Sunak's pledge to stop the boats now hinges on this plan workingpublished at 01:52 British Summer Time 23 April

01:52 BST 23 April

Ben Wright
Political correspondent

In the end, there was no all night sitting.

Peers, accepting the will of the elected House of Commons, conceded the Safety of Rwanda Bill must become law.

They voiced strong objections - to the practicalities and principle of the government's plan to put asylum seekers on a one way flight to Rwanda.

Opposition parties have said it’s an unworkable expensive gimmick.

But after so many setbacks this is a political victory for Rishi Sunak.

His pledge to stop small boats crossing the channel now hinges on this plan working.

His timetable for starting flights has already slipped to the summer and there could be further legal challenges.

The question now is does this new law prove to be the deterrent ministers claim. With an election close, Sunak doesn't have long to prove results.

We'll soon by pausing our live coverage, but before we go here is a reminder of some of the key developments:

• Parliament has finally passed the Rwanda bill after months of wrangling and an evening of back-and-forth between the House of Commons and House of Lords.
• The bill designates in law that Rwanda is a safe country and is a key part of ministers' plans to send some asylum seekers there
• Ahead of the voting, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak gave a statement accusing opponents of the policy of using "used every trick in the book" to try to stop it

• Reacting to the passage of the bill, Home Secretary James Cleverly described it as a "landmark moment in our plan to stop the boats".
• But campaign groups and charities criticised the policy, with Freedom from Torture, Amnesty International, and Liberty saying in a joint statement that it "trashes the constitution and international law whilst putting... refugees at risk of an unsafe future".
• Sunak has said he expects the first flights taking asylum seekers to Rwanda to take off in 10 to 12 weeks

You can continue to read about the Rwanda bill in our main article here

While the bill has now passed through Parliament, we won't be seeing flights taking off for Rwanda tomorrow, says our home and legal correspondent Dominic Casciani.

And the BBC's Barbara Plett Usher has been to visit some of the hostels in Rwanda set to receive Britain's unwanted migrants - read all about that here

Barbara Plett Usher
BBC Africa correspondent, Rwanda

Hope Hostel in Rwanda has been ready to receive Britain's unwanted migrants for 664 days.

Now, as the UK government pushes to get the legislation approved, the Rwandan government wants to fill these echoing rooms and halls within a matter of weeks.

Rwanda has largely stood back and watched the legal wrangling in Britain over the controversial plan to deport asylum seekers to this East African country.

UK courts have put Kigali's human rights record in the spotlight by demanding more protections for those sent here.

In the meantime, Rwanda has meticulously prepared for their arrival since June 2022, two months after the deal was agreed.

I had a tour of the eerily empty hostel in the capital, Kigali.

There's also been reaction from human rights groups to the newly passed Rwanda bill.

The charity Freedom from Torture, alongside Amnesty International and Liberty, say the plan poses a "significant threat to the rule of law" by undermining what protects people from an abuse of power by the state.

They criticise the government for ignoring the findings of the Supreme Court, which in November ruled the policy unlawful.

A spokesperson for the organisations said: "We all deserve the chance to live a safe life, and to seek protection when we need it most.

"This shameful bill trashes the constitution and international law whilst putting torture survivors and other refugees at risk of an unsafe future in Rwanda."

Image source, EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock

We've now heard from Home Secretary James Cleverly, who says Parliament's passing of the bill is a "landmark moment in our plan to stop the boats".

Cleverly says, in a video posted on social media, the new law will prevent people from "abusing the law by using false human rights claims to block removals".

He adds that the Rwanda bill makes it clear that the "UK Parliament is sovereign", giving government the "power to reject interim blocking measures imposed by European courts".

"I promised to do what was necessary to clear the path for the first flight. That's what we have done.

"Now we're working day in and day out to get flights off the ground."

Why a plane to Rwanda won't take off any time soonpublished at 00:28 British Summer Time 23 April

00:28 BST 23 April

Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent

The Rwanda bill has finally been approved by Parliament, after two years of legal battles and political wrangling.

So how soon is a plane bound for Kigali likely to take off? Let's just say the engines on the government's planes will be staying silent tomorrow.

While the bill has now passed through Parliament, the quickest a flight can take off is - technically speaking - 12 days after the King has given royal assent, which then formally turns the bill into law.

In practice, the date of the first flight is likely to be later than that - according to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in 10 to 12 weeks, meaning late June or early July.

The only people who could be sent to Rwanda are asylum seekers - people who have sought the UK's protection and who have arrived without authorisation from another safe country.

That essentially means people who have taken a dinghy to cross the English Channel.

It's worth stressing that this is before the government has decided whether they are genuine refugees or not - the plan is to have the legal claim for protection dealt with in Rwanda. There are 52,000 people in this pool.

Read more here.

It's done, after a gruelling night of ping-pongpublished at 00:14 British Summer Time 23 April

00:14 BST 23 April

Ben Wright
BBC political correspondent

It is done.

After a lengthy wrestle between the Commons and Lords the government's Safety of Rwanda Bill will now receive Royal Assent and become law.

Earlier this evening peers sent the bill back to MPs for a fifth time but once again the Commons rejected their amendment.

A gruelling night of parliamentary ping-pong could have continued but in the last few minutes peers accepted their resistance should end.

Despite fierce criticism from opposition parties and peers from across the House of Lords, the government has got its way.

The legislation compels judges to regard Rwanda as safe and gives ministers the power to ignore emergency injunctions.

Speaking this morning in Downing Street, Rishi Sunak said parliament had debated this bill too long.

The Rwanda bill has now been formally passed.

It is not yet law. Peers decided not to table further amendments after MPs rejected an earlier - and final - Lords amendment.

The bill will now head for Royal Assent, although that will not happen tonight. It will then become law.

Crossbench peer Lord Anderson says his amendment had been the last one standing.

He says many people will have "wished us to keep on fighting" but says there would have been no point doing so.

He says the purpose of parliamentary ping pong is to persuade the government to agree a compromise but they have refused to do so.

"The time has come to accept the primacy of the elected house and withdraw from the fray," he says.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom is speaking for the government. He says the bill has scrutinised a number of times and the government has again rejected the Lords amendments.

He says the Lords "must now accept the will of the elected house".

We're hearing that there will be no further amendments tabled meaning that the standoff is over and the Rwanda Bill is set to pass.

Newsnight's political editor Nicholas Watt has tweeted: "It's over."

The Lords is expected to sit for a short debate where opposition will be dropped and then the bill will not need to go any further.

We're expecting the House of Lords to resume their debate on the Rwanda bill in about 15 minutes, after the Commons sent it back by rejecting an amendment.

As we've been telling you, that amendment - a change - would have required the home secretary consult with an independent monitoring body on the safety of the country.

Jennifer McKiernan
Political reporter

The Lords' initial list of amendments to this bill has been worn down to just one.

Still, Home Office minister Michael Tomlinson was unyielding in his position and the Conservatives had the numbers to again vote, this time 312 to 237, against changing the wording.

The battle of wills seems to be winding down in the Lords.

All eyes are now on Lord Anderson in this fifth round of ping-pong between the red and green benches.

Ultimately it will be up to him to decide whether or not his point has been made to the government - or if he moves another version of his amendment and ping-pong continues into the small hours.

MPs have approved the motion to appoint a committee by 309 to 41 votes.

The Rwanda bill is going back to the House of Lords for the last amendment to be debated, again.

MPs are now voting on the motion to appoint a committee to provide the House of Lords with reasons for rejecting the Lords amendment - appointing the committee is the next step towards returning the legislation to the House of Lords.

Stay with us for the result due in about five minutes.

The MPs have voted to reject the Lords amendment with a majority of 74, sending the Rwanda bill back to the House of Lords.

There were 312 votes for and 237 against.

After a short debate, the House is now voting on the government motion to reject Lords amendment 3J to the Safety of Rwanda bill.

Lords amendment would require the home secretary to make a statement to the Commons that Rwanda is a safe country after consulting with the independent monitoring committee on the UK-Rwanda treaty

Former cabinet minister Sir Robert Buckland says that he still thinks that there is strong merit in what the peers are saying, "not just the way in which we designate Rwanda as a safe country but the way in which if in the future things change, we have a parliamentary mechanism to deal with it."

He adds that in the absence of this amendment, there would be need for "further legislation" and it is not "a great place for the government to end up".

Saying that he agrees with the Lords', he also suggests that they should give the authority to the elected house:

"In the context of where we are, there comes a time when the unelected house does have to cede to the authority of the elected house.

"I will consider my position of whether I will vote in favour - perhaps if the government have made more concessions we wouldn't have to wait so long," he concludes

Image source, House of Commons

Shadow minister Stephen Kinnock says that the PM has spent "several months attacking the Lords for doing their constitutional duty", but tonight we've seen why it's important why they do their job, he adds.

He says the amendment put forward by Lord Browne has forced the government to make an important concession – on Afghan veterans.

Even though the government was dragged "kicking and screaming" to this point.

Turning to the one remaining amendment in front of the Commons now, the Anderson amendment, Kinnock says it is "staggering" ministers haven't conceded on a "basic point" about the safety of the country.

The amendment would force the home secretary to consult an independent body on the safety of Rwanda.

At the moment the bill, which declares Rwanda safe, is a "post truth" bill, Kinnock argues, as it declares the East African country to be safe "in perpetuity".

The Illegal Immigration Minister Michael Tomlinson kicks off the debate saying the amendment that the House of Lords has added to the bill is almost identical to what MPs have debated and rejected, that there is nothing new to it.

"The amendment is not necessary," he says.

"Just to confirm, I'll make clear once again: we will only ratify the treaty when all necessary documentation is in place. The implementation will be kept under review by the independent monitoring committee," Tomlinson continues, addressing the issue of Rwanda being declared a safe country.

"There is nothing new to this amendment, it was already rejected, enough is enough," he concludes.

There is no change to his earlier position.

Image source, House of Commons