What's next for the Rwanda bill?published at 22:10 Greenwich Mean Time 17 January

22:10 GMT 17 January

Harry Farley
Political correspondent

This is not the end of the story.

Now the bill will go to the House of Lords where, unlike in the House of Commons, the government does not have a majority. Other recent immigration legislation the government has sent to the House of Lords has been heavily criticised. So it is likely peers will try to change the bill to address the concerns from some that it will breach international law.

Those changes from the Lords will then be returned to the Commons for their approval.

Assuming the House of Lords does table amendments – which seems likely – right-wing Conservative MPs have vowed to oppose them.

“It is not the case that tonight’s vote is the end of matters,” one rebel source said tonight. “If the House of Lords chooses – as I suspect they will – to send back amendments that weaken the bill, the response of those [right-wing Conservative MPs] will be to table amendments in lieu that toughen the bill.”

So more amendments, more debates, more votes.

As one rebel Conservative said tonight: “The prime minister is by no means out of the woods.”

Labour's shadow immigration minister Stephen Kinnock says the Rwanda plan is "unworkable, unaffordable and unlawful".

Speaking to the BBC after the Rwanda bill passed the Commons, he said it wouldn't work as a deterrent and "rather than wasting time and money" on the Rwanda plan, Labour would focus on doing more with European partners to "smash the gangs" and establish more removal schemes

Kinnock said the debate over the bill had shown "how weak Rishi Sunak is", adding that he "is not fit to govern" and the Conservative Party had "descended into a rabble".

"The prime minister is clearly unable to govern his own party; if you can't govern your own party you shouldn't be running the country."

“Tonight is no victory for Rishi Sunak, no matter how he might try to twist it," Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesperson Alistair Carmichael MP says.

He adds that Tory infighting has left the prime minister's authority "shot" and that the bill is destined to fail.

“He has proved again and again that he cannot lead his own party, let alone the country," Carmichael says and echoes Labour's calls for a general election now, "to bring an end to this shambolic government once and for all".

As we've been reporting, Rishi Sunak’s flagship Rwanda plan has passed a key vote amongst MPs by 320 votes to 276.

It means a touted rebellion by a group of Conservative MPs failed to materialise.

The BBC’s Peter Saull explains what this means for the prime minister’s authority and the prospect of asylum flights taking off for Rwanda

Most Tory rebels backed down when it came to the votepublished at 21:49 Greenwich Mean Time 17 January

21:49 GMT 17 January

Harry Farley
Political correspondent

Rishi Sunak has seen off his rebellious Conservative MPs.

His bill that aims to stop legal challenges to the government’s plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda has passed its latest stage. It will now go to the House of Lords.

Ultimately, although more than 60 Tory MPs defied him yesterday and earlier today to vote for attempts to toughen up the bill, when it came to the vote on the bill as a whole, most of them backed down.

Only 11 Conservative MPs voted against the overall bill.

Earlier this afternoon 40 right-wing potential rebel Conservative MPs met in an obscure committee room off a small corridor in the Palace of Westminster. About 20 journalists gathered outside to try and get a sense of the MPs’ thinking.

“This [bill unamended] was as good as the outcome was going to get,” one rebel source told those of us waiting outside afterwards.

Those right-wing Conservative MPs have decided that voting against the bill as a whole risks bringing down the whole government. And that’s a price they are not willing to take.

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has reacted to the Rwanda bill clearing the Commons, and says there's a need for a general election now.

"The Rwanda policy has always been cruel, inhumane and unworkable, pursued by a weak government fixated on party interest rather than the national interest," Khan wrote on X, external, formerly Twitter.

Some fresh figures coming to us now from the Rwanda bill vote, which say 11 Tory MPs voted against the government on the bill.

These include former Home Secretary Suella Braverman and former Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick.

Other Tory MPs on the list include Simon Clarke, Mark Francois and Danny Kruger.

Is the Rwanda plan now legally inevitable?published at 21:36 Greenwich Mean Time 17 January

21:36 GMT 17 January

Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent

The voting is done - and ministers are moving the legal and policy machinery of government to turn the plan into a reality.

Yesterday, they announced extra judges to expedite Rwanda-related challenges - something the Lady Chief Justice pushed back against yesterday.

Today there’s new guidance to officials directing them to comply with potential ministerial orders to ignore the European Court of Human Rights.

The head of the union representing top civil servants says they don’t expect to be asked to break international law. Is the Rwanda plan now legally inevitable?

First, the Lords stand in the way. Many peers will have deep concerns about the constitutional questions the package raises.

They could have a majority to send it back to the Commons. And if they don’t, we then move to our own courts.

We just don’t know how judges - independent from politicians - will resolve being told by Parliament that Rwanda is safe, when the Supreme Court has said it’s not.

The prime minister has fought off Conservative rebels as enough MPs backed his government's key Safety of Rwanda Bill at the third reading.

• Those in favour: 320
• Those against: 276

A few moments before MPs left the chamber to vote on the third reading of the Rwanda bill, Labour MP Jess Phillips said everyone in the Commons was about to vote for a bill which “they have absolutely no idea how much it is going to cost.”

She said "considering the amount of time spent wasting taxpayers money on something that hasn’t worked the last two times we tried, and won’t work this time", people should "frankly should be ashamed of themselves for voting when they don’t have any idea how much it’ll cost their constituencies".

That's it for the debate on the third reading of the Safety of Rwanda Bill.

They will now filter out of the House of Commons chamber and start to vote.

Stay with us and we'll bring you the result when it happens.

Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn takes to his feet and says he feels the "bill is an appalling piece of legislation".

The Islington North independent MP says the "bill blames people for being victims" and plays into a "racist trope" in parts of the UK.

"I hope we don't come back to this debate," Corbyn says, adding that he hopes the government will look at other issues facing people.

Corbyn finishes by asking: "Desperate people looking for a place of safety, surely it is our obligation?"

Former Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron tells the Commons that the Rwanda bill will not act as a deterrent and that the government “talks tough and acts weak” when it comes to actually dealing with people who have had their asylum application rejected.

He says only one quarter of those not approved are deported and says if the government wanted a deterrent, it should set up a system where people’s claims are processed and those who are unsuccessful are removed.

“This bill will fail. It is a costly, expensive failure and it deserves to be rejected by this house,” Farron says.

He adds that with this bill, the government demonises “those people who are most vulnerable in the world”.

Next up is co-chair of the New Conservatives Danny Kruger who criticises the SNP, Lib Dems and Labour's positions made out today in the chamber.

"I don't think this bill will pass as it's currently drafted," Kruger says. "The bill still allows lawyers to use international laws and protocols to override this bill."

"I think we could have done better," Kruger says, adding that these debates have "exposed the position of parties opposite".

"They don't believe in stopping the boats and we all do."

Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent

James Cleverly opened the third reading debate reassuring his own backbenchers that the bill, if passed will be “in complete compliance with international law”.

The front page of his own bill comes with this quote in his own words: “I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.”

Cleverly was under a duty to make that statement, highlighted in the picture, because his own lawyers have advised the plan is more likely than not to face insurmountable legal challenge.

We don’t know what other advice the Home Secretary has received to contradict his own statement - the government does not publish its legal advice.

Former Environment Secretary Therese Coffey says she is "some what astonished" by Yvette Cooper's statement - saying she is keen the third bill gets through with "as big a majority as possible".

Coffey says she is "conscious temperatures are high", but says constituents want to see a fair migration system.

The House of Lords need to listen to the elected House of Commons, Coffey concludes.

Image source, House of Commons

Speaking about the Rwanda bill, Labour MP Fleur Anderson says: "This is the fail again and fail harder version."

She tells the Commons debate that this bill undermines the international courts – "those that protect us and we rely on".

"This latest gimmick is not a plan" she says. She claims it will leave more 100,000 people in a backlog, more than 4,000 people missing.

"It won't fix the system that the Conservatives have broken. This lets our country down. Under the Tories we have costly chaos."

Conservative MP Liam Fox says that we should not "demonise" those who want a better future themselves who migrate to the UK.

But many of these asylum seekers are not coming from an unsafe country - they're coming from France! he exclaims.

"That can't be tolerated if we are to have control of our borders."

He adds that it is essential to curb the "evil" of people smuggling and "destroy the economic model of those who traffic in this most disgusting trade".

SNP MP Alison Thewliss says the bill is not compatible with international refugee law, and tells the Commons that Rwanda has made it clear it doesn't want to sign up to a deal that breaches international law.

"It is very dangerous that the government is going down this road, we cannot make a country safe just by legislating that it is so. It is a fantasy that this government is engaged with," Thewliss adds, saying that it has become "upside down, topsy turvy, the right is wrong and wrong is right".

She also says that the government cannot be believed that this will act as a deterrent as all their previous attempts at "tough difficult harsh bills" have not made a difference as measures have not been enforced.

We've been hearing from senior Tory MP Sir William Cash who says he does want the bill to succeed - but says he won't be voting for it.

He tells the chamber he doesn't believe this is the toughest immigration legislation produced.

"All I can say is I wish the government well but I do have to say I can't support this in all conscious because I have set out my case and I am not going to retract this on principle."