Conservative MPs are meeting to discuss Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's updated plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda
The scheme is designed to send people who arrive in the UK in small boats to Rwanda to have their asylum claim considered
Some Tory factions are critical of the updated plan, with MPs on the right saying it risks being blocked by the courts again, while others say it ignores international law
The European Research Group says it provides a "partial and incomplete solution" to the problem of legal challenges being used to delay people being flown to Rwanda
The group's legal team says the bill does not go "far enough to deliver the policy as intended"
The New Conservatives faction - on the right of the party - says the legislation needs "major surgery or replacement"
But the One Nation group - made up of more centrist Tory MPs - is backing the bill in its current form
However, it is warning its members could vote against the policy in the future if amendments are made which breach the rule of law
Changes were needed after the UK's highest court blocked the scheme in November, saying asylum seekers could be sent to places where they could be harmed
The government has signed a new deal with the east African nation, which declares Rwanda a safe country
...thank you for following along with us.
You can read our full story on the Conservatives' discussions on Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's updated Rwanda plan here.
This page was edited by Laura Gozzi, Adam Durbin and Marita Moloney. It was written by Doug Faulkner, Michael Shiels McNamee and Emily Atkinson.
Goodnight.
We will shortly be closing down this page - thank you for following along.
Here is a recap of what happened today and where things stand tonight:
Image source, UK ParliamentDeputy Tory chairman Lee Anderson
We've just heard that the New Conservatives faction have said they want the Rwanda bill to undergo "major surgery or replacement".
But who are the New Conservatives?
The group was formed in May 2023, and has fast become one of the most vocal factions in the Tory party. Its members focus on radical migration measures and generally align with the findings of the European Research Group.
Around 30 MPs are members of the New Conservatives, including deputy Tory chairman Lee Anderson. Most of them who were elected in 2019, many in marginal, traditionally Labour, "red wall" seats in the north of England and the Midlands.
Harry Farley
Political correspondent
Conservative MPs concerned that the government’s Rwanda Bill doesn’t go far enough have warned the legislation requires “major surgery or replacement”.
More than 40 MPs from the right of the Conservative party met in Danny Kruger’s office this evening to discuss how they will vote.
“Every member in that discussion was agreed that the bill requires major surgery or replacement,” a spokesman said afterwards.
“We will be making that plain to the government including the Prime Minister at breakfast tomorrow.”
Around 20 MPs from the right of the party are understood to be having breakfast with Rishi Sunak tomorrow to discuss their plans.
Several MPs leaving the meeting this evening said they are deciding between abstaining or voting it down tomorrow.
Two MPs added the group had the numbers to vote the legislation down and only one or two in meeting had spoken in favour of voting for the bill at second reading.
“The rest will more or less vote collectively,” one MP said.
A final decision will be made tomorrow.
Another member of the One Nation group, Matt Warman, has said that the Rwanda bill as it stands represents "a delicate balance between what is legally possible and what will make a real difference to this vital issue".
He added it is in the national interest for the Conservative Party to resolve this matter "quickly and amicably" and that the government must resist proposals that would "derail" other parts of the package of measures necessary to tackle illegal migration.
As we've reported, the One Nation caucus of MPs has said it would recommend that its members back the Safety of Rwanda Bill in the vote tomorrow.
However, the group says it remains "concerned" about any future amendments which would mean the UK government breaches law and its international obligations and "would oppose such amendments in the House of Commons".
Damian Green, chair of the group, said: "We have taken the decision that the most important thing at this stage is to support the bill despite our real concerns.
"We strongly urge the government to stand firm against any attempt to amend the bill in a way that would make it unacceptable to those who believe that support for the rule of law is a basic Conservative principle.”
The One Nation group of Tory MPs says it will back Rishi Sunak's flagship Rwanda policy in the vote tomorrow.
The group is made up of 106 MPs on the more centrist wing of the Conservative party.
Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent
There’s a mystery at the heart of the government’s “legal position” on its new Rwanda bill, published today, external.
If this were the legal advice from the government’s lawyers why doesn’t it explain that the plan may end up in tatters?
We know the government’s lawyers have concluded that could happen because the front page of the Bill, external comes with a formal statement, required by the law, that says the plan is more likely than not to break basic human rights safeguards.
For example, the government says the courts would have to accept Parliament’s conclusion that Rwanda is safe, even though the Supreme Court found it is not.
But it fails to mention that key law on this question also tells judges they can ignore such claims if the consequences would be absurd or unjust.
Who is right on that is not for me, but for judges at some point down the road.
But all we have seen today is “best-case scenario” arguments that the government would use to defend the plan in court.
A full legal opinion would warn the client what risks they face if they lost: and MPs haven’t really been told what those are.
PA news agency has reported that 20 Tory MPs are attending a meeting convened by the New Conservatives group to discuss the Rwanda legislation.
It's been held in the office of Danny Kruger, who leads the New Conservative grouping, and started around 18:00.
Former immigration minister Robert Jenrick, who quit the role last week, and former home secretary Suella Braverman are among those attending, PA said.
Other senior MPs at the meeting include Sir Simon Clarke and Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Sam Francis
Political reporter
The government's Rwanda legal advice is "choosing to ignore advice from senior lawyers that there are good legal arguments for blocking off individual claims" through the European Court of Human Rights, according to one senior rebel Tory source.
"The government should ensure that only those who are under 18 or medically unfit to fly are exempt from removal," the source said.
"It’s open to Parliament to block or restrict individual legal challenges, and the courts will uphold this.”
The source, a member of the group currently considering the ERG's legal advice, also accused the government of using an "outdated and analytically flawed" system in its claim that the Rwanda Bill would have prevented 90% of all asylums claims of people arriving on small boats last year.
"Number 10 don’t realise the world has changed and that’s their fundamental problem. There was never any modelling done for the new Rwanda bill because they failed to plan."
Chris Mason
Political editor
How was your day?
For the Prime Minister, several hours under oath in front of a senior lawyer on live television was the more predictable element of his diary.
For three and a half miles down the road in Westminster, his party interrogated his Rwanda Plan as a KC interrogated his pandemic record.
Clumps of Conservatives from half a dozen groups, gathering, talking, deciding whether they think the planned new law to try to ensure migrants can be sent to east Africa is a go-er.
The sense of déjà vu with the Brexit years – the noise, the fury, the tensions with the Conservative Party – is overwhelming.
Even some of the central characters are back – Mark Francois, the self styled warrior of Euroscepticism -- finds himself in front of the cameras again.
Ministers are trying to sound warm, effusive, open minded. Influential backbenchers who happen to be on the government’s side are being deployed to do some buttering up too.
This is an awkward moment for Rishi Sunak but not necessarily a definitive one. Yes, losing would cripple his authority. The thing is winning would amount to awkwardness postponed – with the bill returning in the new year, government headaches still attached.
Sam Francis
Political reporter
The Tory party includes several factions, often overlapping in membership. These don't always vote uniformly but can be remarkably disciplined - potentially causing huge headaches for Rishi Sunak.
For those of you not up to speed on the divisions within the Conservative Party, here's a quick guide to Tory factions:
Read more here.
Henry Zeffman
Chief political correspondent
Would Sunak really do that to his flagship immigration policy?
“It would be humiliating for the government,” one former minister who will be supporting Sunak tomorrow told me.
And, again, it’s hard to see what would change. Constrain the right to appeal further and the One Nation group would begin to get even twitchier. Plus Sunak himself has warned moves in that direction would mean the Rwandan government pulling the plug anyway.
So suppose Sunak presses ahead. Then the crucial question is not just how many Tory rebels there are, but also in what way they rebel.
To vote against the bill at second reading would be a vote against the principles of the bill rather than just its details. Many Tory MPs will therefore be extremely reluctant to do so.
The rebels may prefer instead to abstain. One MP on the right said: “I’ll vote against if enough colleagues are going to do that to defeat the government. But if just a few want to vote against then I’ll abstain.”
Clearly if the rebels went through with voting against the government in large enough numbers this would be near-apocalyptic for Sunak in political terms.
That prospect, if the whips tell him it is imminent, may be enough for him to withdraw the bill after all.
Going ahead with the vote and being defeated would potentially presage a leadership election, perhaps even a general election.
But, crucially, the dizzying possibility of these consequences may well be enough to give many of the potential rebels pause for thought.
So there are still plenty of permutations to how tomorrow may play out. We might get more clarity from the ERG MPs on how they plan to vote this evening.
Other chats are less formal: at lunchtime in the House of Commons Sir Bill Cash, the veteran eurosceptic, was publicly briefing colleagues including Jonathan Gullis, Danny Kruger and Miriam Cates next to the parliamentary canteen.
But whatever happens, yet another day of public dissent in Parliament displays Sunak’s fragile authority over his party.
Henry Zeffman
Chief political correspondent
How much trouble is the government in over tomorrow’s vote on the emergency Rwanda legislation?
It’s always dangerous to call a potential rebellion, especially one where some of the most seasoned parliamentary plotters are involved.
But one thing that’s certainly safe to say is that the government is in much deeper peril than it appeared to be this morning.
In my conversations with potential rebels on the right of the Conservative Party, their resolve appears to have hardened.
Some MPs who over the weekend appeared inclined to back the government tomorrow in the hope of amending the bill at a later stage now seem much more pessimistic about that possibility. “There’s no way we’d have the votes to amend it next year,” one told me. “It’s now or never.”
Add into that Rishi Sunak’s own claim that this is the toughest possible bill, and the ERG’s legal advice which warns that some of the changes they desire may not be possible under the scope of this legislation, and you can see why some Conservatives are now demanding the bill be pulled.
Callum May
BBC News
The most senior official at the Home Office has been criticised by MPs after he suddenly published some of the costs of the Rwanda scheme late at night last week.
Sir Mark Rycroft, the permanent secretary, told the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) he decided to reveal that £100m more had been paid to the Rwandan government after the figures appeared in a document published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Rycroft had previously refused to reveal details to MPs citing "commercial sensitivity".
PAC chair and Labour MP Dame Meg Hillier called the announcement “incredibly disrespectful”.
The government had planned to publish the cost of the Rwanda scheme in its annual report, until the details were “inadvertently” revealed by the IMF, Rycroft said.
He also revealed that the former Home Secretary Suella Braverman had prevented him from giving details of the cost of the scheme to MPs on a confidential basis.
Rycroft said an investigation was under way at the British High Commission in Kigali into how the information appeared.
Emily Atkinson
Live reporter
Image source, PA MediaFour miles away from Parliament, where Tory infighting over the Rwanda bill continues to dominate, Rishi Sunak has been giving evidence to the Covid inquiry.
The prime minister was phoneless since his session began at 10:30 this morning (bar during a short lunch break) during which he was transported back to 2020 and his time as chancellor.
Sunak defended his Eat Out to Help Out scheme and stuck to the script in maintaining that the country’s economic welfare was his primary concern during the pandemic.
He also offered an apology to "all those who suffered in the various different ways throughout the pandemic as a result of the actions that were taken".
The PM has now left Dorland House and faces a busy evening ahead of tomorrow's vote on the Rwanda bill as he tries to drum up support for his revised plan.
Hannah Miller
Political correspondent
No 10 know they’ve got a problem, but even they’re not sure quite how big a problem it will prove to be.
The feeling within government is that their bill is the right one - they can’t go further without losing Rwanda’s support, and some of their own MPs would say they’re already at risk of going too far.
But there is a party handling issue. If they can’t get MPs from various factions on side, the bill won’t pass, regardless of how good Downing Street may believe it to be.
Meetings and phone calls trying to win MPs around will be happening in earnest this evening, with No 10 keen to make sure its new flagship bill to "stop the boats" doesn’t fall at the first hurdle.
Downing Street is insisting it will "continue to listen to MPs on their views" of the Rwanda bill.
Rishi Sunak's new illegal migration minister Michael Tomlinson is briefing MPs this afternoon ahead of the vote tomorrow, which No 10 says will go ahead as planned despite calls from some Tory backbenchers for the legislation to be withdrawn.
The prime minister's official spokesman says: "Of course we'll continue to listen to MPs on their views. Some groups of MPs have set out detailed views earlier today which we'll listen to carefully."
He adds it remains the government's view that the bill is the strongest possible piece of legislation as it stands.
Quote MessageWe do believe this bill is strong enough to achieve its aims."
No 10 spokesman
As we've been reporting the influential ERG group of Tory backbenchers has had its say on the government's Rwanda policy.
However, its chairman Mark Francois says the group has not decided how it will vote in tomorrow's debate.
You can hear from him and ERG lawyer David Jones below:
Conservative backbench MPs call for Rwanda bill to be pulled
The government gave an initial £140m to Rwanda last year but last week it was confirmed that a further £100m had been paid, external to the east African nation.
That means a total of £240m for a scheme which as yet has not seen a single asylum seeker flown to Rwanda.
A further £50m is anticipated to be paid to the Rwandan government next year.
The prime minister has previously said the plan will "literally save us billions in the long run", but has not as yet given any details of how this figure was reached.