After months of gridlock and days of parliamentary pingpong, the UK government's Rwanda Asylum Bill is finally to become law. The House of Lords eventually conceded late last night, withdrawing the final amendment that was holding up the legislation. It's a relief for Prime Minister Richie Sunak, who hopes that barring any last minute legal objections, flights to Rwanda could begin within 10 to 12 weeks. Official figures show the backlog of people waiting to be removed from the UK rose from nearly 1,800 in July last year to more than 50,000 a week ago. This is the moment the bill was passed.

My lords, Rwanda is a safe country that has proven time and again its ability to offer asylum seekers a safe haven and a chance to build a new life. Rwanda has a strong history of providing protection to those that need it and currently hosts over 135,000 refugees and asylum seekers who have found safety and sanctuary there. There are binding provisions in the treaty which place obligations on the government of Rwanda to provide for those relocated under the partnership. My lords, this is long overdue, but I would also like to put on record my thanks to the officials in the government of Rwanda for all their efforts in delivering this partnership. I beg to move. The question is that motion A be agreed to.

As many as are of that opinion will say, Content. Country not content. The content Let us have it.

We can get more reaction to the passing of this bill from Rwanda, and we can speak to Africa correspondence there, Barbara Plet, Asha. So, Barbara, what happens next as Rwanda prepares to receive asylum seekers from the UK.

Well, Catherine, we haven't had an official reaction, first of all, from the government in terms of the vote itself. We're expecting perhaps to get something later today. But the authorities have told us all along that they are ready to receive the first plane load of migrants. They have been ready for many months now, a number of years actually, since the deal was signed, and they are making changes to their immigration law and also recruiting more immigration officials to deal with what is going to be an expected influx, especially after Rishi Sunak said he wanted a steady drum beat of flights to arrive. We have been talking to a number of people on regular Rwandans, about whether they are as enthusiastic about it as the government is. We've received mixed replies, most of the concerns being about what economic impact it will have. But certainly in terms of the reception, if and when that plane actually gets off the ground, There are places for the migrants to go. This is one of them. This is one of the hostels where they will be received. And you're going to see a little bit more about it now in a report that I prepared to show you how this deal is being viewed in Rwanda and how the government is preparing.

It's here the migrants will land, Hope Hostel, long poised for this moment. Bedrooms laid out with meticulous care, attention to the needs of guests who've so far failed to arrive. Workers in surreal performance of their daily tasks.

This place has been ready and waiting for nearly two years. Now that the bill has passed, the people staffing it may finally to have someone to serve. The British government is hoping that these rooms will be filled with asylum seekers in a matter of weeks.

The hostel can house 100 of those Britain plans to send to apply for asylum here. They They would also try to go to other countries, but not back to the UK.

If you get the news today, you would be able to accept people tomorrow.

Not only tomorrow, even now.

Rwanda is a beautiful country, nestled in the hills of East Africa. The streets are tidy, safe from crime. There is order. Rwanda works. That's the motto. Some here welcome the idea of the new migrants.

I think it will be good economically for the nation, considering that there is no nothing that is better than human capital.

This man didn't want to identify himself because he's against the deal.

Where are you going to find the jobs for these people? We ourselves are like, we've graduated, but we've not yet secured jobs. We are out there searching for jobs.

The culture of fear runs deep here. There are allegations that dissent is suppressed. Kigali strongly denies this, and its parliament passed a law to address the concerns of Britain's Supreme Court to strengthen protections for asylum seekers.

If they want to hold a protest, can they do it? Our national laws are very clear about the right to protest. It is protected under specific circumstances. And if they do wish to protest peacefully within the confines of the law, they're welcome, too.

Rwanda has welcomed other migrants, Africans who were stuck in Libya trying to get to Europe. This is a temporary haven for them while they sort out next steps. They could choose to settle in Rwanda. None have. They want opportunities elsewhere. It's all about seeking a better future for those here and those coming. Will Rwanda be a detour, a dead end or a new home.

And Barbara is still on the line with us from Kigali. And as you mentioned there in your package, Barbara, there's still questions as to how safe Rwanda is for migrants.

Yes, that's right. That was the whole issue in the UK, wasn't it? I think it really depends on who you ask and what you mean. Rwanda is a pretty safe place when it comes to levels of crime. There are statistics about that, that it's very high on the index of safety when it comes to crime. There is one incident that the Supreme Court mentioned with regards to refugees. This took place in 2018 Catherine, when refugees from the Democratic Republic of Congo protested against a cut in food rations, and the police opened fire and killed 12 of them. Now, the government here says that was an isolated incident. Nothing like that has happened since. Human Rights Watch says perhaps it's more germane to note that no other demonstrations have happened since and that some of the people who were involved were arrested and jailed. That is something that I put to the official you saw in the piece, and you heard her response. Then there is the issue of the allegations of suppression of dissent. Those come from many different quarters, including human rights agencies, political opposition activists, and so on. Again, as I mentioned, Kagali denies this, but the UK government does acknowledge there are some restrictions on freedom of movement, sorry, freedom of speech and of assembly, but says it's very unlikely that anyone relocated here would be ill treated.

So that's the calculation that they made.

Barbara, thank you. That's our Africa correspondence. Barbara Pletter-Acher in Kigali there for us. Well, for more analysis on this, we can turn to Dr. Joel Grogan, who is a senior researcher at the Think Tank UK in a Changing Europe. Thank you for joining us on BBC News. So this bill has passed and the government says it has made plans for flights with asylum seekers to Rwanda. What's your assessment of the government's plans?

We'll see it when it happens. The government is now going to be facing political challenges, practical challenges, and very prominently legal challenges as the Rwanda policy goes ahead.

What we're hearing from the government and in his press conference yesterday from the Prime Minister, Rishis Sunak, is that this is really inevitable. They're prepared to face down any legal challenges. Is it just not a matter of time until those flights to Rwanda begin?

Well, in terms of the legal challenges, what we're likely to see is immediately challenges coming broadly about the legislation itself, that this law breaches some very fundamental principles of UK Constitutional law, of international obligations, of human rights. The law itself is very explicit. It says that no decision maker, so no immigration officer, no court, no judge, can make any assessment about Rwanda's safety other than the fact that it is safe. Whereas for courts, and if and when this then will go to the European Court of Human Rights, which does seem inevitable, they'll be looking at the facts of the case. They'll look at Rwanda as it is right now. If on the evidence, they find that Rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers, and what that means is there's an imminent risk of immediate harm or they could be sent back to a country where they would face death or torture or other irreparable harm. They will not find it to be a safe country, no matter what the law says. That's going to present a very difficult challenge for the UK, as it will have an international obligation under the European Court of Human Rights not to send someone to a country where it is not safe.

That will then become a difficult political question, for example, for the Home Secretary, in addition to any immigration officers or courts, as to whether or not they will follow the law as they are obliged to do or follow this law as it has just come into being, probably today or tomorrow.

Should this policy succeed? You mentioned the legal challenges that are to come, but should it succeed? Could we see other European countries putting in place similar plans? Of course, migration is a key issue across Europe.

Success will be very difficult to measure. I know the Prime Minister said yesterday that success will only be measured if all boats are stopped, which is particularly difficult in a year where we're seeing record numbers arriving. Just to give a little context for that, in the initial plans that were laid out, we heard about a thousand people over five years could be assessed by Rwanda for refugee status and then settled in Rwanda. On ambitious targets, this could be up to about 5,000 people over the course of five years. But for small boat arrivals this year, that was 1,000 people in January, and I think as of April, it's more than 5,000. So success will be very difficult to measure. However, in the European context, it's a very different legal situation. As a matter of law, and this is law for the ECHR, it's law domestically here in the UK, USA and also for European countries, it is not unlawful to send someone to a third country to have their asylum claim processed as long as that country is safe. However, in the European Union, there's an additional rule which says that if you are sending someone to a third country, as long as it is safe, but they must also have a personal connection with that country.

We're not likely to see the equivalent of a Rwanda plan in the EU right now.

Thank you very much. That's Dr. Joel Grogan, Senior Researcher at the Think Tank UK, Innerchanging Europe.