MPs have reversed all 10 amendments to Rishi Sunak’s flagship Rwanda legislation – setting up a showdown with the House of Lords over the controversial plan to send asylum seekers on a one-way trip to the east African country.

Using its comfortable Commons majority, the Tory government unpicked changes made to the Safety of Rwanda Bill by the Lords.

Peers inserted a series of amendments designed to water down the legislation, but all 10 were removed by MPs during votes in the Commons on Monday night.

The bill, which aims to overcome the Supreme Court’s block on deportation flights, will return to the Lords on Wednesday as part of the game of parliamentary “ping-pong”.

The government is almost certain to prevail because the unelected Lords can’t overrule elected MPs, and the bill could be passed into law within days.

The prime minister hopes that the first deportation flights will take off in the spring.

Britain and Rwanda signed a deal almost two years ago that would see migrants who cross the English Channel in small boats sent to the East African country, where they would remain permanently. So far, no migrant has been sent to Rwanda under the agreement.

The plan is key to Sunak’s pledge to “stop the boats” bringing unauthorised migrants to the UK. He argues that deporting asylum seekers will deter people from making risky journeys and break the business model of people-smuggling gangs.

Just under 30,000 people arrived in Britain in small boats in 2023.

“We need to make it clear that if you come here illegally, you won’t be able to stay and we will be able to remove you. That is the only way to properly solve the issue of illegal migration,” Sunak told reporters on Monday.

The House of Lords has inflicted another five defeats on the government’s Rwanda bill.

It means peers have defied Rishi Sunak to amend his flagship legislation 10 times this week.

The government will call on MPs to vote to overturn the amendments when the Safety of Rwanda Bill returns to the House of Commons later this month.

The five defeats tonight included moves to prevent modern slavery victims being deported to Africa against their will, and restoring the ability of the courts to decide whether Rwanda is a safe country.

On Monday night, the Lords voted to ensure the legislation is fully compliant with domestic and international law.

Dick Newby, the Lib Dem leader in the Lords, said: “Time after time, this Bill has been proved to be deeply flawed, yet this Conservative Government continues to promote a policy that frankly is unworkable.

“We are calling for Sunak and Cleverly to seriously consider the changes this House has called for. It is far too dangerous to ignore these amendments because lives are at stake.

“The Government should now accept that the policy is fatally flawed and will do little to solve the sky high asylum backlog.”

The Safety of Rwanda Bill is designed to overcome legal challenges to past attempts to send asylum seekers with a one-way ticket to the east African country.

The bill would compel judges to regard Rwanda as safe, and give ministers the power to ignore emergency injunctions.

The policy is central to the prime minister’s hopes of convincing voters he can “stop the boats” crossing the English channel.

The government hopes once the bill passes flights will be able to take off by the spring, but that timetable now looks in disarray.

The House of Lords has inflicted five defeats on the government over its controversial Rwanda scheme.

In another headache for Rishi Sunak, the unelected upper chamber voted by a majority of 102 to back a move to ensure the proposed legislation is fully compliant with domestic and international law.

The first defeat on the Safety of Rwanda Bill was followed by four more – including insisting parliament cannot declare Rwanda to be a safe country until the treaty with its promised safeguards is fully implemented, and a vote in favour of establishing a monitoring mechanism for the UK-Rwanda pact.

It paves the way for a back-and-forth between the elected Commons and the Lords, which is often referred to as parliamentary “ping-pong”, meaning MPs can overturn the changes at later stages in the process.

The Safety of Rwanda Bill is designed to overcome legal challenges to past attempts to send asylum seekers with a one-way ticket to the east African country.

The bill would compel judges to regard Rwanda as safe, and give ministers the power to ignore emergency injunctions.

The policy is central to the prime minister’s hopes of convincing voters he can “stop the boats” crossing the English channel.

The government hopes once the bill passes flights will be able to take off by the spring, but that timetable now looks in disarray.

Dick Newby, Liberal Democrat leader in the Lords, said: “For months this Conservative government has been pushing this policy that does nothing to solve the asylum backlog.

“This bill has cost hundreds of millions of pounds, and doesn’t combat dangerous Channel crossings or create safe, legal routes.

“By declaring Rwanda safe when it is clearly anything but, and excluding the courts, the bill also undermines the rule of law. It is the product of a morally and politically bankrupt government.”

Speaking in the Lords, Conservative grandee Lord Tugendhat, whose nephew is security minister Tom Tugendhat, accused the government of behaving like the ruling party in George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984.

“This country is no dictatorship, it is a democracy,” he said. “If this bill goes onto the statute book in its present form, Rwanda will be a safe country regardless of reality until the statute is repealed.”

This is a breaking news story and will be updated. Follow HuffPost UK on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

A Tory peer has accused the government of acting like “despots” over its Rwanda deportation policy.

As the controversial Safety of Rwanda Bill makes its way through parliament, both Tory and Labour members of the House of Lords lined up to warn of its dangers on Monday night.

Conservative grandee Lord Tugendhat, whose nephew is security minister Tom Tugendhat, took exception to attempts to overturn a Supreme Court ruling blocking the government from deporting asylum seekers to the east African country.

The peer claimed the bill could have an impact on the UK’s perception as a “marvellous place to do business because of our great respect for the rule of law”.

“I have been a member of parliament for a very long time on and off, and I have been a member of the Conservative party for some 66 years when I counted it up, and I do have to say that I find it quite extraordinary that the party of Margaret Thatcher should be introducing a bill of this kind,” Lord Tugendhat said.

He added: “What we are being asked to do really represents the sort of behaviour that the world associates with despots and autocracies, not with an established democracy, not with the mother of parliaments. It is a bill we should not even be asked to confront, let alone pass.”

The legislation is designed to overcome legal challenges to past attempts to send people to the east African country

It is central to the prime minister’s hopes of convincing voters he can “stop the boats” crossing the English channel.

The government hopes once the bill passes flights will be able to take off by the spring.