Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper tells the Commons the government is "trying to con voters and con the party but everybody can see through it".

"This £400 million Rwanda scheme is like the emperor’s new clothes.

"The home secretary is just wandering naked round this chamber waving a little treaty as a fig leaf to hide his modesty behind. I admit he doesn’t have much modesty to hide."

She adds that Labour agrees with the government on working with France, the deal with Albania and on stopping dangerous crossings.

"What a farce!" exclaims shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper, in response to James Cleverly's address.

The only thing the Tories agree on, she says, is that the "scheme is failing, the law won't solve it, and the prime minister is failing too".

She points out the Rwanda scheme will only affect less than 1% of those who come to the UK.

She says the third law will pass tonight - just like the previous ones did - but adds that it will fail in sending anyone to Rwanda.

She says Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is weak, adding that he has "lost control of the asylum system, lost control of our borders, and lost any control of the Tory party".

The home secretary used his intervention in the Commons to try and reassure Conservative backbenchers that the government's Rwanda bill will get flights off the ground.

“I want to make clear that we will disapply the avenues used by individuals that blocked the first flights, including asylum and human rights claims," James Cleverly said.

He added that without that "very, very, very narrow route to individual challenge", the treaty signed with Rwanda would be undermined and could run the risk of collapsing.

Cleverly also reasserted that people who use that route as a delaying tactic would see the Home Office throw out their claim and that the bill makes clear that it is "for ministers alone" to decide whether to comply with interim measures from the European Court of Human Rights because it is "for Britain and British people alone" to decide who is allowed to stay in the UK.

Cleverly further said that the Tories were "united in the agreement that stopping the boats... and getting (the) Rwanda partnership up and running is of the utmost importance".

"And having a debate about how to get the policy right is of course what this House is for, that is our collective job, and I respect my good friends and colleagues on my side for putting forward amendments in good faith in order to do what they believe will strengthen the bill."

The committee stage has concluded with the amendment votes out of the way.

The Commons has paid tribute to Sir Tony Lloyd who passed away earlier today, and it will now move on to the third reading of the Rwanda bill, which will be preceded by an hour-long debate.

The third reading is the final hurdle for the bill in the Commons.

If it passes, as it's expected to, it will move on to the Lords.

MPs have voted against a new Clause 8 tabled by Labour MPs Yvette Cooper and Stephen Kinnock.

This imposes further reporting requirements on the government, including on the number of individuals involved in criminal activity who have been transferred from Rwanda to the UK.

MPs voted 338 to 264 to reject it, a majority of 74.

We've learnt that 65 MPs voted in favour of the failed amendment introduced by ex-immigration minister Robert Jenrick - which stated that emergency injunctions from European judges could be ignored by UK ministers.

A total of 61 Tory rebels backed the amendment, which was defeated by 536 votes.

Those amongst the Conservatives who went against PM Rishi Sunak to back the amendment were Suella Braverman, Liz Truss, Lee Anderson and Brendan Clarke-Smith.

MPs have voted on Clause 9 and 10 standing parts of the bill. They set out the title of the bill, and state that it will come into force on the same day the UK's treaty with Rwanda does.

The MPs backed the clauses by 340 votes to 264.

Members of Parliament are now voting on a selection of amendments on the Rwanda bill before a third and final bill on the government's plans later.

If you're just joining us, these votes come after almost six hours of debate in the Commons. Starting at 13:00 GMT, we heard from MPs across the political spectrum - with some arguing that the bill is too lax as it stands, and others saying it needs to be scrapped altogether. Here are some of the main points:

• Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman argued that there was “a fatal flaw” in the bill as it stands - the UK abiding by international law and the European Court of Human Rights' injunctions

• Former Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said the legislation was based on "false premises" and said that "ducking" international law would undermine Britain's credibility in the world

• Gavin Robinson, a Democratic Unionist Party MP, took issue with what he called the "thoroughly inconsistent" situation of deeming Rwanda a safe country, whilst also accepting refugees from there

After voting on 11 amendments MPs will then debate the bill itself for approximately an hour before the third and final vote on the bill.

MPs have rejected an amendment to the Rwanda Bill to require the government to publish a full impact assessment of the costs involved in removals to Rwanda in advance of the Bill coming into force, including per person removal and the confidential financial memorandum signed between the two countries

MPs voted 339 to 263 a majority of 76.

In the Commons, MPs are now voting on amendment 36 from Labour, which asks for a full impact assessment of the costs of removals of people to Rwanda, and information about what Rwanda is being paid before the bill comes into force.

MPs have just voted on a number sections of the Rwanda bill at once - they were clauses 5, 6, 7 and 8 "stand part" of the bill.

They include measures which insist it is for ministers to decide when they will comply with interim measures from the Strasbourg court.

MPs backed these clauses by 340 votes to 263.

Sam Francis
Political reporter

Away from the Commons, the Home Office has lost track of 5,600 asylum seekers whose claims have been discontinued, new figures reveal.

These asylum seekers remain in the UK with the Home Office is "taking steps to urgently re-establish contact," migration ministers said.

The people had lost contact with the Home Office after their asylum claims were withdrawn after they failed to respond to two successive case worker interview requests or questionnaires.

These figures, published in a letter to the Home Affairs Committee, external, update November's claim by officials who "didn't know" the whereabouts of 17,000 people who had withdrawn their asylum claims.

Legal Migration Tom Pursglove and Illegal Migration Minister Michael Tomlinson told the Home Affairs Committee that just under 6,000 of these have reconnected with the Home Office.

The remaining 33% had either left the UK or have been granted some form of lawful immigration status.

Susan Hulme
Parliamentary correspondent

An attempt by Conservative rebels to let the UK ignore injunctions from the European Court of Human Rights has failed in the Commons by 536 votes to 65 - a government majority of 471.

The former Immigration Minister, Robert Jenrick, wanted to toughen up the Safety of Rwanda Bill to make sure the Court could not stop flights taking off - as happened when the first plane to Rwanda was due to leave in 2022.

This was under what's known as Rule 39 - which critics call a "pyjama injunction".

MPs in the Commons have rejected Robert Jenrick's amendment 23 to the bill, by 536 votes to 65.

The amendment aimed to state that emergency injunctions from European judges could be ignored by UK ministers.

Sean Curran
Parliamentary correspondent

MPs have started voting on the government's Safety of Rwanda Bill after spending a second day debating proposed changes to the legislation.

MPs are now taking part in the second vote of the evening on an amendment proposed by the Conservative former immigration minister, Robert Jenrick.

This amendment would allowed ministers to ignore last minute injunctions from the European Court of Human Rights. The result of this vote is expected at about 19:25 GMT.

The first result is in and MPs have backed Clause 3 "stand part" of the bill, which disapplies elements of human rights law, to ensure that courts defer to Parliament's "sovereign view" that Rwanda is safe.

MPs backed the vote by 339 votes to 264, a majority of 75.

Back to the Commons now, which has divided to vote on a motion that Clause 3 "stand part" of the Safety of Rwanda Bill at committee stage.

It disapplies some sections of the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to removals to Rwanda.

The result is expected at 19:10 GMT - we'll bring you it as we get it.

Just before the conclusion of the debate, Tory MP Robert Jenrick withdrew his amendment 11 to the bill.

Jenrick argued the current bill left open loopholes which would allow individuals to challenge their deportation on the basis that Rwanda would not be safe for them specifically, even if it was deemed a safe country overall.

You can read about Jenrick's amendment here.

The debate of the Rwanda bill has concluded.

The MPs will be back in a short while to vote on the amendments and, later on this evening, the bill.

Stay with us as we catch you up on more lines and analysis of the debate.

Harry Farley
Political correspondent

The majority of rebel Conservative MPs have decided to back the government in tonight's final Commons vote on the Rwanda bill, a source has said, after around 40 MPs on the right of the party met at Westminster.

“A small number of colleagues will vote no on a point of principle, but the overwhelming likelihood is that the bill will pass, probably quite comfortably,” the source told reporters gathered outside the meeting in a corridor in the Palace of Westminster.

The rebel source said some MPs saw it as a confidence vote in the government and, “partly for the sake of the parliamentary party and in part because of the consequences for the government”, had decided to back the bill.

“The feeling was that so many colleagues were out of touch with where the country was and that the government was so slanted in the direction of one particular faction that this was as good as the outcome was going to get.”

But the source added: “Nobody in the room thought it [the bill] was going to work.”

They added when the bill returned from the House of Lords, MPs would table further amendments to try to toughen the bill.