who could have processed asylum seekers swiftly. These cutbacks still continue, by the way.

Human traffickers may not be highly educated people, but they are not stupid. They saw our weaknesses, including law enforcement cutbacks, and decided to fill the boats and fill their boots. No matter how many migrants we deport traffickers will not cease their pernicious trade. We need a government that is not only humane, but understands wasting millions of taxpayers’ money on crazy ideas does not cut the mustard.

Robert Boston

Kent

The Tory vice chair is of the opinion that the government should ignore the Supreme Court ruling that deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda is illegal and “get the planes in the air”.

Enough is enough! Many of us have been opposed to this idea from the very beginning, and perhaps he should be reminded that whilst we do have a Conservative-led government, no one is above the law. Regardless of Suella Braverman’s antics, this is still a democracy! While I am sure that many on the far right would love to override the court’s ruling, I’m convinced most would not.

Lisbeth Robertson

Orkney

If ever there was an example of one law for them and another for us mere mortals, the debacle over the Rwanda scheme takes some beating.

Ordinary citizens need to abide by the laws of the country but this government even after numerous appeals to our highest courts, merely just changes the law.

Geoff Forward

Stirling

What is alarming about the Tory faithful, in and out of parliament, is their continued lionising of flawed and even very unpleasant individual politicians. Sunak was forced to bring forward a planned major reshuffle by a string of truly outrageous and malign comments by the appalling Suella Braverman.

One hopes that quite a few Tory MPs will finally find themselves shocked by some of her recent comments and her disgraceful, self-serving parting shot. However flawed some of Sunak’s policies may be, he hardly deserves Braverman’s level of ad hominem abuse, which degrades British politics.

Bringing back one of the few grown-up Tories left may prove a positive move, although very unlikely to stave off major electoral defeat next year. David Cameron’s attempts to build a new career outside government involved some very dubious alliances. However, he has considerable strengths, and it is increasingly uncertain how much he alone was to blame for the referendum decision. It looked like a way of finally shutting up the Eurosceptics for a generation, and much of the country did expect remain to win.

Of course, we underestimated the campaigning skill of the Brexiteers, the strength of Euroscepticism in the country at large, and crucially the key role that the unprincipled Boris Johnson was to play. Cameron with Jeremy Hunt may help to move the new cabinet into a more centrist position, and to win back a bit of the UK’s tarnished reputation on the world stage.

But it will not stave off the impending electoral defeat of a government with so few solutions to the country’s many major problems.

Gavin Turner

Norfolk

Looking at the first set of data released since London’s ultra-low-emission zone (Ulez) expansion in August, one thing is clear – the ambitious initiative is beginning to yield positive results.

For far too long, road traffic has been the primary source of air pollution in London. The recent announcement from the Mayor of London’s office that compliance levels have significantly increased, with 45 per cent fewer, non-compliant polluting cars being taken off the road, is indeed a cause for optimism.

However, a closer look at the data reveals a concerning trend – non-compliant vehicles are being pushed out, finding refuge in the north of England and Scotland, taking their polluting engines with them and displacing the toxic fumes elsewhere.

Critics of Ulez, and there are many, often call out the scheme as a political “war on motorists” – first coined by prime minister, Rishi Sunak. However, if we get to the crux of the issue, it is primarily a public health initiative. The shocking reality is that London sees over 4,100 deaths each year due to human-made vehicle fumes, including PM2.5 and NO2.

Despite the commendable progress made thus far, air quality in London continues to fall short of UK regulatory levels and remains a considerable distance from more stringent guidelines established by the World Health Organisation (WHO).

Soberingly, unless additional measures are put in place, it will take London years to fully comply with these legal limits. The complex reality is that, regardless of Ulez compliance, air pollution hotspots will persist due to pinch points of congestion and slow-moving traffic whether the zone exists or not.

Continued exposure is a significant threat for those who live, work, and breathe in these hotspots. To expedite progress, London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, must utilise and allocate the monthly revenue generated by Ulez, estimated at £26m after its first month, wisely.

Promises to add and invest in traditional transport frameworks are undoubtedly essential, but we must go beyond the basics to reduce car usage and alleviate congestion to ultimately, prevent air pollution.

It would be a missed, and frankly callous, act to allow preventable illness to persist when the technology and innovative solutions exist to turn the tide on air pollution. Ulez marks the beginning of the capital’s resolute commitment to confront the largest environmental threat to human health.

Thomas Delgado

Founder and CEO of  Pollution Solution