The Rwanda bill is officially back in the Commons again.

MPs will discuss the final change - or amendment - that the Lords added to the bill.

They will later vote on it, and are expected to reject to to send it back to the House of Lords once again.

Stay with us as we bring you the updates - and you can watch it live by pressing Play at the top of the page.

Peter Saull
Political Reporter

It's not over yet but we might just be approaching the final straight.

After the first round of parliamentary ping-pong, the Lords had passed ten different amendments. Now, just one remains.

I've just seen a printout of that final proposed change, wrapped in red ribbon, being carried from one chamber to another.

The clerk will probably have at least one more journey to make, with the Commons expected to reject the amendment in the next hour.

After a long, drawn out battle, many peers may feel that they've made their point and finally back down.

But even if the legislation does pass shortly, the lengthy parliamentary standoff highlights the controversial nature of the government’s Rwanda plan.

The Rwanda bill's gone back to the Commons after the Lords voted to send one final change - or amendment - to it.

But what is that change?

The Lords backed a requirement that Rwanda can only be declared a safe country if Home Secretary James Cleverly first consults an independent monitoring body about its status. He would then have to make a statement to Parliament.

And so the ping-pong continues.

Jennifer McKiernan
Political reporter

Peers in the House of Lords have voted to send one change to the draft law back to MPs.

They have just voted in support of Lord Anderson's call for an independent monitoring committee.

Lords have backed down on the second amendment about Afghan veterans which MPs refused to change earlier today.

Lord Browne didn't move his motion after peers agreed they'd won "an important concession" from the government over exempting verified veterans from deportation.

The bill now goes back to the Commons but the issues are being slowly whittled down.

The House of Lords has voted to approve Lord Anderson's amendment, voting 240 to 211, a majority of 29, meaning the bill will return to the House of Commons.

Image source, House of Lords

Lord Carlile again asked about the contract with the airline.

But Lord Sharpe shot him down, saying that he won't share operational details and they are only discussing the amendments in the ping-pong.

Lord Sharpe went on to say that the Commons have considered and rejected amendments four times now.

The amendments are "not necessary", he says, adding people will not be relocated if "circumstances change which impact upon the safety of the country" and "we will not turn our backs on those supporting our armed forces".

He ends by insisting Rwanda is a safe country.

Lord Sharpe also addressed a point we reported on a little earlier from independent crossbencher Lord Carlile, who said some Jewish peers were not present because it is the first day of Passover, and who claimed the government rejected calls to hold today's debate on another day to accommodate them.

The minister sayid the start of Passover was considered, and they "completely understand" the concerns he raised.

"Ultimately scheduling decisions are made with a variety of different factors in mind. But I do hear what he said," Lord Sharpe adds.

Before the vote began Lord Sharpe summed up for government and declined to call the government's shift in position tonight a concession - although it's worth noting that Labour are absolutely certain that is what has happened tonight.

He said the commitment to reassess Afghanistan relocation applications was "the right thing to do" - but tells peers he will not be "getting into semantics of what this is or is not".

We'll bring you the final contributions from the debate shortly, but, spoiler alert they are voting on amendment A1.

Stay with us as we catch you up on the last few comments before the vote.

Lord Coaker now turns to Lord Browne's amendment, saying that it is a meaningful concession from the government and "it is a really important statement to make."

He says that the Lords' stance is important: "Because if the Lords has not challenged the government, this concession wouldn't have happened. Because sometimes the government gives way."

"This is far from the Lords blocking anything, this is the Lords performing their proper constitutional function and bringing about change from the government," he continues.

"The concession Lord Sharpe has read out is significant, it is important and it is something Lord Browne can be proud of. Sometimes in politics, you have to do what you can achieve."

Image source, House of Lords

Labour frontbencher Lord Coaker is up, and tells the chamber Labour would repeal the bill if elected, but insists his party has not sought to block it.

"We all agree that we need to stop the boats, the dispute in this place is to exactly the right way to go about that," he says.

Labour believes the bill is "inconsistent with the principles and traditions of our country", he adds.

He rejects the argument that the Lords has been delaying progress, saying it has been scrutinising the bill as is its function.

He says the government could have passed the bill before Easter if it wanted to, saying it didn't "presumably because the prime minister couldn't guarantee that everything was in order for the bill to work".

Peter Saull
Political Reporter

In the past half an hour we’ve had something that might help to break the parliamentary deadlock.

The government spokesman, Lord Sharpe, said there’d be a review of cases brought under a scheme that allows Afghans to settle in the UK.

This has been one of the main sticking points with the bill; the idea that people who served alongside British armed forces in Afghanistan could be deported to Rwanda if they come to the UK on a small boat.

Ministers are now saying that anyone found to be eligible for the settlement scheme who’s already in the UK can stay, regardless of how they got there.

The former Labour defence secretary, Lord Browne, said he now might not push his amendment, on the Afghan issue, to a vote.

Lord German raises concerns about the fate of Afghans currently outside the UK, particularly those who fled to Pakistan, who are being threatened with removal back to Afghanistan, where they could face Taliban reprisals.

He says there must be a paper trail somewhere in government or with the companies it worked with during the war to credibly establish who worked for the UK in Afghanistan.

Lord German speaks next and denies the claims that the House of Lords is the reason of the delay: "We could have been doing this earlier, it's a decision by the other house," he says and blames the government for slowing down the process. "This house is doing the proper job," he insists.

"We are pressing the safeguards, we are asked to declare that Rwanda is safe for refugees and for asylum seekers" he says and adds that the government could not give any answers on the refoulement.

He then goes on to ask the government: "What assurances has the government given for this policy on refoulement will be in place in the next 10 to 12 weeks?"

Conservative Lord Hodgson says peers need to remember the bill's purpose, to "stop the boats".

He says by doing so, they are also trying to stop people dying in the Channel, as well as breaking the economic model of people smugglers, and ensuring people do not "jump the queue".

Passing the bill "cannot make the situation worse", he says, adding it is also "the only game in town" to address the issue.

He says peers need to think whether they are trying to improve the bill, or whether what they are really seeking to do is "impede" it.

He also questions whether there is a degree of what he describes as "assessor bias" - putting low risk on problems we are familiar with compared to those we are unfamiliar with.

He says it may be the case that because there is greater familiarity with the legal systems of countries in Western Europe than Rwanda, additional risk may - incorrectly - be perceived.

Lord Carlile raises a laugh from the House of Lords as he criticises the cost of the Rwanda scheme so far.

A few weeks ago, he says, the Lords was told it would cost an estimated £550m-600m to cover the cost of 300 people sent to Rwanda.

At the time, he said that would be enough to send them to the Ritz in Paris and "still have some change".

He corrects himself and admits there might not be as much change as he thought - but ends his contribution by describing the bill as awful and the worst he has seen in his decades in Parliament.

Lord Carlile goes on to say that even if the secretary of state came to realise that Rwanda wasn't safe, "the bill as it stands would mean that it would be still be deemed compliant."

He then asks: "Is there anybody in this House who doesn't honestly think that's nonsense?"

He then turns to the question of the airplanes transporting the asylum seekers: "We heard this morning form the prime minister that apparently there is a contract with a carrier. I hope he will tell the house if there really is a contract, because I'm afraid given the fictions at the basis of this bill, I am not sure that I believe that there is a contract and whether there are pilots who have declared that they are willing to fly the planes carrying these refugees."

Independent crossbencher Lord Carlile of Berriew says the government has made a concession, which he says can be held up as justification for the Lords continuing to scrutinise the bill.

He also says some Jewish peers are absent today "on the grounds of conviction and conscience" because today is the first day of the Jewish Passover festival.

He says he should have been at a Passover event this evening, and says he was told that "strong representations were made", including by the Labour Party, to avoid the finals stages of the bill being heard today.

The Jewish community would have been willing to be here tomorrow or any other day this week, he says, adding "unfortunately that was refused".

He says he has tried to think of a legitimate reason for such a refusal, adding: "I take it as an offence to our ambitions for diversity in this country."

Image source, House of Lords

Lord Sharpe reads the passage once more on reassessing decisions in the Afghan relocation scheme.

Now Lord Browne is back up, saying that he sees it as a concession.

"Let me tell you why this is a concession," he says and adds that the prime minister told him when he asked about Afghans' situation that they would be deported to Rwanda. "Now he says they won't be, that's a concession," he says.

"It is an extremely important concession. Should I trust them at their word? I tell you why I am minded to consider doing so, although I haven't up my mind," he says and continues:

"Because we are part of a grand coalition, including many very senior politicians and officials, so many voters across the nation. We will not be silent until today's promises are honoured by this government or the next one."