Labour has issued a statement describing the Rwanda bill as an “eye-wateringly expensive election stunt”. Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said:

The new Rwanda law is an extortionately expensive gimmick rather than a serious plan to tackle dangerous boat crossings.

The Rwanda scheme will cost more than half a billion pounds for just 300 people, less than one per cent of asylum seekers here in the UK - and there is no plan for the 99% …

The Conservatives should drop this eye-wateringly expensive election stunt and instead adopt Labour’s practical plan boost our border security with new cross-border police and new counter terror style powers to crack down on the criminal gangs, and a new Returns and Enforcement Unit to remove those who have no right to be here.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom, the Home Office minister, concluded the debate by arguing that it was “profoundly moral and patriotic” to defend the country’s borders, and to try to end to small boat crossings.

Peers then approved the final version of the bill without a division, and the house adjourned.

That means the bill has finally concluded its passage through parliament. Rishi Sunak described it has emergency legislation, but it has taken four and a half months to get from first reading in the Commons to its final debate in the Lords, which has just concluded.

It now just needs to get royal assent. That will probably happen later on Tuesday.

Lord Anderson of Ipswich, the crossbench former independent reviewer of terrorist legislation for the government, is speaking now. He says he tabled the most recent version of the Lord Hope amendment (the one saying the monitoring committee should advise on whether Rwanda is safe) and he says he wants to “just a few words at its funeral”.

He says many people will have wanted the Lords to keep fighting on this issue. But he says there was no point doing that unless the Lords was going to use “double insistence” (voting for the exact same amendment a second time), which would have led to the bill a a whole failing. But that option “did not command the necessary political support”, he says.

He goes on:

The purpose of ping pong is to persuade the government through force of argument to come to the table and agree a compromise.

They have refused pointedly to do so. And after four rounds of ping pong, the control of the Commons remains as solid as ever. The time has now come to acknowledge the primacy of the elected house and to withdraw from the fray.

The Lords will start debating the Rwanda bill at 11.45pm, we’re told (not 11.15am, as I suggested earlier).

It looks as though the government has now won. According to sources in the Lords, peers will not vote against the bill again, and they will not try to reinsert the Lord Hope amendment giving the independent monitoring committee a role in declaring Rwanda safe.

That means, after a short debate, the bill should have finished its passage through parliament. It will not have to return to the Commons.

It should then get royal assent very soon, probably on Tuesday.

The government won the division on the reasons committee by 309 votes to 41.

That means the bill is now going back to the Lords.

Dame Rosie Winterton, the deputy speaker, told MPs she was suspending the sitting of the Commons, but that they might have to return if the Lords does not accept the Commons version of the bill.

When the Lords was debating the bill for the first time, peers inserted 10 amendments into the bill, that were all removed when it went back to the Commons. Since then, the Lords has sent the bill back another four times – the last time just about an hour ago.

There is now only one issue dividing the two houses – whether or not the bill should include the Lord Hope amendment saying that Rwanda should not be considered safe until the government has declared it is on the basis of advice from the indpendent monitoring committee.

Peers have already secured tonight what one of them has described as an “important concession” on Afghan interpreters. (See 9.38am.)

We will find out soon whether they are now minded to call it a day, whether some of them will fight on but without the support of enough colleagues to outvote the government, or whether they will try at least one more time to get ministers to vote again.

MPs have voted 312 to 237, a majority of 75, to reject Lords amendment 3J.

It would mean Rwanda could not be treated as safe until ministers, having consulted an independent monitoring body, made a statement to parliament to that effect.

It will return to the House of Lords again.

The debate is back underway in the Commons and the illegal immigration minister Michael Tomlinson has begun by branding the Lords amendment “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.

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

A Home Office minister said the government will not send those who are eligible under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) to Rwanda.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom told peers:

Once this review of Arap decisions for those with credible links to Afghan specialist units has concluded, the government will not remove to Rwanda those who received a positive eligibility decision as a result of this review where they are already in the UK as of today.

Labour former defence secretary Lord Browne of Ladyton, who had been leading calls for such an assurance, said:

The minister does not believe this to be a concession, it is to him a restatement of what he has been telling us for some time, but in a different form.

However, pointing out it would now mean people not being removed, Lord Browne argued “that is a concession in anybody’s language”.

He added: “And it’s an extremely important concession, because these are the small number of people that... I have said are the target of my ambition that they will not be deported.”

Peers have again dug in their heels over Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda deportation plan and demanded MPs think again for a fifth time.

The House of Lords backed by 240 votes to 211, majority 29, a requirement that the east African country could not be treated as safe until the Secretary of State, having consulted an independent monitoring body, had made a statement to Parliament.

It means a continuation of the parliamentary tussle over the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill. The bill will now go back to the Commons as parliamentary ‘ping-pong’ continues.

The House of Lords has started debating the Rwanda bill, with the possibility of further amendments to follow.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom, a home office minister, says the Lords must “accept the will of the elected house”.

He says:

The government is satisfied that Rwanda is safe. I cannot of course predict what will happen in the future but we have established the right mechanisms so should the situation ever arise the government will respond as necessary and this would include a range of options to respond to the circumstances including any primary legislation as required.

The government won the third division by 309 votes to 37.

That means the reasons committee is being set up to sent a message to the Lords explaining why the bill is being sent back to them – although, as Dame Eleanor Laing, the deputy speaker, tells MPs, the committee has probably started work already.

UPDATE: It was SNP MPs who pushed for the vote, and most of the 37 MPs voting against were from the party.

The government won the second vote by 305 votes to 234 – a majority of 71.

That means there were five MPs who voted against the government on this issue, protection of Afghan interpreters, who did not vote against it on the first division.

This is how Alison Thewliss from the SNP ended her speech on the bill.

This legislation is utterly despicable. It is state-sponsored people trafficking, it is against our obligations and international law and Scotland wants no part of it. We will oppose it every step of the way.

Stephen Kinnock, the shadow immigration minister, is now speaking for Labour.

He says the government could have got this bill on to the statute book before Easter, almost a month ago, but it chose not to. He says ministers were “deliberately stringing this out for two reasons”. He goes on:

Firstly, because they thought that they could make some grubby political capital from the delay.

And, secondly, because they’ve been scrambling to get a flight organised and all the other logistics that are not in place.

Indeed, the prime minister admitted this in his somewhat whinging and buck-passing press conference this morning that the first flight to Rwanda won’t take off until, checks notes, July. I mean, July – really?

Today is 22 April. We were initially told that this was emergency legislation, and yet we’re now being told that there’ll be a 10 to 12 week delay in getting the first flight off the ground.

In the Commons MPs are now starting the debate on the latest Lords amendments to the safety of Rwanda (asylum and immigration) bill. Michael Tomlinson, the minister for illegal migration, is opening the debate. He is asking MPs to reject the two amendments passed by peers when the bill was last in the Lords.

Peers are digging in on two issues:

1) Ensuring that Rwanda is not declare safe until the monitoring committee at work in Rwanda confirms the country is safe; and

2) Exempting people who have served British forces abroad (primarily Afghan interpreters, but other people would be covered too) from deportation to Rwanda.

More than 18,000 asylum seekers threatened with being sent to Rwanda are now having their cases processed in the UK instead, Diane Taylor reports.

In her new book, Another England: How to Reclaim Our National Story, Caroline Lucas, the Green party MP, says “Labour in particular and progressives in general have shied away from engaging with English national consciousness”.

There is some evidence today that Keir Starmer is addressing this. Ahead of St George’s day tomorrow, he has taken the shadow cabinet to St George’s Park, Burton upon Trent, the FA’s national football centre, and he has issued a statement about Labour’s support for sport in schools, saying “patriotism is a force for good”. He says:

The pride we feel in our sporting heroes and national teams runs deep in the country’s psyche. It forms our identity and is a cornerstone of our national life, and our national teams exemplify so much of what it means to English.

When I speak to young people up and down the country, the confidence, pride and patriotism that comes with national sport is clear for all to see. And that patriotism is a force for good in English sport.

But in her interesting and very readable book (reviewed here by Gaby Hinsliff), Lucas has a plan for asserting Englishness that goes far beyond just saying it’s good to cheer the national team. She calls for the creation of an English parliament (not something proposed by the Greens in their 2019 election manifesto). And she argues that progressives should embrace this cause before it gets hijacked by the hard right. She says:

If progressives don’t seize the initiative on this issue, they risk being outflanked. It is all too easy to see Labour using Scottish votes to push through legislation in England on a sensitive area such as taxation, immigration or climate change, and this being used by populists to build a power campaign for an English parliament – a campaign whose centre of gravity lies with the hard right. It has all the elements such a campaign would need, seemingly pitting the ordinary, patriotic folk of England against a distant, metropolitan elite who patronise or despise them. With the support of the Sun or the Express, well-funded thinktanks and unaccountable wealthy backers, it would become a formidable campaign. But this is a version of events we can avoid. I don’t want progressives to fall into the trap of opposing calls for an English parliament because of the sinister motives of the people behind it; better to lead the cause now, and ensure that such a forum is genuinely democratic, with a reformed voting system, transparency and accountability, tough protection from corruption and lobbying, and an absolute commitment to human rights.

There is more about the book in her interview with John Harris for today’s Guardian.

Nigel Farage, the honorary president of Reform UK, and former Ukip and Brexit party leader, has said he does not believe that there will be “significant” numbers of asylum seekers on the Rwanda flights when they start leaving. Responding to Rishi Sunak’s speech, he told GB News:

Just over two years ago, of course, we had the speech at Lydd Airport down in Kent, telling us about the Rwanda plan. We’re two years on, we’ve spent at least £160m pounds so far and not sent a single human being.

What happens is every time Rishi Sunak speaks on this subject, he raises the rhetoric. He raises the rhetoric, and he does so, of course, because public anger is so great, the sense of injustice and unfairness.

Do I believe that in 10 to 12 weeks’ time, there’ll be planes taking off with significant numbers of migrants on board? No, I don’t.

Last week Savanta published a poll suggesting that Andy Street, the Conservative West Midlands mayor, had a two-point lead over Labour in the mayoral contest taking place a week on Thursday. This attracted considerable interest because a previous poll, by Redfield and Wilton Strategies, had Labour’s candidate, Richard Parker 14 points ahead.

Today Savanta has admitted that it made a mistake with its weighting. It has revised its figures and it now has Labour three points ahead, as it explains on X.

Upon further inspection, there is an error in our West Midlands Mayoralty poll from last week, where we have incorrectly applied the 2019 past vote weight, using past vote targets for whole of the West Midlands region as opposed to the West Midlands Combined Authority area. (1/4)

Importantly, our weighting for age, sex, local authority, SEG, ethnicity and 2021 West Midlands Mayoral Election remain correct. While this has meant our results continue to suggest the race is incredibly close... (2/4)

..with the difference between our previous findings to the updated ones today technically within the statistical margin of error - we apologise for this isolated error. The updated results can be found in the next tweet. (3/4)

Updated West Midlands Mayoral Voting Intention

Lab 41

Con 38

Reform 6

LD 5

Green 5

Independent 5

1,018 in WMCA, 11-17 April

This is significant because, although there are 10 mayoral elections in May, and more than 2,000 council seats are being contested, the Conservatives are focusing in particular on two mayoral contests: the West Midlands, and Tees Valley, where the Tory Ben Houchen is also seeking re-election.

Street and Houchen were both first elected in 2017. They are both seen as Tory success stories (Houchen won 73% of the vote when he was re-elected in 2021) and both seem to have some chance of winning again. If they do, Rishi Sunak will be able to argue that dire national polls will not stop Conservatives winning votes where they have a record of achievement.

But if Street and Houchen both lose, it is assumed that Sunak and CCHQ will have nothing to point to on results day for consolation.

A recent Redfied and Wilton Strategies poll for Tees Valley had Houchen and his Labour counterpart neck and neck.

Airlines that fly asylum seekers to Rwanda on behalf of the UK government could be in breach of human rights laws, UN experts have warned.

The experts, who are all attached to the UN human rights council, issued a statement today arguing that airlines working for the government should be aware of the legal risk.

They said:

Even if the UK-Rwanda agreement and the ‘Safety of Rwanda’ bill are approved, airlines and aviation regulators could be complicit in violating internationally protected human rights and court orders by facilitating removals to Rwanda.

If airlines and aviation authorities give effect to state decisions that violate human rights, they must be held responsible for their conduct.

As the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights underline, aviation regulators, international organisations and business actors are required to respect human rights.

The three experts highlight the risk of asylum seekers being taken to Rwanda suffering “refoulement” – being returned to a country where they are at risk of persecution. The supreme court cited this risk as the reason why Rwanda was not a safe country in its judgment on the deportation policy last year. But the UK government claims its subsequent treaty with Rwanda has led to judicial reforms being enacted in Rwanda that mean the refoulement threat no longer applies.

The three UN figures who have issued the warning are: Siobhán Mullally, special rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children; Gehad Madi, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants; and Allice Jill Edwards, special rapporteur on torture.

For months journalists have been asking No 10 if the government has found a private company willing to provide planes to take asylum seekers to Rwanda. At his press conference today Rishi Sunak finally provided a clear answer (yes – see 10.45am) in an opening statement that contained quite a lot of detail intended to show that No 10 does think it can get regular flights leaving later this year and that it is not just planning the odd flight with a handful of passengers “here or there” (as Suella Braverman would put it – see 9.52am).

But, for all the facts and numbers he was able to deploy, Sunak could not quite cover up the fact that he was also confirming that he has failed in his goal of getting flights going in the spring – because they won’t leave until July. He blamed Labour peers, but this was not entirely convincing because peers say the bill was originally intended to get royal assent before Easter and that it was government’s decision to let “ping pong” drag on for so long. Sunak also refused to say how many asylum seekers the government expects to deport per flight, or before the election.

Given the Westminster obsession with election timing, Sunak’s comments will also be scrutinised for any clues they offer on this. During the Q&A he dodged a question about whether the flights timetable meant he was ruling out a July election. (See 10.50am.) At one point it was argued that, in relation to Rwanda, the Tories would be best off holding an election once the bill has passed, or once the first flight has left, but before the policy has had time to fail (which will be the verdict if small boat arrival numbers show that it is not working as a deterrent). Sunak did not engage with this argument, but he did not sound like someone planning a rush to the polls in July. What he said to the BBC’s Chris Mason (see 11.15am) was probably more consistent with October or November still being the working assumption (provided the Conservative party does not self-destruct after the local elections).

Here are the main points.

• Sunak said the first flight to Rwanda “will leave in 10 to 12 weeks” – confirming that he has abandoned his goal of ensuring deportations start in the spring. The new timetable means July (1 July is 10 weeks from today). After that there will be “multiple” flights leaving regularly every month, Sunak said. But he declined to say how many people he expected to be one the first flight.

• He refused to say if the new timetable meant he was ruling out a July election. As Jason Groves from the Daily Mail says, his comments seemed to confirm the autumn as the most likely time for the election.

• Sunak said Rwanda was ready to implement the policy too, and he said the Rwandan president, Paul Kagame, was “completely committed” to it. (See 11.15am.)

• Sunak said the UK would not need to leave the European court of human rights to implement the Rwanda policy, but he indicated he would be willing to leave if ECHR membership was a threat to national security. (See 10.48am.) This is a line he used recently in a Sun interview. Suella Braverman has said that, if this is meant to be a hint that he would be willing to withdraw, it’s phoney.

• Sunak said that he continued to have confidence in the Met police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, but that that was conditional upon Rowley working to rebuild the trust of the Jewish community and the public at large. (See 10.55am.)

Sunak take his final question – from the BBC.

Normally at No 10 press conferences the BBC political editor gets called first, in recognition of the fact that he or she is normally seen as the most influential journalist in the lobby. Maybe people are being called in random order today, but at Westminster there will be suspicions that this is a discreet snub that will go down will with anti-BBC Tories.

Q: [From Chris Mason] You are accepting that your initial promise, to get flights off in the spring, won’t happen. Can you be certain that, by the time of the election, you will be able to prove this policy is working as a deterrent?

Sunak says he won’t add to what he has said already about the timing of the election. (See 10.50am.)

He says the delay has been caused by Labour consistently blocking the policy.

But the government has worked to make sure this will work, he says. For example, in the past poor decision making has held up asylum decisions. That is why more people have been trained.

He says the government could “rush” and get one flight off. He goes on:

But that’s not the priority. The priority is being able to deliver a regular rhythm, a drumbeat of multiple flights a month, over the summer and beyond. Because that’s how you build a systematic deterrent and that’s how you’ll stop the boats.

That is the system he is putting in place, Sunak says.

Q: Do you have confidence in the Metropolitan police commissioner Sir Mark Rowley?

Sunak says he shares the “shock and anger” felt by people who saw the video clip of how a police officer told Gideon Falter that being “openly Jewish” was provocative when he was in London near a pro-Palestinian demonstration.

He says the police do a difficult job, and he does have confidence in Rowley. He goes on:

But that’s on the basis that he works to rebuild the confidence and trust of, not just the Jewish community, but the wider public, particularly people in London but more broadly.

And you regain that trust … by making it clear that the police are not tolerating behaviour that we would all collectively deem unacceptable when we see it because it undermines our values.

He says James Cleverly, the home secretary, is meeting Rowley to discuss this issue today.

UPDATE: Sunak said:

I share the shock and the anger that many are feeling when they saw the clips over the weekend.

And you know what I would say about Mark Rowley and the police, they do have a difficult job, of course I appreciate that.

But what happened was clearly wrong. And it’s right that they’ve apologised for that.

And yes, I do have confidence in him, but that’s on the basis that he works to rebuild the confidence and trust of not just the Jewish community, but the wider public, particularly people in London but more broadly.

And you regain that trust and that confidence by making it clear that the police are not tolerating behaviour that we would all collectively deem unacceptable when we see it because it undermines our values.

And I think that is critical. And I know the home secretary will be meeting the commissioner later today.

Q: Does this mean you are ruling out a summer election?

Sunak says he has already said what he has said on the date of the election.

(He has said that his working assumption is that it will be in the second half of the year. Normally that is taken to mean October o November, but July is in the second half of the year too.)

Q: Do you think you will be able to implement this without leaving the European convention of human rights?

Sunak says he thinks he can implement this without leaving the ECHR.

But he says he is willing to ignore ECHR injunctions if he needs to.

And, if he ever has to make a choice between national security and membership of a foreign court, he would put national security first.

UPDATE: Sunak said:

If it ever comes to a choice between our national security, securing our borders, and membership of a foreign court, I’m, of course, always going to prioritise our national security.

Sunak says the government envisages “the successful delivery of multiple flights a month through the summer and beyond until the boats have stopped”.

Rishi Sunak starts by blaming Labour peers in the Lords for blocking the Rwanda bill.

But he says tonight parliament will sit for as long as it takes to pass the bill.

He says the governments has started work on preparation for flights to Rwanda to take off.

And he gives details of what that means:

• 2,200 extra detention spaces have been made available, and 200 dedicated case workers have been taken on.

• The judiciary has made 25 court rooms available to hear these cases, and there are 150 judges available who could provide 5,000 sitting days.

• The European court of human rights has tightened its rules on injunctions, making it harder for claimaints to get one to stop a deportation flight. And the Rwanda bill says ministers can ignore those injunctions anyway, he says.

• An airfield is on standby, and commercial charter planes have been booked for specific slots to take people to Rwanda.

• The government has trained 500 people to escort people on the plan, and 300 more are being trained soon.

Sunak says, with these preparations in place, he expects the first flights to leave in 10 to 12 weeks.

That suggests flights starting in July – which is summer. Sunak initially said the first flights would leave in the spring.

UPDATE: Sunak said:

To detain people while we prepare to remove them, we’ve increased detention spaces to 2,200. To quickly process claims, we’ve got 200 trained, dedicated caseworkers ready and waiting.

To deal with any legal cases quickly and decisively, the judiciary have made available 25 courtrooms and identified 150 judges who could provide over 5,000 sitting days.

The Strasbourg court has amended their rule 39 procedures in line with the test set out in our Illegal Migration Act. And we’ve put beyond all doubt that ministers can disregard these injunctions with clear guidance that if they decide to do so, civil servants must deliver that instruction and most importantly, once the processing is complete, we will physically remove people.

And to do that, I can confirm that we’ve put an airfield on standby, booked commercial charter planes for specific slots and we have 500 highly trained individuals ready to escort illegal migrants all the way to Rwanda, with 300 more trained in the coming weeks.

This is one of the most complex operational endeavours the Home Office has carried out. But we are ready, plans are in place and these flights will go, come what may.

No foreign court will stop us from getting flights off.

The first flight will leave in 10 to 12 weeks. Now of course that is later than we wanted.

But we have always been clear that processing will take time and if Labour peers had not spent weeks holding up the bill in the House of Lords to try to block these flights altogether, we would have begun this process weeks ago.

Sky News has broadcast a clip of Rishi Sunak addressing a meeting of the government’s illegal migration operations committee in the cabinet room at No 10 this morning. It is almost certainly a preview of what he will say at the press conference, which is due to start within the next hour.

And Sunak is making a big claim, arguing that the Rwanda bill marks a “fundamental change” in global policy on illegal migration.

Sunak said:

After months of back and forth, it is now time for the house to pass our Rwanda legislation. No more prevarication, no more delay.

And, in doing this, parliament will put beyond all doubt that Rwanda is a safe country …

I believe that this is landmark legislation. It doesn’t just represent a step-change in how we do this, but actually a fundamental change on the global equation on how to tackle illegal migration.

And, so voting this bill through parliament today, we collectively can send a very clear message that if you come here illegally, you won’t be able to stay.

There may be an element of truth in Sunak’s claim about the significance of the bill, although it does cut across the government’s insistence that it is only following a policy already championed by Australia, and it will only be seen to be landmark legislation if it works. Many people, like Suella Braverman (see 9.52am), assume it won’t.

Suellla Braverman, the former Conservative home secretary, restated her belief this morning that the government’s Rwanda bill won’t work. Braverman, who was sacked by Rishi Sunak partly because they disagreed over immigration policy, told the Today progamme:

Unfortunately I voted against the legislation because I think it’s fatally flawed. I don’t think it’s going to stop the boats, and that’s the test of its efficacy.

Braverman said all the government’s attempts to tackle illegal migration were being thwarted by human rights law.

The simple fact is this is our third Act of Parliament that the government has introduced in four years to stop the boats.

None of them have worked – none of them have worked because they are all still susceptible to the international human rights law framework contained in the European convention on human rights judged by, and adjudicated by, the European court of human rights in Strasbourg – that’s the problem, and that’s why I’ve been calling for a few years now to leave the European convention on human rights.

At the Conservative party conference in October 2022 Braverman famously said that it was her “dream” to see the first flight take off to Rwanda because she thought the policy would have a deterrent effect. She said:

I would love to have a front page of The Telegraph with a plane taking off to Rwanda, that’s my dream, it’s my obsession.

But this morning she revealed that she has revised hew view since then. When the Today presenter Mishal Husain reminded her of her “dream” comment, and asked if she would congratulate the PM when the first flight took off, Braverman replied:

The prime minister has pledged to stop the boats. That’s what we owe the British people and that’s the test. I’m afraid this bill, as drafted, will not achieve that goal. It’s fatally flawed …

One flight here or there, with a few passengers on it, will not provide the deterrent effect that is necessary to break the people smuggling gangs, to send the message to the illegal migrants that it’s not worth getting on a dinghy in the first place because you’re not going to get a life in the UK.

We need to have regular flights going to Rwanda with large numbers of passengers on them. That’s the only way to stop the boats.

In his Today interview Andrew Mitchell, the deputy foreign secretary, also claimed that Rwanda was “arguably safer than London”.

He said the country had made remarkable progress over the past 30 years. He explained:

Rwanda … has come back from the abyss, a country completely destroyed by the genocide.

It is absolutely extraordinary what the Rwandan government have achieved in all walks of life.

It is a safe country and indeed, if you look at the statistics, Kigali is arguably safer than London. So I have no doubt at all about the safety of Rwanda and the efficacy of this scheme.

When it was put to him that the Rwandan police opened fire on refugees in the country who were protesting in 2018, Mitchell said this “remarkable regime” had managed to look after “extraordinary numbers of refugees”.

He said the 2018 shooting was a “contested incident”.

And he said the UN refugee agency, UNHCR, placed refugees in Rwanda.

If the UNHCR thinks it’s right and proper and safe to do that, then I think we should be perfectly confident that the British government, in reaching the same conclusion, is also correct.

Mitchell has had a close involvement with Rwanda for years. In 2007, as shadow international development secretary, he launched a volunteering project in the country for Conservative activists, Project Umubano, which helped to change the party’s stance on development issues.

In his Today programme interview Andrew Mitchell, the deputy foreign secretary, suggested that Rishi Sunak would use his press conference later to say how many people the government expects to sent to Rwanda later this year.

Mitchell said he was confident that the policy would have a deterrent effect on the number of people crossing the Channel in small boats. Asked ‘what kinds of numbers” the government was envisaging, Mitchell replied:

You’ll have to wait for the prime minister to set that out in the press conference later today.

Mitchell also implied Rishi Sunak would reveal what aircraft will be used to send people to Rwanda. Originally ministers were hoping to hire an aircraft from a commercial airline, but reportedly RAF planes may be used instead because private companies do not want to get involved.

Mitchell said it was for Sunak to set out “the robust operational arrangments which we have made to implement the will of the House of Commons”.

Good morning. Rishi Sunak has decided that that the safety of Rwanda (asylum and immigration) bill must complete its passage through parliament tonight and he is holding a press conference later this morning partly so that he can publicly warn the peers who are holding up the bill that it is time to back down. But, as Pippa Crerar reports, peers are still holding out for concessions, particularly on that which would exempt Afghanistan interpreters and others who have worked for British forces abroad from the threat of deportation to Rwanda.

MPs and peers have told that they could be in for a long night. Both sides accept that the Lords will eventually let the Commons have its way, but peers are entitled to ask MPs to “think again” and, for political reasons, they will want to show that they have fought hard to get their way. That’s why it looks as though it might be a late night; if peers aren’t still up after midnight, people won’t be convinced that they were really trying.

Andrew Mitchell, the deputy foreign secretary, told the Today programme this morning that the government is not minded to compromise. Speaking about the Lords amendment that would exempt Afghan interpreters from deportation to Rwanda, he said this was not necessary because the government already has other schemes in place to enable those Afghans to come to the UK. He told the programme:

After the Afghan was was over, we set up a safe and legal route for those Afghans who had served the British Army, served Britain, the Arap (Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy) scheme, and 16,000 Afghans have been settled in Britain as a result. For that reason, we simply don’t think this amendment is necessarily … We’re not in the business of cluttering up the statute book with unnecessary legislation.

And Mitchell was even more critical of the Lords on the second issue on which they are digging in their heels – the Lord Hope amendment that would ensure that Rwanda is not treated as a safe country for refugees until the monitoring committee set up by the government confirms it is safe. Mitchell said that peers were being too harsh about the Rwandan judiciary and that some of what had been said was borderline racist. He told the programme:

I’ve listened to what has been said about the independence of the judiciary [in Rwanda], the judicial arrangements that have been set up on Rwanda. The Rwandan judge, Judge Rugege, is an enormously distinguished and respected international jurist. Indeed, he is an honorary fellow in law at an Oxford College.

Some of the discussions that have gone on in the Lord’s about the judicial arrangements within Rwanda have been patronising and, in my view, border on racism.

So we don’t think it’s necessary to have that amendment either, and that the necessary structures are in place to ensure that the scheme works properly and fairly.

Morning: Rishi Sunak holds a press conference in Downing Street.

Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in the West Midlands, where he is chairing a shadow cabinet meeting.

2.30pm: Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, takes questions in the Commons.

After 3.30pm: MPs debate the latest Lords amendments to the safety of Rwanda (asylum and immigration) bill.

Early evening: Peers debate the Rwanda bill again. If, as expected, they insist on their amendments, “ping pong” will continue and the bill will return to the Commons for another vote by MPs. The process could continue into the early hours.

Also, David Cameron, the foreign secretary, is on a visit to Tajikistan.

If you want to contact me, do use the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a laptop or a desktop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting, too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line; privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate); or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.