Rishi Sunak has averted catastrophic damage to his authority as Prime Minister after his controversial plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda passed its first major legislative hurdle despite dozens of Tory MPs refusing to back his proposals.

Amid fears within his administration that a potential rebellion could see the Safety of Rwanda Bill defeated at its first hurdle in the Commons, the Prime Minister has come away with a comfortable working majority.

MPs approved the Bill at second reading by 313 votes to 269 on Tuesday, giving the UK Government a comfortable winning majority of 44.

Not a single Conservative MP voted against the plans.

But dozens of right-wing Tory MPs refused to support the legislation and abstained from the vote, with the understanding that they could add amendments to the proposals at the next stage of the process.

The groups of right-wing Tories have enough numbers that if they voted against the legislation, it would be defeated.

Writing on X, formally known as Twitter, Mr Sunak said: “The British people should decide who gets to come to this country – not criminal gangs or foreign courts.

“That’s what this Bill delivers.

“We will now work to make it law so that we can get flights going to Rwanda and stop the boats.”

Earlier in the Commons, Home Secretary James Cleverly said: “The actions that we are taking, whilst novel, whilst very much pushing at the edge of the envelope, are within the framework of international law.

“The Prime Minister has been crystal clear that he, and the Government that he leads, will not let foreign courts destroy this Rwanda plan and curtail our efforts to break the business model of those evil people-smuggling gangs.”

But it was actually the UK Supreme Court which scuppered the plan to send some asylum seekers who cross the English Channel to Rwanda rather than allowing them to attempt to stay in the UK.

The court ruled against the scheme, but the new legislation and a treaty with Rwanda are intended to make it legally watertight.

But groups on the Tory right want it to go further, potentially overriding the European Convention on Human Rights to remove the possibility of Strasbourg judges blocking the removal of people to Rwanda.

Backing the legislation would mean MPs would deem Rwanda a safe country, despite the Supreme Court taking the opposing view.

Before the vote, right-wing Conservative MPs announced they would not be backing Mr Sunak’s emergency Rwanda legislation – with the “bulk” of them abstaining.

Tories from the European Research Group (ERG) and four other factions met in a Parliamentary committee room to decide on whether to support the Prime Minister’s Safety of Rwanda Bill at second reading.

After the meeting, Mark Francois, speaking on behalf of what has been dubbed the “five families”, said each separate group had decided they could not support the draft legislation.

Asked by reporters what that meant for Tuesday’s crunch vote, Mr Francois said: “We are not supporting the Bill. The bulk of us will abstain.”

Mr Francois said: “We had a very well-attended meeting, we had a very constructive discussion – all colleagues were heard with respect.

“Everyone’s point of view was given due weight and consideration.

“As a result of that, we have decided collectively that we cannot support the Bill tonight because of its many omissions, therefore while it’s down to every individual colleague ultimately to decide what to do, collectively we will not be supporting it.”

He added: “The Prime Minister has been telling colleagues today he is prepared to entertain tightening the Bill, with that aim, at the committee stage, we will aim to table an amendment which would we hope, if accepted, would materially improve the Bill and remove some of its weaknesses.

“For want of a better phrase, you might want to call it the (Sir Bill) Cash amendment, because he’ll undoubtedly be helping to draft it.

“We very much hope those amendments will be accepted – if they are not and the Bill remains unamended, in that way again, collectively, we reserve the right to vote against it at third reading, that is collectively what we have decided.”

The SNP’s Home Affairs spokesperson, Alison Thewliss, said: “This cruel Westminster Bill, which ignores the Supreme Court ruling and breaches international law, was not passed in Scotland’s name.

“It in no way reflects Scotland’s values of compassion, humanity and upholding international law. Nor does it take into account that migration benefits Scotland’s economy and our public services.

“That is why SNP MPs voted against it and tabled an amendment to try to stop the Bill in its tracks.”

She added: “It is depressing that as the Westminster cost of living crisis continues, and people across these isles struggle to put food on the table and heat their homes, the Westminster government has spent days fighting amongst themselves on a Bill that will punish those fleeing to the UK from war and persecution, at great expense to UK taxpayers.

“Westminster doesn’t work for Scotland, and it doesn’t understand our priorities. Decisions that impact Scotland should be made in Scotland, by those who live in Scotland.”