Image source, Reuters

Rishi Sunak has urged the House of Lords to "do the right thing" and back his Rwanda legislation after winning Commons approval for it last night.

Speaking in Downing Street, Sunak said passing the bill was "an urgent national priority".

It passed in the Commons with a comfortable 44-vote majority after a backbench revolt largely melted away. But he has already been warned the bill will face stern opposition from peers.

What you need to know

Sunak has made the Rwanda policy - first put forward by Boris Johnson in 2022 - central to his premiership. Under the plan, some migrants who cross the Channel in small boats could be sent to Rwanda. But an earlier version was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court in November.

The new bill could be held up in the Lords, and is likely to face a series of further legal challenges. Former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation Lord Carlile warned it was "a step towards totalitarianism" for ministers "to place themselves above the courts".

Despite dozens of Tory backbenchers rebelling to back unsuccessful amendments aimed at making the bill tougher, the PM insisted last night's vote showed his party was "completely united". "I'm fighting every day to get the flights off to Rwanda," he added.

How the opposition reacted

Lib Dem leader Ed Davey said that instead of tackling cost-of-living issues and problems in the NHS, the government was "too busy fighting over an unworkable and expensive policy that is destined to fail".

And Labour called today's news conference "bizarre". Stephen Kinnock said the government should work with European partners to "go after criminal gangs" trafficking people rather than "headline chasing gimmicks" like Sunak's Rwanda policy.

What happens next?

Sunak is under pressure to deliver on his flagship policy, with no-one sent to Rwanda yet. He was pushed by journalists to say when the first flights would take off - he stressed he wanted flights "as soon as practically possible", but he say any more.

Next, the bill makes its way to the Lords, where it'll likely face opposition from peers - we'll have all the details on that when it happens.

In the meantime, we're ending our live coverage - our full story is here. Thanks for joining us, have a lovely day.

Image source, Pool

Stephen Kinnock, the shadow immigration minister, described today's conference as bizarre, referencing a "shambolic war within the Conservative Party over the last two days".

He believes that instead of the Rwanda Bill, it would be "common sense" to work with European partners to have a security partnership that will go after the criminal gangs bringing people over on small boats.

Kinnock said it would be better for the government to be "sharing data, breaking their business model and rolling up their sleeves, rather than these headline chasing gimmicks like the Rwanda policy".

He was asked about the constitutional issue of Sunak lecturing Lords about not criticising the policy.

Kinnock responded: "The House of Lords exists to scrutinise legislation and the Rwanda Bill will now go to the House of Lords where it will be scrutinised like any other bill. It won't be treated in any different way."

When questioned about Labour's attitude towards a deterrent for the small boats, he said:

"Yes we have to have a deterrent but if you can only send 1% of the people coming on the small boats to Rwanda that is never going to be a deterrent.

"You're dealing with people who have risked life and limb escaping persecution, so Rwanda will never work as a deterrent."

We've heard a lot about the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), but what does it do and how does it affect the UK?

The ECHR is an international court that sits in Strasbourg in France and protects civil and political rights.

These rights were established in a treaty called the European Convention on Human Rights, drawn up in the aftermath of World War Two - largely written by British civil servants and lawyers.

The convention has nothing to do with the EU - so the UK remains part of it despite Brexit.

The British government is bound by ECHR rulings, including the injunction that prevented a passenger from boarding a flight to Rwanda in 2022.

The ECHR should not to be confused with the European Court of Justice - which is a separate court that settles disputes between EU members.

It's extremely rare for a country to withdraw from the ECHR's jurisdiction. Russia was expelled following its invasion of Ukraine, Greece temporarily left following a military coup, while Belarus is not part of the Convention.

Tara Mewawalla
Live reporter

Image source, Reuters

The prime minister was asked earlier about whether ignoring Rule 39 would breach international law. He did not give a yes or no answer but made it clear he would ignore the rule in certain circumstances.

So what is Rule 39 and is the prime minister able to ignore it?

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was brought into UK law in 2000 through the Human Rights Act.

Under Rule 39 of the ECHR, the court in Strasbourg can impose injunctions on its signatories where it decides there is a threat to life, or the risk of ill-treatment.

This means the court could impose temporary emergency injunctions on deportations of asylum seekers to Rwanda - as it did in June 2022 when the first scheduled flight to Rwanda was abandoned.

The prime minister says, however, that there is a clause in the Rwanda bill which allows the government to bypass this system.

He said: "The bill specifically contains a power that makes clear that ministers are the ones that make these decisions. Parliament has supported that.

"[The bill also] makes it expressly clear that the domestic courts should respect that decision."

He added: "I would not have put that clause in the bill if I was not prepared to use it."

Rwanda bill could become law by March - depending on ping pong...published at 12:34 Greenwich Mean Time 18 January

12:34 GMT 18 January

Henry Zeffman
Chief political correspondent

The House of Lords will begin debating the government’s Rwanda legislation before the end of this month, the BBC understands.

The second reading vote has been scheduled for Monday 29 January.

Committee stage, where amendments will begin to be debated, will be on 12, 14 and 19 of February.

Based on normal legislative intervals, the report stage, where the most crucial votes will be held, would then take place on 4 March and 6 March, according to senior House of Lords sources.

The third reading vote would be on 12 March.

From that point, the bill would enter ‘ping pong’, where the Commons and Lords try to reconcile their versions of the bill.

On this bill, this is likely to involve the government trying to remove amendments inserted by the Lords, where many peers have concerns about the policy’s compliance with international law.

Nick Eardley
Political correspondent

The government has been rebuked for claiming an asylum backlog had been eliminated when thousands of cases remained.

The UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) said the claim may have affected public trust in government announcements.

The chair of the authority, Sir Robert Chote, wrote: “It is not surprising that the government’s claim has been greeted with scepticism and that some people may feel misled.”

Ministers said earlier this month that they had cleared the “legacy” backlog of asylum cases - those made before 28 June 2022.

The prime minister appeared to go further on social media saying the backlog had been cleared, without specifying he meant older cases.

It also emerged 4,537 more complicated legacy cases had not been be resolved.

The UKSA said there may be good reasons for excluding some claims. But it noted this was not part of the criteria the government set itself.

It also criticised ministers for not making more data available in their original press release.

Sir Robert said this prevented journalists from "being able to scrutinise the data when first reporting it”.

He added: "This does not support our expectations around intelligent transparency, and we have raised this with the Home Office.”

More on this story here.

How much will the Rwanda plan cost?published at 12:04 Greenwich Mean Time 18 January

12:04 GMT 18 January

The UK government says it has paid £240m to Rwanda so far. A further payment of £50m is expected in the 2024-25 financial year.

Labour estimates the government will pay about £400m to Rwanda under the scheme, but the government has not confirmed the total cost.

Official figures suggest that removing each individual to a third country, such as Rwanda, could cost £63,000 more than keeping them in the UK.

Rishi Sunak has claimed that the Rwanda plan, which the government says will act as a deterrent, will "literally save us billions in the long run".

Earlier at the Downing Street news conference, Rishi Sunak responded to a question from the media about when asylum flights to Rwanda might start.

He said he wants to see them begin as soon as possible to put an end to what he calls the "legal merry-go-round".

But Sunak didn't say when that might happen, in contrast to his Home Office minister Chris Philp.

This morning on BBC Breakfast, Philp said the government's target is for flights to the east African nation to begin by the spring.

Image source, PA Media

Liberal Democrat Leader, Ed Davey, was among many politicians watching Sunak's conference this morning.

He says the government is "out of touch and out of ideas" with its motivations about the Rwanda Bill.

Davey adds that the Conservatives are responsible for making it "impossible to see a GP, mortgage rates spiralling and crashing the economy".

He says Sunak needs to devote time to these "major challenges" instead of tackling "an unworkable and expensive policy that is destined to fail".

"It just confirms how desperately out of touch and out of ideas this Conservative government is.

"We urgently need a general election so we can finally put an end to this cycle of Conservative chaos and get on with tackling the huge challenges facing us all."

How much profit do small boat gangs make?published at 11:32 Greenwich Mean Time 18 January

11:32 GMT 18 January

During the Rwanda Bill debate, Labour shadow minister Ruth Jones told MPs: “The annual profits of criminal smuggler gangs have soared from £1m four years ago to over £100m today.”

We asked Jones how she had worked that out.

She pointed us towards a 2021 Home Affairs Committee hearing, at which Dan O’Mahoney - the Home Office’s clandestine Channel threat commander - estimated that each person crossing in a small boat “might pay, say, 4,000 euros for that crossing”.

Jones then multiplied that amount by the 300 people detected crossing in 2018 to get 1.2m euros (about £1m) and by the 30,000 crossings in 2023 (there were actually 29,437) to get 120m euros (£103m).

There’s no question that there has been a big increase in the number of people crossing in small boats since 2018.

But this is a very rough estimate at best, confusing money paid with profits and relying on a highly uncertain single figure from 2021.

If you missed it, here's what the prime minister said to journalists and TV audiences this morning.

Rishi Sunak implored the House of Lords to pass the Rwanda bill: "Will they get on board and do the right thing?"

Government faces huge task to 'swiftly remove' asylum seekerspublished at 11:14 Greenwich Mean Time 18 January

11:14 GMT 18 January

Callum May
BBC News

It’s time to stop the boats and start the flights, said Rishi Sunak this morning, signalling a desire to remove more migrants who have arrived on small boats.

But ministers have revealed a little of the scale of the task ahead of them.

In a letter to the Commons home affairs select committee, external, they announced that in 2023, there were 1,850 people returned to their home country after arriving by small boat.

A huge majority of these (1,628) were Albanians and were removed under the UK’s agreement with the Tirana government.

Some others had criminal convictions overseas, meaning they can be deported on a different legal basis.

The figures show only 222 small boat arrivals who were not Albanian and not convicted offenders were removed.

During the same period, 29,437 people arrived in the UK in small boats.

Ministers will hope that the new legal requirement in the Illegal Migration Act to “detain and swiftly remove” all asylum seekers will increase this rate of return.

Some involved in the asylum sector doubt the government’s capability to comply with this requirement.

Sunak wants to be seen as PM who fixes problemspublished at 11:03 Greenwich Mean Time 18 January

11:03 GMT 18 January

Henry Zeffman
Chief political correspondent

Do you think Rishi Sunak might want you to know that he has a plan? And that it is working?

The prime minister’s new catchphrase was peppered throughout this morning’s press conference. Every answer returned to it, no matter where the question began.

This is a prime minister who knows that whenever the general election comes he is going to have to fight it, to some extent, on trust.

Having become prime minister in what he acknowledges were chaotic circumstances, Sunak will argue that he has gone some of the way to fixing multiple problems, and that the progress shows he should be rewarded with another term in office.

The risk for Sunak is that on immigration as well as other issues, voters might not believe he has made enough progress to make a plausible promise of more. That is why he is so desperate for planes of asylum seekers to take off from the UK bound for Rwanda before the election.

But asked directly twice, Sunak would not guarantee this morning that this would happen.

The House of Lords is almost certain to pass Sunak’s Rwanda legislation eventually, though there will be heated arguments on the way. The crucial determinant of whether planes take off is not how the rest of the legislative process unfolds, but whether the legislation they are discussing actually works.

In a final question, Sunak is asked by LBC if he will "fight to get every penny of taxpayers' money back" from Rwanda if no flights head to east Africa.

The question comes after the BBC spoke to Rwandan president Paul Kagame, who suggested the money could be returned if no asylum seeker is sent.

A later statement from Rwanda clarified it was under no legal obligation to return the £240m paid by the UK for the scheme so far.

Sunak does not answer directly, but says he is "fighting every day to get the flights off to Rwanda" because he wants to stop the boats.

He says the government has "made good progress" and if "we stick with the plan we can get this done".

"We need an effective working deterrent, that's what the Rwanda scheme delivers."

And that marks the end of the press conference. Stick with us for analysis.

A question from the Express next. What consequences will Tory rebels face for voting against the government on the Rwanda bill?

Sunak sidesteps this, saying his party is united in wanting to stop the boats.

He says Conservative MPs are "frustrated and passionate" about this issue, like the country, and he shares that, but the party "came together" last night.

It is put to Sunak by the Guardian that 32% of those whose asylum claims were withdrawn last year have disappeared - how does he expect to find them and is he concerned the Rwanda bill will result in thousands more people disappearing to avoid deportation?

Sunak says the vast majority of those whose claims have been withdrawn either have now been removed or are in the process of making another claim.

"I think it's absolutely the right thing that once someone's asylum claim has been denied they absolutely should be removed from the process. They should not have access to public support," he says.

He adds that he believes if people are not reporting back to the Home Office after a claim has been denied that immigration enforcement should do "everything they can" to identify people and "send them back".

He claims last year there was a 70% increase in illegal immigration raids last year and that the government returned 20,000 people.

Sunak is pressed again, this time by the Daily Mail, on when the first flights will take asylum seekers to Rwanda.

He replies: "As soon as practically possible."

The PM says he wants to end the "legal merry-go-round" but it's now down to the House of Lords.

However, Sunak isn't drawn on a specific date.

Sunak is asked about legal advice that ignoring Rule 39 - an injunction from the European Court of Human Rights - would breach international law.

The PM says he's been clear he won't let a foreign court stop him getting this deterrent up and running.

The bill, he adds, makes clear that ministers make these decisions and domestic courts should respect that.

So, he stresses, there are circumstances where he would ignore Rule 39.

Image source, Pool

The prime minister is asked by Channel 4 whether, assuming the bill is put into law in the spring, he can guarantee that a plane will take off to Rwanda before the next election.

Sunak does not say whether he will guarantee this or not.

He says that "within a matter of weeks" of the Supreme Court ruling in November, he had negotiated and signed a treaty with Rwanda and brought fresh legislation to Parliament for its first vote.

"That gives you a sense, I hope, of the urgency with which we are tackling this problem... we want to do this as quickly as possible."

But he doesn't put a definitive date on any flights.

He says he has been "very clear" that this is a priority and that it is "now up to the House of Lords" to pass the legislation unamended.

It's put to Sunak that several letters of no confidence in his leadership have been submitted and he's asked what he makes of assertions that he is "the wrong man for the job".

He avoids directly answering the question and says he is sticking to his plan. He admits it's been a tricky year but insists his government is "pointing in the right direction".

Sunak highlights falling inflation, wage rises and cuts in mortgage rates.

He says there is no better alternative approach coming from Labour, accusing Starmer of "sniping from the sidelines".