Rishi Sunak's Rwanda Bill finally passes after eight hours of painstaking debate (2024)

Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda Bill has finally cleared Parliament after almost eight hours of debate as MPs and peers sat through the night to pass the flagship legislation.

The Prime Minister is now significantly closer to the first deportation flight taking off following weeks of back and forth between the two Houses.

Mr Sunak ordered parliamentarians to “sit there tonight and vote no matter how late it goes” in advance of a fourth round of ‘ping pong’ between the Commons and the Lords.

It is a major coup for Mr Sunak and in theory a step closer to his objective of stopping the boats. But he was forced to admit on Monday that the first deportation flight will not get off the ground for another 10 to 12 weeks, meaning illegal Channel migrants will not reach Rwanda until July.

The Bill is now set to receive Royal Assent, and there will be no shortage of political fallout when my colleague Jack Maidment taps in in a few hours’ time to guide you through another dramatic day in Westminster.

... and the Rwanda Bill has finally cleared all of its parliamentary hurdles.

With that, the House adjourns at just gone midnight here in Westminster.

Yevette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, claimed the new Rwanda law was “an extortionately expensive gimmick rather than a serious plan to tackle dangerous boat crossings”.

Ms Cooper said in a statement: “The Rwanda scheme will cost more than half a billion pounds for just 300 people, less than one per cent of asylum seekers here in the UK - and there is no plan for the 99 per cent.

“Instead of spending £2 million per asylum seeker on this failing scheme they should be putting that money into boosting our border security instead - that is Labour’s practical plan.”

She urged the Tories to “drop this eye-wateringly expensive election stunt and instead adopt Labour’s practical plan”.

Lord Coaker, the Labour home affairs spokesman, said his party’s peers were never going to block the Rwanda Bill despite Rishi Sunak suggesting otherwise.

“The role of the House of Lords will be to challenge a Labour government at that time, which hopefully will come in place, but they will not seek to block or undermine the elected will of the people. Which is not what we’ve sought to do.

“Although we fundamentally agree with this Bill, [the process] has worked reasonably well. The Government now own the Bill. The Government will see whether it will work or not. We’ve arrived at a position where we’ve made certain demands which one by one have been overturned by the Government, and we’ve been left with two changes.”

Lord Anderson told the Lords: “Amendment 3J, in my name turned out to be the last one standing, so let me say a few words at its funeral.

“It was not much, perhaps, compared to some of the amendments that had already been defeated. Indeed it survived so long precisely because it was so modest and so unthreatening to the Government’s policy.

“But it did indeed touch on a central disease of this Bill and perhaps on our body politic more generally... To reduce the possibilities for challenge, and the pretence that by asserting something to be true, even in the teeth of the evidence, you can not only make it true but keep it true forever.

“Many people, some of them perhaps still watching even now, will have wished us to keep on fighting. But without the threat of double insistence, which remains part of our constitutional armoury but did not command the necessary political support on this occasion, there would have been no point in doing so.

“The purpose of ping-pong is to persuade the Government through force of argument to come to the table and agree a compromise. They have refused pointedly to do so and after four rounds of ping-pong their control of the Commons remains as solid as ever. The time has now come to acknowledge the primacy of the elected House and to withdraw from the fray. We do so secure at least in the knowledge that the so-called judgment of Parliament was not the judgment of this House and that we tried our hardest to achieve something more sensible.”

Lord Sharpe of Epsom, a Home Office minister, is moving a motion for the Lords not to insist on Amendment 3J after it was rejected by the Commons.

“This Bill has now been scrutinised a number of times. The Government have rejected this amendment several times, so we must now accept the will of the elected House and bring the debate on this last amendment to an end and get this Bill onto a statute book.”

Lord Sharpe said he would not repeat the same arguments again after so many debates but recapped some key points.

The Rwanda Bill is apparently closer to becoming law amid reports the Lords will continue debating it in another 10 minutes.

According to the Guardian, however, peers will not oppose the Bill for a second time tonight and pending a short debate Rishi Sunak’s flagship legislation could finally clear the Lords as well as the Commons.

One thing is for sure - the Prime Minister was right about both Houses sitting “however long it takes”.

• The Lords are set to debate the Rwanda Bill once again after MPs rejected their amendments for their second time tonight.
• MPs started debating the first set of Lords amendments at 16:15 and proceeded to comfortably reject these by 17:45.
• While Labour Lords were happy with “concessions” on exemptions for Afghan interpreters - although both ministers and the SNP dispute how much has changed -they sent the Rwanda Bill back to the Commons just before 20:40.
• By 22:35, MPs rejected Lords amendments for a second time.
• Now we are waiting on a message from the Lords on what was always going to be a long night in Westminster.

The House of Lords has currently adjourned but will eventually debate the Rwanda Bill once again after its amendments were rejected by the Commons for a second time tonight (and a fifth time in all).

Let’s hope that the lights stay on for it:

Ayes: 312

Noes: 237

We’re now in a familiar pattern as MPs reject the Lords’ amendments and send the Rwanda Bill back to the Upper House.

... as the SNP’s Alison Thewliss repeats that her party does not support “the state-sponsored people trafficking bill on Rwanda and we will oppose it in any way that we can”.

She adds: “I was quite disappointed to hear the Labour Lords caving on the Afghan amendment. And if they think that this is some kind of concession, I’ve got some magic beans to sell them. Honestly, it’s pathetic.”

Sir Robert Buckland, a former Conservative justice secretary, said Labour “had absolutely nothing to say” about illegal immigration.

“It is a blank page that we face on the other side of the House. I still think that there is strong merit in what their Lordships say about not just the way in which we designate Rwanda to be a safe country but the way in which if in future things change, we have a parliamentary mechanism to deal with it.

“It does seem to me in the absence of this amendment there would be the need for further primary legislation in future... But in the context of where we are with the detailed consideration of Lords amendments, the unelected House does have to cede authority to the elected House.”

For two years now we’ve been urging the Prime Minister to stop the boasts and instead start stopping the Tory boats chaos. Sadly he has chosen to ignore us on both fronts.

Instead we need Labour’s plan, to redirect the Rwanda money into a cross-border police unit, to smash the criminal gangs upstream and a returns and enforcement unit to remove those who have no right to be here, reversing the decline in removals that we have seen under this Government.

Because only Labour’s plan can fix our broken asylum system, and only Labour’s plan can restore order at our border. Those benches opposite, they don’t want to hear it, but that is the reality of the situation.

Stephen Kinnock warned MPs “do not have a crystal ball in this House” and said the Lord Anderson amendment would allow the Monitoring Committee to advise James Cleverly, the Home Secretary, on giving a statement to say that Rwanda was a safe country.

Mr Kinnock added: “Many refugees are taken from Rwanda to this country, which really does beg the question of how safe that country can be.

“All this amendment seeks to do is trust but verify... I simply cannot understand why the Government can’t accept this amendment and enable the Home Secretary to lay a statement on whether Rwanda was safe or unsafe.”

Stephen Kinnock, Labour’s shadow immigration minister, said the Government had to be “dragged kicking and screaming to where we find ourselves” on the issue of exemptions for Afghan interpreters and others who have helped the British Army overseas.

“That is why it will be so important for us to hold the Government to account because it’s so difficult to take what ministers say at face value.”

Turning to the Lord Anderson amendment, Mr Kinnock said: “This House is not just trying to legislate that Rwanda is safe now, in other words that white is black and black is white, but Rwanda is safe in perpetuity.

“This is a post-truth Bill. You cannot possibly legislate for something that is in the lap of the gods... At any point the situation in Rwanda could change rapidly, just as it could in any other country.”

Michael Tomlinson, the minister for illegal migration, is now speaking again in the Commons, bringing a motion to disagree with the amendment backed by the Lords.

“Turning to the Amendments 3J, it is very clear that they are almost identical to the previous amendments that we debated and that this House rejected just a short number of hours ago,” Mr Tomlinson told MPs.

“The implementation will be kept under review by the Independent Monitoring Committee... Implementation continues as pace. I can confirm again that on March 21 the Rwandan senate passed their legislation ratifying the treaty, and once again as I confirmed this afternoon on April 19, just last Friday, the Rwandan parliament passed their domestic legislation to implement their new asylum system.

“As we have made clear, if the Monitoring Committee was to raise any issues to the Joint Committee, standing members of the Joint Committee are senior members of the Government of this country and the government of Rwanda... And we will of course listen.

“There is nothing new in these amendments. These amendments have already been rejected. Enough is enough.”

The House of Lords is “pushing things beyond the normal limits” over the Rwanda Bill, Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has warned.

Speaking on his GB News programme this evening, the former business secretary said: “The House of Lords has a clear constitutional role. It is a revising chamber. It’s there to say to the House of Commons ‘think again’. It is not a political chamber. It is not a political chamber for very good reason. It’s because it has no democratic mandate. You don’t vote for it. I don’t vote for it.

“In this instance, it’s pushing things beyond the normal limits. Normally, the House of Lords will ask the House of Commons to think again once - very rarely twice, but three or possibly even four times is not what is supposed to happen. And the Lords should be wary of behaving in this way.

“I was listening to the Lord earlier today and there are some of them who are beginning to be reasonable. So there is hope that we will avert this crisis, and then the issue will be does Rwanda work?

“We’ve heard in the news that some airlines are being threatened with human rights claims. Well, if the airlines won’t do it, we’ve got a Royal Air Force which has a plane or two, if necessary, the Prime Minister has a plane which could be used to take one or two of these illegal migrants to Rwanda and we need to make sure that it works as a deterrent.”

They call bouncing a bill between Commons and Lords “ping pong”, but ping pong is a fast game played by athletes, writes Tim Stanley.

The amendment of the Rwanda Bill was more like digging out the Monopoly board at Christmas, only to find, six hours later, that the wretched thing is not only hard to win but surprisingly difficult to lose. Someone has to fold, to cry: “Bugger this, I’m off to bed!”

The legislative contest began mid-morning with a Sunak press conference. Always something of a supply teacher, amiable and enthusiastic, he announced that his patience had finally run out because the class hadn’t done the work.

While Labour fiddles with amendments, he has booked flights, prepared courts, hired lawyers and, a curious turn of phrase used during the Q&A, “trained 500 escorts”. One hopes he gave that job to the right sort of MP. Otherwise, rather than 500 home office workers, the refugees will be shepherded through Gatwick by 500 girls picked up from the Old Kent Road.

Tim Stanley: Peers know they are beat but still own Park Lane

Patrick Grady of the SNP is currently speaking in the Commons.

It is not yet clear when the Rwanda Bill will return to the House.

The Rwanda Bill is now going back to the House of Commons for a further vote.

We may be waiting a while, however, as MPs are currently in the middle of a debate about hospices.

The House of Lords has sent the Rwanda Bill back to the Commons as MPs voted in favour of Lord Anderson’s amendment:

Content 240
Not content 211

Lord Coaker said there had been a “significant” and “important” concession from the Government over the resettlement of Afghans who had helped the British Army.

“It may not be everything that everybody would want. But you have to do what you can and achieve what you can, and in the face of what my noble friend faced, where it was absolute refusal by the Government to make any concession at all...

“Lord Browne and your Lordships have changed the Government... and [forced] the Government to rethink. People who fought with our country, stood shoulder to shoulder with our Armed Forces, who faced deportation to Rwanda will now be exempt from the provisions of that Bill.

“That is a significant change in what the Government was saying and it will mean that some people either who would have had their rights ignored or would have been coming through this country in due course through the Arap scheme would have died. That is the significance of what this Government has achieved.”

Lord Coaker, Labour’s shadow home affairs spokesman in the Lords, hit back at Andrew Mitchell after the deputy foreign secretary claimed this morning the House of Lords had “bordered on racism” in debating the Rwanda Bill.

“I would not have gone on the radio, as a Government minister did this morning, and accused this House on bordering on racism with the way it debated the Rwanda treaty,” Lord Coaker said.

“That is a shocking, appalling comment to make. I don’t believe that’s what Lord Sharpe says, I don’t think anybody here has been bordering on racism in anything they’ve said...

“Nobody in here, or anybody in the other place, or anyone in the other place has been anywhere near racist or bordering on racism. We should not resort to those sort of things being said.”

Lord German of the Liberal Democrats said the Lords was “doing the proper job” and blamed the Commons for the slow pace of the Rwanda Bill.

“The reasons we are debating for pressing these very important safeguards on this Parliament and on this House are so important.

“We are asked to declare that Rwanda is safe for refugees and for asylum seekers. Yet when asked when the policy on reformant, the most principled quality which was pointed out by the Supreme Court, is to be put in place, the Government could not give any answer at all.

“So I ask the Government tonight, what assurances does the Government give that this policy on reformant and the appropriate training and systems of support will be in place in the next 10 to 12 weeks?”

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, a Tory peer, said the Rwanda Bill was designed to stop the boats.

“We are seeking to stop people, drowning, dying in the Channel. We are trying to break the economic model of people smugglers, and we are trying to ensure that people don’t jump the queue either because they are coming from countries which are safe or because they are economic migrants and they are not themselves in any way asylum seekers or refugees.

“Whether the Bill will meet its objectives, of course I don’t know... But I do two things. The first is it cannot make the situation worse, and secondly at present it is the only game in town.”

Lord Hodgson said there were “persuasive arguments” and “honeyed words” in the Lords amendments, but added there was a risk peers were “seeking to impede it, but not wreck it”.

“They are described in what I might describe as a game of dragon’s teeth.”

Lord Carlile of Berriew urged the Government to “stop the boasts, because this is not stopping the boats” as he pointed to rising Channel crossings.

“If you tried to book a holiday and the travel agent said to you it is a beautiful island but there is no property for you to stay in and we’re not sure you can get there, you can think that travel agent was mad.

“But that is a fair metaphor for the Government’s behaviour on this Bill.”

He concluded it was a “problem [the Government] has brought upon themselves... I am very disappointed that by the end of tonight this Bill will pass. I think it’s an awful bill, I think it’s the worst bill I have seen in my 38 years in one or other House of Parliament. But I will certainly vote in favour of Amendment A1.”

Lord Browne said he “hadn’t yet made up my mind” on what he saw as a concession offered by the Government.

“We will not be silent until today’s promises are honoured by today’s Government or the next one.”

Lord Browne of Ladyton, a Labour peer, said a “concession” had finally been offered and invited Lord Sharpe to read the relevant passage.

Lord Sharpe responded: “I will, with the leave of the House... ‘that means that once this review of Arap decisions for those with credible links to Afghan specialist units has concluded, the Government will not remove to Rwanda those who received a positive eligibility decision as a result of this review when they are already in the UK as of today’.”

Lord Browne replied: “You cannot be removed and deported to Rwanda unless you are here by what the Government call illegal means, but what I call irregular means. So, my Lords, those words are important for this reason. The noble Lord the minister does not believe this to be a concession. It is to him a restatement of what he has been telling us for some time.

“It is, my Lords, quite clearly in my view a concession, although I guarantee you now that the media out there now are being briefed out there it’s not a concession...”

Lord Anderson said the Rwanda Bill “takes the culture of justification, which is the trademark of this House, and replaces it with a culture of assertion”.

“It takes hopes and rebadges them as facts,” the crossbench peer told the Lords. “It shelters from scrutiny and makes a mockery of this Bill.”

Lord Anderson’s amendment would require James Cleverly, the Home Secretary, to tell Parliament when in his judgment Rwanda is a safe country.

“He has the detailed evidence on this. We, despite our best efforts on this, have had only scraps.”

Lord Anderson of Ipswich, a crossbench peer, said peers have reached the “endgame” of the Rwanda Bill.

“We are in the endgame now. We will this week have a law that provides for the offshore processing and settlement of asylum seekers in Rwanda. Its benefits remain to be seen.

“Its costs will be measured not only in money, but in principles debased, disregard for our international commitments, avoiding statutory commitments for the vulnerable, and the removal of judicial scrutiny over the core issue over the safety of Rwanda. That is now a fact and there is nothing more we can do about it.

“But there is a further principle, as precious as any of those, over which we can still hold fast. One might call it the principle of honesty in lawmaking... We have it in our power to reinstate that principle without damaging the purpose of this Bill or delaying its passage any further. We are concerned of the safety of Rwanda, both in the present and the future. This Bill is honest about neither.”

Lord Anderson said there had been no statement by the Government that declared Rwanda a “safe” country.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom, a Home Office minister, is speaking in the House of Lords in favour of Motion A, imploring peers not to insist on Amendment 3G after it was rejected by MPs.

“I’m very grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the House for the careful consideration of this Bill,” he said.

The Conservative Party has hit a fresh polling low under Rishi Sunak’s leadership.

A survey conducted by Redfield & Wilton Strategies shows the Tories are now polling at 20 per cent of the vote, down two points on last week, while the Labour Party continues its dominance on 43 per cent.

The Conservatives are six points ahead of Richard Tice’s insurgent Reform UK, which is on 14 per cent, while the Liberal Democrats are on 12 per cent, a rise of three points as the local elections approach.

Redfield & Wilton Strategies said the Tories’ lowest polling under Liz Truss, Mr Sunak’s predecessor, was 19 per cent.

The Prime Minister’s net approval rating was minus 24, two percentage points above his lowest ever (minus 26), while Sir Keir Starmer had a net approval rating of eight points.

The reasons committee is currently drawing up its reasons behind the Commons’ decision to oppose both of the amendments that were tabled by the Lords.

Crossbench peers will table amendments later this evening, which will be sent back to the Commons and are likely to be voted down again.

It will then be up to the Lords to decide whether to dig in or give way.

MPs have voted by 309 to 37 to create a reasons committee as a point of procedure.

A committee to draw up reasons, as the name suggests, clarifies the motive for each Commons disagreement with a Lords amendment.

Dame Eleanor Laing, the deputy speaker, said: “I would normally say at that point that the Committee do withdraw immediately. Now, they’ve probably already gone.

“The House may be called on to consider a further Lords message today if necessary.”

The Commons has supported a motion which disagrees with Amendment 10F.

Ayes 305
Noes 234

The Commons has supported a motion which disagrees with Amendment 3G.

Ayes 306
Noes 229

Both the Labour and Tory front benches are a lot fuller than they were during the debate.

We should have the result of the Commons vote on Amendment 3G shortly.

MPs are voting on whether the Commons disagrees with the Lords on Amendment 3G.

The amendment would create tighter checks on whether Rwanda was still a safe country for asylum seekers.

Tim Farron, the former Liberal Democrat leader, said the amount spent on the Rwanda deportation plan was the equivalent to more than five million GP appointments.

“If Rwanda is a safe place, why would it be a deterrent? And if it’s not a safe place, why would any decent government send anyone there?” he asked.

Mr Farron insisted both of the amendments under consideration were inherently “decent” and “reasonable”, adding: “A reasonable government would accept [them]. This is awful legislation, it’s cruel, it’s expensive... The Government should concede.”

John McDonnell, a Labour MP who was Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow chancellor, said Britain owed a “debt of honour” to those who had assisted the Armed Forces overseas.

“It cannot be seen as a wrecking amendment in any way, it is simply a logical conclusion of the debate we’ve had in both our Houses.

“And I urge the other place to stand firm on this one because I do actually think the British public support this amendment. I urge the Government to think again because this has gone beyond the normal process.

“I think at the moment the general political mood and public mood is for goodness sake, where there’s a compromise offered you should seize it, particularly on this issue.”

Sir Robert Buckland, a former justice secretary, said he would support an amendment that would create tighter checks on whether Rwanda was still a safe country for asylum seekers.

“I’m glad that in his tone and his approach to this, [Michael Tomlinson] has absolutely embraced this debate as he should, which is all about the detail, getting it right. He knows that I support this policy, we’ve heard a lot of rhetoric again in this chamber which is unfair and misleading.

“However I do think that the revised amendment 3G in its form now does actually strike an appropriate balance here, not only in terms of making sure that the reality of the position in Rwanda is met by the deeming provision in law, but there is a mechanism by which we can deal with this as a Parliament if indeed in circ*mstances change.

“He did almost concede that if there was a change in the situation in Rwanda primary legislation would at least have to be considered by the Government... It seems to me it would be far better to ensure against that by making sure that in this Bill we can wrap it all up and have a system that is not just strong when it comes to potential challenge, but which also gives this place I think its rightful role. So I do still commend and support that particular provision.”

Sir Robert added: “I’m in the market for sorting things out now... That’s why I would commend a little further movement on 10F [the amendment about Afghan interpreters]

“Now it’s time” to get the Rwanda Bill passed, Tim Loughton, a former Home Office minister, told the debate.

“The Government has given undertakings. We’ve heard further undertakings about the treatment of Afghan refugees here today.

“This does not oblige the Government to return anybody from Afghanistan. There are explicit schemes specifically to protect them.”

Alison Thewliss, the SNP MP for Glasgow Central, told the Commons she considered the Rwanda Bill “despicable” and “state-sponsored people trafficking”.

“It goes against our obligations and international law. Scotland wants no part of it. We will oppose it every step of the way.”

Sir Jeremy Wright, a Tory MP and former attorney general, said if declaring Rwanda safe in the first instance was a matter for Parliament, whether it “remains safe” should also be a matter for Parliament.

“This Bill provides no mechanism for Parliament to change its mind if circ*mstances change, save for primary legislation which we would need the Government to introduce.”

He said it should be for Parliament to determine whether Rwanda remained safe, rather than a monitoring committee as is set out by the Bill.

Sir Jeremy concluded: “It leaves me little place to go other than to support this amendment if my Rt Hon friend can’t propose a better way of resolving this deficiency.”

Stephen Kinnock said the lack of an exemption from deportation for Afghans who worked with the UK military was a “disgrace” and “betrayal”.

“What a disgrace, what a betrayal of British values, what a hammer blow to our moral standing in the world,” the shadow immigration minister said.

“It is also driven by our national interest and by military logic, for the simple and obvious reason that the ability of our Armed Forces to recruit local allies to support us in the future will be severely constrained if this Bill passes unamended.”

Stephen Kinnock, Labour’s shadow immigration minister, branded the Rwanda Bill “a sham [and] a con of a bill”.

He said: “The plan is as unworkable as it is unaffordable and that’s why Labour would instead repurpose the money that’s being squandered and set aside for the scheme into a cross-border police unit and security partnership which would go after the criminal gangs upstream and restore order to our border.”

Mr Kinnock promised a new returns and border unit given that failed asylum seeker returns had fallen by 44 per cent under the Conservatives, while the removal of foreign criminals had decreased by 27 per cent.

“Our plan will end the Tory boats chaos, fix our broken asylum system and restore our border security. The Government’s plan is, as the former immigration himself described it [Robert Jenrick]... is to get a few symbolic flights off the ground ahead of a general election, regardless of the wider impact. It really is tokenism and posturing of the worst sort.”

Michael Tomlinson insisted the Lords amendment about exemptions for Afghan interpreters who worked with British troops was “unnecessary”.

“I have confirmed the British Government will not remove those who received a positive eligibility decision... We will not let them down.”

He concluded: “Criminal gangs are determined who comes to the United Kingdom as vulnerable people are being lured into unseaworthy boats and risking their lives. Billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is being spent on illegal migration. Our resources and services are reaching their limits. We must put an end to it.

“We must pass this legislation and stop the boats. I urge this House once again to send an unambiguous message to the other place. The time has come for the Labour Lords to respect the views of this House and let this Bill now pass.”

Michael Tomlinson said the Government “greatly values” the contribution of those who have supported the British Army overseas “and that is why there are legal routes for them to come here to the United Kingdom”.

Mr Tomlinson noted there were already existing laws meaning the Home Secretary had “specific powers” to consider cases on an individual and group basis.

“The Government will not remove to Rwanda those who received a positive eligibility decision as a result of this review where they are already in the United Kingdom as of today.

“This is an important point and it is a point I emphasise today in front of this House.”

Michael Tomlinson, the minister for illegal migration, said the Rwanda Bill in its current form “is clear and is unambiguous”.

“There are procedures already in place under the terms of the treaty to monitor the safety of Rwanda for those who are relocated there,” Mr Tomlinson said.

“We have already established the right mechanisms so that should the situation ever arise, the Government will respond as necessary and this would include a range of options to respond including as my Rt Hon friend knows any primary legislation if required.

“I can now confirm that last Friday the Rwandan parliament passed their domestic legislation to implement their new asylum system. The partnership is one important component of an important bilateral partnership.”

Jim Shannon, the DUP MP, said Michael Tomlinson was “an honourable person” but added: “Does the minister not agree that there is a simple way out of this deadlock, and that is to exempt those who can demonstrate that they were assisting the British Forces in Afghanistan?

“This back and forth is not an example of democratic exercise, but rather that of democratic embarrassment. A way forward must be found before we bring this place and our procedures into disrepute.”

Mr Tomlinson replied: “I hope to seek to persuade him by these words that there are steps that can be taken., there are reassurances that can be made.”

Michael Tomlinson, the minister for illegal migration, said Labour “has voted against our measures to tackle illegal migration 134 times now”.

“134 times they have told the British people they oppose our tougher immigration legislation. Enough is enough. The opposition have delayed this Bill for too long, enough is enough.”

• Why has the Rwanda Bill been held up for so long? The Bill has been delayed for so long because the Lords keeps supporting amendments to the legislation passed by MPs. While the Commons has voted these down, peers have then tabled new amendments and backed those, leaving the Bill in limbo.
• What does the Government want? The Government wants the Bill to pass unamended and Rishi Sunak has said Parliament will “sit and vote” until it has cleared the Lords, no matter how long it takes.
• What does the Lords want? The Lords wants the Commons to accept two amendments. One of these would exempt Afghans who worked with the British Army, and the other would create tighter checks on whether Rwanda was still a safe country for asylum seekers.
• How will it be resolved? The current impasse between the Lords and the Commons will only be resolved as and when a majority of peers give way and support the Government.

MPs will start to debate the latest changes made to the Rwanda Bill by peers just after 4pm, once an urgent question in the House of Commons on the crisis in Sudan has concluded.

They will have up to an hour to talk about the changes but, given the number of times they have already done so in the previous rounds of “ping-pong”, they may wrap up with time to spare.

They will then vote on the two amendments passed by peers last week. Those amendments demand an exemption from deportation for Afghans who worked with the UK military and tighter checks on whether Rwanda remains safe for asylum seekers.

MPs are expected to vote to strip the amendments out of the Bill and it will then travel to the House of Lords where peers will decide whether to dig in and make fresh changes or give way and allow the legislation to finally pass.

Alison Thewliss, the SNP’s home affairs spokesperson, described the Government’s Rwanda plan as being “tantamount to state-sponsored people trafficking”.

Ms Thewliss said she will be supporting amendments made to the Rwanda Bill by the House of Lords.

She told Sky News this afternoon: “This Bill as far as I am concerned is tantamount to state-sponsored people trafficking.

“It is removing people to Rwanda against their will and it should not be the actions of any responsible government.”

Ms Thewliss described the Bill as “absolutely awful”.

Britain must harness its “national pride” to deliver the next generation of sports stars, Sir Keir Starmer has said.

The Labour leader declared that “patriotism is a force for good” and paramount to getting children active as he vowed to level the playing field for aspiring young athletes.

Speaking ahead of St George’s Day on Tuesday, he said sporting pride “runs deep in the nation’s psyche” and forms “a cornerstone of our national life”.

You can read the full story here.

Tim Loughton, a Tory former minister, said he was ready to sit in the House of Commons all night in order to get the Rwanda Bill onto the statute book.

Rishi Sunak has said he will make MPs and peers debate and vote on the Bill continuously today until it is agreed.

Mr Loughton said the Rwanda plan is an “entirely workable” and when asked if he was prepared to sit through the night, he told the BBC: “Absolutely. I have got the sleeping bag ready.”

A senior Tory MP said he was “disappointed” at the Prime Minister’s 10 to 12 week timetable for the first Rwanda flight to take off.

Tim Loughton, a former minister, told the BBC Radio 4 World at One programme: “I am disappointed given that this has been in the offing for a long time. It has been delayed for a long time now by the original court case at the Supreme Court and then the new legislation, it is quite right the Government came back and addressed those concerns, and it has been debated to within an inch of its life in the Commons and now in the Lords.

“People support this policy, people want to see it happen, to believe that it is a credible policy.

“But most importantly those attempting to come across the Channel… need to know they are not going to end up in the UK.”

Yvette Cooper signalled a Labour government would scrap the Rwanda plan even if it is up and running.

The shadow home secretary said the policy is “unaffordable”.

Asked if Labour would stop the flights, she told the BBC’s World At One programme: “We have been clear from the beginning that this scheme is unaffordable, it is unworkable, this is £500 million for just 1 per cent of asylum seekers and there is no plan at all for the 99 per cent.”

Rishi Sunak believes deporting asylum seekers who arrive in Britain illegally to Rwanda will reduce small boat crossings.

Labour has vowed to scrap the policy, arguing it is a gimmick.

So will the plan really work?

My colleague Ben Riley-Smith has examined the question in the latest episode of The Telegraph’s Westminster Source series:

The start of the Rwanda Bill debate in the House of Commons will be pushed back a little.

An urgent question has been granted on the crisis in Sudan.

That will take place immediately after the first order of business in the Commons this afternoon, levelling up questions, which will start at 2.30pm and last for an hour.

So the urgent question should get underway just after 3.30pm. Urgent questions normally last for about 45 minutes so the Rwanda debate should start at about 4.15pm.

Nigel Farage claimed “not a single person is going to Rwanda” on the Government’s deportation flights as he predicted the policy will become bogged down in the courts.

The honorary president of Reform UK told GB News: “What people care about is: are the numbers crossing the Channel going to stop? He [Rishi Sunak] made no acknowledgement in his speech of the fact that numbers are up 25 per cent so far this year.

“He said we’ll defy the European Court of Human Rights. Well, I very much doubt that he will. But even if he did, there’s something missing here.

“It’s called the Human Rights Act 1998. That was the legislation that took the ECHR and put it into British law and all the while it’s there, there will be legal cases taken and British judges will find in favour of the legislation.

“I promise you, not a single person is going to Rwanda. This is a complete charade.”

Nigel Farage said he does not believe Rishi Sunak will deliver on his timetable of Rwanda flights taking off in 10 to 12 weeks.

He told GB News: “What happens is every time Rishi Sunak speaks on this subject, he raises the rhetoric.

“He raises the rhetoric, and he does so of course because public anger is so great, the sense of injustice and unfairness.

“Do I believe that in 10 to 12 weeks’ time, there’ll be planes taking off with significant numbers of migrants on board? No, I don’t.”

The Refugee Council urged the Government to “stop wasting time” with its Rwanda plan and focus instead on processing asylum claims.

Enver Solomon, the council’s chief executive, said: “Refugee flows are driven by global events and geopolitical factors such as armed conflicts and political instability, and the reasons people come to the UK are often to do with family connections, community links and language.

“The Government must stop wasting time and resources on futile endeavours and focus instead on the vital task of processing asylum claims promptly and fairly.”

Yvette Cooper rejected Rishi Sunak’s claim that Labour had delayed the passage of the Rwanda Bill through Parliament and argued the cost of the scheme is “extortionate”.

Asked if Labour was blocking the Bill, the shadow home secretary told broadcasters: “The Government has an overall majority in Parliament and could have passed this Bill a month ago if they had scheduled it then, but as we know Rishi Sunak always looks for someone else to blame.

“This is costing the taxpayer half-a-billion pounds for a scheme that will only cover 1 per cent of asylum seekers.

“This is an extortionate scheme. They should be putting that money into boosting our border security instead. That is what Labour would do.”

Sir Ed Davey claimed the Government’s Rwanda plan was a “colossal failure” as he responded to Rishi Sunak’s press conference and demanded a general election.

The leader of the Liberal Democrats said: “No amount of sound bites or spin can change the fact that the Conservative’s Rwanda scheme is a colossal failure.

“Millions of pounds and years of government attention have already been wasted, with absolutely nothing to show for it.

“It’s time for Rishi Sunak to get a grip, get to the Palace and give this country the election it is crying out for.”

The Rwanda policy is viewed by some in Westminster as one of Rishi Sunak’s potential trump cards ahead of the general election and there is a feeling that its success or failure could have a bearing on the timing of the contest.

The thinking goes like this: If the scheme does get off the ground then Mr Sunak could seize on that moment to call the election as he would be able to argue that he had made significant progress towards his goal of stopping the boats.

Conservative strategists would be hoping the flights would provide a poll boost and create some momentum which could then build during the campaign.

Mr Sunak refused to be drawn on the issue this morning as he continued to keep his cards close to his chest on the election timing question.

Asked if he could rule out a summer election so that the Rwanda scheme is given time to succeed, the Prime Minister replied: “I have said what I have said about an election multiple times before. My working assumption is an election in the second half of the year.

“That remains the case and also, everything I have said on the timing of this is as I said.”

It was revealed last week that more Channel migrants have come from Vietnam this year than any other country. Rishi Sunak told his press conference this morning that Vietnamese arrivals had “increased ten-fold”.

But he said the UK is working to strengthen its relationship with Vietnam and he was “confident” those numbers will fall:

“These sophisticated gangs are changing tactics once again. As well as piling twice as many people into small dinghies and increasing violence against French police they have shifted their attentions towards vulnerable Vietnamese migrants.

“Vietnamese arrivals have increased ten-fold and account for almost all of the increase in small boat numbers we have seen this year.

“And just as we succeeded in reducing Albanian arrivals dramatically, so I’m confident we will do the same when it comes to the Vietnamese. President Macron and I have agreed to work with European partners on closing loopholes to enter Europe in the first place.

“The Home Office have signed a Joint Statement with the Vietnamese Government committing to deepen our already very strong migration relationship and just last week officials from the Government of Vietnam were at Western Jetfoil and Manston to observe Border Force operations on the front line as they continue to manage small boat arrivals.”

Rishi Sunak used his press conference to counter critics’ claims that the Government’s Rwanda scheme lacks compassion.

The Prime Minister argued the opposite is the case:

“I know there are some who will hear all of this and accuse me of lacking compassion. But the truth is the opposite.

“We are in a battle with callous, sophisticated, and global criminal gangs who care nothing for the lives they risk in unseaworthy dinghies.

“Nine people have died already attempting to cross the Channel just this year – including a seven-year-old girl.”

Conservative MPs on the right of the Tory Party will have listened carefully to Rishi Sunak’s words this morning as he repeated his hint that he could take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights if it blocks the Rwanda scheme.

There are growing calls from some Tory MPs for the UK to quit the ECHR. They believe the UK will never be able to exercise total control over its borders while it is subject to rulings made by the European court.

Mr Sunak did not explicitly say he would take the UK out of the ECHR but he repeated his line that no foreign court will be allowed to block the flights.

This is the key quote from the press conference:

“This is one of the most complex operational endeavours the Home Office has carried out. But we are ready. Plans are in place. And these flights will go come what may. No foreign court will stop us from getting flights off.”

Rishi Sunak used his press conference to set out some of the details on the Government’s preparations to get Rwanda flights off the ground.

He said that detention spaces have been increased to 2,200, some 25 court rooms will be available to hear challenges and 150 judges have been identified to hear the cases. He also revealed an airfield has been put on standby and slots have been booked with commercial charter planes.

Here is what Mr Sunak said on the subject:

“Starting from the moment that the Bill passes, we will begin the process of removing those identified for the first flight.

“We have prepared for this moment. To detain people while we prepare to remove them, we have increased detention spaces to 2,200. To quickly process claims we have got 200 trained dedicated case workers ready and waiting.

“To deal with any legal cases quickly and decisively, the judiciary have made available 25 court rooms and identified 150 judges who could provide over 5,000 sitting days.

“The Strasbourg court have amended their rule 39 procedures in line with the tests set out in our Illegal Migration Act.

“And we have put beyond all doubt that ministers can disregard these injunctions with clear guidance that if they decide to do so civil servants must deliver that instruction.

“And most importantly, once the processing is complete, we will physically remove people. And to do that I can confirm that we have put an airfield on standby, booked commercial charter planes for specific slots and we have 500 highly trained individuals ready to escort illegal migrants all the way to Rwanda with 300 more trained in the coming weeks.”

Rishi Sunak said he wanted there to be a “drum beat” of regular migrant deportation flights to Rwanda across the summer and beyond.

The Prime Minister told a press conference in Downing Street: “This isn’t just about one flight. Could you rush and get one flight off? Maybe you could.

“But that is not the priority here. The priority is being able to deliver a regular rhythm, a drum beat of multiple flights a month over the summer and beyond because that is how you build a systematic deterrent and that is how you will stop the boats.”

Rishi Sunak said the Rwanda plan will only be a success if it stops small boat Channel crossings.

The Prime Minister told a press conference in Downing Street this morning: “Success is when the boats have been stopped. That is what the country expects. That is what the Government and I have committed to delivering.

“Yes, while 10 to 12 weeks is later than we wanted... the delay for that is crystal clear and obvious to everybody. You have had Labour peers blocking this time and time again.”

Rishi Sunak said he does have confidence in Sir Mark Rowley amid a row over the Metropolitan Police’s handling of pro-Palestine marches in London.

A new row erupted over the weekend after the Campaign Against Antisemitism published footage of a police officer describing its chief executive Gideon Falter as “openly Jewish” near a protest on April 13.

Sir Mark, the Met Commissioner, has faced some calls to quit.

Asked if he had confidence in Sir Mark, Mr Sunak said: “What happened was clearly wrong and it is right that they have apologised for that. And yes, I do have confidence in him but that is on the basis that he works to rebuild the confidence and trust of not just the Jewish community but the wider public, particularly people in London but more broadly.

“And you regain that trust and that confidence by making it clear that the police are not tolerating behaviour that we would all collectively deem unacceptable when we see it because it undermines our values. I think that is critical.”

Rishi Sunak repeated his hint that he could take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights if it blocks his Rwanda plan.

He said that he is “confident that we are acting in a way that is completely compliant with all of our international obligations”.

But he added: “Now is the time for the flights to go and I am not going to let a foreign court, given all of that, block us from getting flights up and this deterrent up and running.”

Asked how many people would be put on the flights and how regular the flights would be, the Prime Minister refused to be drawn.

Rishi Sunak said he appreciated there would be “lots of interest in the exact operational detail” of the scheme and his opening statement at today’s press conference had given a “sense of the preparation work that has gone into this”.

He said there was a “loud minority” of people who would do “absolutely anything and everything” to disrupt the Government’s flagship policy.

Rishi Sunak said the first migrant deportation flights to Rwanda will take place in “10 to 12 weeks”.

He told a Downing Street press conference: “The first flight will leave in 10 to 12 weeks. Of course that is later than we wanted but we have always been clear that processing will take time and if Labour peers had not spent weeks holding up the Bill in the House of Lords to try to block these flights altogether we would have begin this process weeks ago.”

The Prime Minister said after that there will be a “regular rhythm” to the flights.

Rishi Sunak said the Government has an airfield on standby and it has booked commercial charter planes to take migrants to Rwanda.

He said: “I can confirm that we have put an airfield on standby, booked commercial charter planes for specific slots and we have 500 highly trained individuals ready to escort illegal migrants all the way to Rwanda with 300 more trained in the coming weeks.”

He added: “We are ready. Plans are in place. And these flights will go come what may. No foreign court will stop us from getting flights off.”

Rishi Sunak said his political opponents “have used every trick in the book to block flights and keep the boats coming” as he started his press conference in Downing Street.

The Prime Minister said MPs and peers will debate and vote on the Bill today until it is passed “no matter how late it goes”.

“No ifs, no buts, these flights are going to Rwanda,” he said.

Rishi Sunak’s press conference on the Rwanda Bill is set to start.

We are expecting the Prime Minister to appear in the media room in No 9 Downing Street just after 10.30am.

Rishi Sunak told his ministers that the Rwanda Bill making it onto the statute book would send a “very clear message” to small boat Channel migrants.

The Prime Minister convened a meeting of the Government’s illegal migration operations committee in 10 Downing Street this morning.

Mr Sunak told the committee: “Voting this Bill through Parliament today we collectively can send a very clear message that if you come here illegally you won’t be able to stay.”

The PM is due to hold a press conference on the issue shortly.

The Foreign Office tried to scupper the Rwanda deportation scheme over concerns it could breach human rights laws, leaked government documents show.

A government memo, seen by The Telegraph, shows that the Foreign Office sought to have Rwanda removed from a list of countries identified for “offshore” processing of asylum seekers deported from the UK, warning also it could anger Commonwealth partners.

You can read the full story here.

Rishi Sunak will use a press conference later this morning to set out the “robust” plans for getting flights carrying asylum seekers to Rwanda in the air.

Andrew Mitchell, the deputy foreign secretary, told ITV’s Good Morning Britain programme that the Prime Minister will give details of the “operational plans”.

Mr Mitchell said the Government’s illegal migration operations committee is meeting at No 10 this morning ahead of the press conference.

“Then the Prime Minister will be holding a press conference to set out the operational plan, but I can assure you that the operational plans are robust, sensible and should work,” he said.

Andrew Mitchell rejected peers’ calls for Afghans who helped British troops to be exempted from the risk of being sent to Rwanda if they arrive in the UK on a small boat.

The deputy foreign secretary insisted there was already a “safe and legal route” available to them to come to the UK.

Mr Mitchell told Times Radio: “We have an absolute obligation to Afghan interpreters, people who served the British Army, served our country during the Afghan crisis.

“But I’m pleased to say that thanks to the scheme that the Government set up, the Arap [Afghan relocations and assistance policy] scheme, something like 16,100 Afghans have been given settlement in the UK.

“So I don’t think this amendment is necessary, there is already a safe and legal route for Afghan interpreters and others who served the Army.”

Andrew Mitchell claimed the House of Lords had “bordered on racism” in some of its debate on the safety of Rwanda.

Peers want the Government to accept an amendment to the Rwanda Bill which would only allow the country to be deemed safe for asylum seekers once an independent monitoring committee has ruled on the matter.

Mr Mitchell, the deputy foreign secretary, said the amendment is unnecessary and suggested it was at best “patronising”.

He told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: “Some of the discussions that have gone on in the Lords about the judicial arrangements, the legal arrangements within Rwanda have been patronising and in my view border on racism.

“So we don’t think it is necessary to have that amendment either and that the necessary structures are in place to ensure that the scheme works properly and fairly.”

Suella Braverman accused the Metropolitan Police of a “wholesale failure to combat anti-Semitism”.

The former home secretary has called for Sir Mark Rowley, the Met Police Commissioner, to quit over his handling of pro-Palestine marches in London.

A new row erupted over the weekend after the Campaign Against Antisemitism published footage of a police officer describing its chief executive Gideon Falter as “openly Jewish” near a protest on April 13.

Mrs Braverman told the BBC: “My complaint is not against the individual police officers. They are all working really hard in really difficult circ*mstances.

“My complaint is the wholesale failure to combat anti-Semitism and to maintain the peace on the streets of London over the last six months.”

Mrs Braverman said the latest incident “shines a light on what has been happening” as she argued “at this point in time there is unprecedented anti-Semitism on our streets”.

Mrs Braverman and BBC Radio 4 Today presenter Mishal Husain repeatedly clashed over whether the Tory MP had watched all of the footage of the incident.

Suella Braverman has refused to rule out backing a bid to oust Rishi Sunak if his Rwanda plan fails.

The former home secretary said she “fully expects” Mr Sunak to lead the Conservative Party into the next general election but she would not be drawn on whether she would back a leadership challenge against him.

Asked if she would support a challenge between now and the next general election, Mrs Braverman told the BBC: “As I said, I just don’t think that is going to happen.”

Told that was not a “no”, Mrs Braverman said: “The Prime Minister is going to, I am sure, lead us into the next general election. I have a lot of concerns about the path that he is taking.”

Asked again if she would support a challenge to his leadership, she said: “I have been urging him to change course, repeatedly. I believe we are not providing policies or solutions that the British people are supporting and unfortunately every poll we look at at the moment suggests that we are heading for defeat.”

Mrs Braverman said she believed Mr Sunak’s Rwanda Bill was “fatally flawed” and would not result in regular migrant deportation flights taking off.

Suella Braverman said the Government’s Rwanda Bill is “fatally flawed” and has “too many loopholes” ahead of crucial votes on the legislation in Parliament today.

The former home secretary told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “Unfortunately I voted against the legislation because I think it’s fatally flawed.

“I don’t think it’s going to stop the boats, and that’s the test of its efficacy.”

She said a “token” or “a few flights” taking off will not be enough to deter small boat crossings and there needed to be regular flights.

Andrew Mitchell, the deputy foreign secretary, said James Cleverly would hold Sir Mark Rowley to account for the way pro-Palestine protests have been handled.

The Metropolitan Police have been embroiled in a row after the Campaign Against Antisemitism published footage of a police officer describing its chief executive Gideon Falter as “openly Jewish” near a pro-Palestine protest in central London on April 13.

Sir Mark has faced calls to quit, with the Met having apologised for its handling of the incident. The Met Commissioner is expected to meet with Mr Cleverly, the Home Secretary, in the coming days.

Mr Mitchell told Sky News: “I think it was an appalling episode and the Home Secretary will undoubtedly hold Sir Mark, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, to account for what happened.

“I think the police do an incredibly difficult job on these occasions, so I am not criticising the bobby on the beat who was policing the demonstration.

“But I think there are strategic issues about how we ensure that Jewish people, people of any faith at all, can go about their business in London and not be impeded in the way that he was and not be stopped from walking through the streets of London because of the demonstrations that were taking place. That’s a strategic issue and it needs to be resolved by the police.”

It could be a long day (and night) for MPs and peers as they lock horns for the final time over the Rwanda Bill.

The House of Commons will sit from 2.30pm this afternoon and if there are no urgent questions or statements then the debate on the Rwanda Bill will start just after 3.30pm.

The first job will be for MPs to vote to remove the latest batch of amendments made by peers to the legislation.

The Bill will then return to the upper chamber when all eyes will be on whether peers dig in and vote through further changes or allow it to pass unamended.

If peers make fresh changes then the Bill will return immediately to the Commons for MPs to vote on. This process will repeat for as long as necessary until a version of the Bill is agreed by both Houses.

The expectation is that the Lords, as the unelected chamber, will eventually drop its opposition and allow the Bill to pass. But peers could insist on multiple more rounds of “ping-pong” which could stretch the back and forth into the late evening or even early hours of tomorrow morning.

Rishi Sunak will hold a press conference in Downing Street this morning as he urges peers to stop blocking his flagship Rwanda Bill.

The House of Commons and House of Lords are locked in a game of parliamentary “ping-pong” over the legislation with peers demanding amendments but No 10 insisting they cannot be accepted.

Downing Street has vowed to keep Parliament sitting late into the night if necessary today in order to pass the Bill and finally get it onto the statute book.

The legislation would formally designate Rwanda as a safe country for asylum seekers and the Government hopes that once the Bill becomes law it will pave the way for the first migrant deportation flights to take off.