Legal challenges to Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda bill are “inevitable”, the illegal migration minister has admitted, as human rights organisations called on the government not to put the scheme into force.

Michael Tomlinson said the government wanted to ensure flights get off the ground “as soon as possible” but that there would undoubtedly be challenges to the legislation, which passed around midnight last night after months of parliamentary ping pong.

“There will be challenges, but we will meet them, we will overcome them,” he told Kay Burley on Breakfast.

His words come as five migrants died during an attempt to cross the Channel on Tuesday morning.

Mr Sunak believes the Rwanda bill – which seeks to deport asylum seekers arriving in the UK via small boats to the African nation – will act as a deterrent for those who are considering making the dangerous Channel crossing.

Mr Tomlinson declined to give extensive details on the Rwanda flights, including which commercial airline and airport will be used, saying: “There are those who are determined to stop this, and if I go into detail such as that with you, then that will help those who are wanting to stop this.”

Politics Hub: Latest reaction after Rwanda bill passes Commons

Following the bill’s passage, the United Nations and the Council of Europe urged ministers to reconsider the scheme.

Filippo Grandi, the UN high commissioner for refugees said the bill, which is likely to receive Royal Assent and pass into law this week, marked a “further step away from the UK’s long tradition of providing refuge to those in need, in breach of the Refugee Convention”.

“Protecting refugees requires all countries – not just those neighbouring crisis zones – to uphold their obligations,” he said.

“This arrangement seeks to shift responsibility for refugee protection, undermining international cooperation and setting a worrying global precedent.”

Volker Turk, the UN high commissioner for human rights, criticised the bill for “reducing the UK’s courts’ ability to scrutinise removal decisions, restricting access to legal remedies in the UK and limiting the scope of domestic and international human rights protections for a specific group of people”.

The Council of Europe joined the UN in urging the government not to enact the scheme, with human rights commissioner Michael O’Flaherty arguing the UK “should refrain from removing people under the Rwanda policy and reverse the bill’s effective infringement of judicial independence”.

The Rwanda bill will become law this week after the House of Lords, which had repeatedly expressed its displeasure with the bill, decided it would no longer oppose it following hours of wrangling last night in a bid to secure changes.

Read more from Sky News:
PM can no longer blame his opponents if the scheme fails
Asylum seekers warn others against seeking refuge in UK

Rwandan government spokesperson Yolande Makolo said the country was “pleased” the legislation has passed.

She said the bill’s passage “doesn’t alter what we have always known to be true” – which is that Rwanda has “worked hard over the last 30 years to make Rwanda a safe and secure country for Rwandans and non-Rwandans alike”.

Labour’s shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper branded the scheme an “expensive gimmick” that will affect “less than 1% of asylum seekers” arriving in Britain.

People should not be prevented from going about their day-to-day lives, a government minister has told Sky News, following a row over the police handling of a pro-Palestinian demonstration.

Footage showed a Metropolitan Police officer preventing campaigner Gideon Falter, the chief executive of the Campaign Against Antisemitism, from crossing a road near the march in London.

The officer said Mr Falter, who was wearing a kippah skull cap, was “openly Jewish” and that he was “worried about the reaction” to his presence at the demonstration.

Mr Falter has since called on Met Police chief Sir Mark Rowley to resign and accused the force of “victim-blaming” following the encounter.

Extended footage of the incident shows the officer accused Mr Falter of wanting to walk against the flow of the march and of being “disingenuous” in his claim he wanted to simply cross the road.

He offers the campaigner safe passage at a different location which is declined. As the tension rises and the officer raises his voice Mr Falter repeatedly tries to push past him.

Sir Mark has defended the actions of his officer during the incident on 13 April, saying they were “professional”, while admitting some of the words used during the exchange were “clumsy and offensive”.

Asked about the row, illegal migration minister Michael Tomlinson said he thought police had a “difficult job” at the protests but the incident was “unacceptable”.

He told Sky News’s Kay Burley: “I don’t think anyone of faith, whether you’re Jewish, whether you’re a Muslim, whether you’re a Christian, should be prevented from going about their day-to-day lives.”

Mr Falter has since said he will turn up at the next pro-Palestinian march and encouraged other Jews and allies to join him.

Asked whether police should stop him, Mr Tomlinson said: “I don’t want to see people stopped from going about their day-to-day lives in London.”

Rowley defends officer in protest row

Sir Mark defended the actions of his officer, who he said would not be sanctioned and would be allowed to police protests again.

In an interview with The Guardian newspaper, he said: “The sergeant at the scene clearly assessed that there was a risk of confrontation and was trying to help Mr Falter find a different route.

“I completely understand why the sergeant made this assessment. A couple of turns of phrase were clumsy and offensive… and we’ve apologised for that.

“The wider actions and intent of the officer were professional and in the best tradition of British police trying to prevent disorder.”

The Met Police commissioner said the officer was correct to stop Mr Falter after fearing there was danger of violence or disorder if direct contact with the pro-Palestinian marchers was made.

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

Met chief meets with home secretary

Sir Mark made the comments ahead of a meeting with Home Secretary James Cleverly on Monday.

After the meeting, Mr Cleverly said: “Jewish people will always have the right to be able to go about their daily lives safely and freely, in London and across the UK.

“Sir Mark has reassured me he will make this clear to all sections of the community as a matter of urgency. The Met’s focus now is rightly on reassurance, learning from what happened, and ensuring that Jewish people are safe and feel safe in London. I support them in that critical endeavour.”

Sir Mark also met with London’s mayor Sadiq Khan, who said he had “full confidence” in the commissioner – as well as with Jewish community groups.

Read more:
Analysis: What happens now for Met Police chief?
Review into Met’s handling of latest Stephen Lawrence evidence

Following the meeting, the Community Security Trust said the Met representatives repeated their apologies and agreed to “consult more closely” with the Jewish community “to ensure greater cultural sensitivity in future communications”.

The Met Police has apologised twice over the incident, issuing one initial statement and then saying sorry for its first apology, which had suggested opponents of pro-Palestinian marches “must know that their presence is provocative”.

After months of delay, parliamentary bickering and legal challenges, Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda bill is set to become law.

Legislation for the prime minister’s controversial plan to deport asylum seekers to the landlocked African country cleared parliament last night after a lengthy battle.

The policy has been plagued by setbacks since it was first announced two years ago, with thousands of people arriving on Kent beaches aboard small boats all the while.

So what is the Rwanda bill and why is it so controversial? Here are some of the key questions, answered.

What is the Rwanda asylum plan?

Rishi Sunak’s promise to “stop the boats” is one of five pledges he has staked his premiership on.

Key to this is the Rwanda scheme, which would involve some asylum seekers being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed there.

If successful, they can be allowed to stay in Rwanda or seek asylum in another country. But they would not be able to apply to return to the UK.

Ministers say the policy will act as a deterrent to people thinking of travelling to the UK “illegally” (though whether or not crossing the English Channel in a small boat is actually illegal is complicated).

Why haven’t any planes taken off already?

The first plane carrying asylum seekers could take off in 10 to 12 weeks, the prime minister said ahead of the law passing, in what is another delay, having initially promised this would happen in the spring.

This would be more than two years since the first flight attempted under the deal was grounded amid last-minute legal challenges.

No asylum seekers have yet been sent to Rwanda.

While he refused to go into “sensitive” operations details on Monday, Mr Sunak did outline a number of measures the government was taking to prepare for the first flights to take off.

He said there were now 2,200 detention spaces and that 200 dedicated caseworkers had been trained to process claims quickly.

Around 25 courtrooms have been made available and 150 judges will provide 5,000 sitting days, he added.

Mr Sunak also said there were 500 “highly trained individuals ready to escort illegal migrants all the way to Rwanda, with 300 more trained in the coming week”.

In November, the Rwanda plan was ruled unlawful by the UK’s Supreme Court, which said those being sent to the country would be at “real risk” of being returned home, whether their grounds to claim asylum were justified or not – breaching international law.

Is Rwanda a safe country?

Much of the debate around the policy – putting aside differing views on whether it is effective or ethical – centres around the question of whether Rwanda is considered a “safe country”.

The government insists it is, although it’s worth pointing out that the UK granted asylum applications to 15 people from Rwanda last year.

According to Human Rights Watch, critics of the ruling political party in Rwanda have been “arrested, threatened, and put on trial”. Some said they were tortured in detention, the organisation added.

Who will be affected by the Rwanda scheme?

The Home Office plans to use the agreement with Rwanda to remove people who make dangerous journeys to the UK and are considered “inadmissible” to the UK’s asylum system – and will include people who have arrived irregularly since 20 July last year.

People whom the Home Office wishes to transfer to Rwanda will be identified and referred to the Rwandan authorities on a case-by-case basis, after an initial screening process following arrival in the UK, the government has said.

Although the agreement focuses on asylum seekers, under the treaty people who have made unauthorised journeys to the UK but not claimed asylum can be relocated to Rwanda as well.

Read more:
Analysis: Sunak staking premiership on Rwanda plan
How many asylum seekers does the UK remove?

What happened in parliament on Monday night?

On Monday, the Rwanda bill finally passed through the Commons and Lords and is now set to become law.

The legislation was introduced by the government in the wake of November’s Supreme Court ruling which had declared that Rwanda was not safe for refugees.

Since then, the government has signed a new treaty with Rwanda which it says contains additional safeguards for people relocated.

With the new bill, parliament was asked to declare that Rwanda must be treated as safe in order to render the relocation plan lawful in UK domestic law.

What happens now?

The bill is now headed for royal assent after passing through parliament, but it’s likely to still face various challenges.

Campaigners opposing the plans, and individual asylum seekers who are told they are to be sent to Rwanda, could look to take the government to court again in an attempt to stop flights.

Whether any legal challenges could be successful in light of the new law remains to be seen.

How much has this all cost?

A lot.

An investigation by Whitehall’s spending watchdog said the cost of the Rwanda scheme could rise to half a billion pounds, plus hundreds of thousands more for each person deported.

The government has refused to say how much more money, on top of the £290m already confirmed, that the UK had agreed to pay Rwanda under the deal. However, a National Audit Office report revealed millions more in spending including £11,000 for each asylum seeker’s plane ticket.

What are people opposed to the Rwanda asylum plan saying now the bill was passed?

The passing of the bill has sparked fresh condemnation from charities and other organisations.

Amnesty International said it will “leave a stain on this country’s moral reputation”.

Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK’s chief executive, added: “The bill is built on a deeply authoritarian notion attacking one of the most basic roles played by the courts – the ability to look at evidence, decide on the facts of a case and apply the law accordingly.

“It’s absurd that the courts are forced to treat Rwanda as a ‘safe country’ and forbidden from considering all evidence to the contrary.”