We'll be closing our live coverage shortly, thanks for joining us.

Let's have a quick look at what happened today:

• The High Court has concluded that the UK's government plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda is lawful
• But judges have also said that eight individuals who were due to be deported on the first Rwanda flight need to have their cases reconsidered
• An appeal is expected from the losing side - which is made up of migrant charities, individual asylum seekers and a union representing most Border Force staff
• Several charities and campaigners have criticised the High Court's ruling and urged the government to "rethink" the policy
• No 10 has said the government is "ready to defend against any further legal challenges". It has added that at this stage it would not be fair to give a timeframe on when flights to Rwanda might take off
• UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has said he is "pleased" about the ruling. He added that sending illegal arrivals to a safe country was "common sense"
• The High Court's decision has been debated in the House of Commons. Opposition MPs criticised the government's plan and questioned the cost of the scheme
• Labour's shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper has said instead of "sorting out problems" with the asylum system, the government has put forward "an unworkable, unethical, extremely expensive Rwanda plan which risks making trafficking worse”
• Home Secretary Suella Braverman has defended the scheme and said the Home Office "won", after the court looked at various legal grounds
• She has told the Commons that Rwanda is not a punishment but a "humane and practical alternative" for those who come to the UK through "dangerous and illegal routes”

Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent

Will there be a day when flights depart, as the home secretary says she dreams?

Appeals on the High Court's ruling are almost inevitable, and it could be months before they are dealt with. There could then be a further challenge in the Supreme Court, if there's a major dispute about what a particular point of law means.

And then - individual migrants earmarked for a flight could try to petition the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. That’s assuming the judgement’s ruling that more care needs to be taken on each case doesn't add even more delays.

So the government is not putting a timescale on flight for good reason. It's currently winning on the principle of the law - but can it really put its policy into action before the next general election?

The government plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda "risks making trafficking worse", the shadow home secretary has said.

Speaking in the Commons after the government won a High Court case, Yvette Cooper said the government had failed to stop gangs putting lives at risk, and had failed to prosecute them.

The government was effectively given the "green light" over its Rwanda scheme earlier, after the High Court ruled that this plan was lawful, immigration lawyer Harjap Bhangal tells the BBC.

But, speaking to Radio 5 Live's ’s Naga Munchetty, he says he doesn’t believe the government’s plans will stop people from coming into the UK illegally.

“Sending 200 people - let alone 500 people a year - is not a deterrent to the numbers that are coming over,” he remarks.

Bhangal goes on to raise concerns over sending people to Rwanda in particular, citing previous conflict in the country and adding that "it’s not as stable as people think".

He adds: “Until human rights organisations give it the go-ahead, it might be deemed not to be as safe as the UK government or Rwandan government makes out."

Ministers and MPs in Parliament have been making references to illegal arrivals. But who exactly is an illegal immigrant?

The government's Nationality and Borders Act, which became law in April, made it illegal for migrants to knowingly arrive in the UK without a visa or special permission.

But that doesn't mean those people don't have asylum claims.

Almost all of the people arriving on small boats crossing the Channel claim asylum. From October 2021 to the end of August 2022, 90% of arrivals applied for government protection.

Of the 7,805 small boat arrivals who've received an initial decision since 2018, 53% were granted asylum or another type of leave to remain. The rest were refused.

More on numbers and the asylum system here.

Image source, James Manning/PA Wire

While we await new comments from the House of Commons on the High Court ruling, let's dig into the price of the government's Rwanda asylum scheme.

Costs would include flights to Rwanda, food, accommodation, access to translators and legal advice.

Removing people from the UK by charter flight cost more than £13,000 per person in 2020.

When the policy was announced, former Home Office Minister Tom Pursglove said there would be a £120m upfront payment to Rwanda, to be followed by further payments as it handled more cases.

He said the cost would be "similar to the amount of money we are spending on this currently", and that "longer term, by getting this under control, it should help us to save money".

The UK's asylum system costs £1.5bn a year.

More than £4.7m a day is spent on hotel accommodation for refugees and asylum seekers.

Critics say the daily cost is so high because of the time taken to decide on applications, and a ban on asylum seekers working while waiting for confirmation of their status.

Image source, UK PARLIAMENT

The debate in the House of Commons over the High Court's ruling has just come to and end.

Let's look at the main points MPs from different parties made:

• Labour's shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said the government has put forward "an unworkable, unethical, extremely expensive Rwanda plan which risks making trafficking worse” instead of "sorting out problems" with the asylum system
• Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats questioned the cost of the scheme, with Labour MP Kevan Jones calling on the home secretary to publish "all the costs"
• SNP spokesperson Alison Thewliss also criticised the plan, describing it as "state-sponsored people trafficking"
• Liberal Democract MP Christine Jardine said the government should be focusing on stopping Channel crossings and tackling smuggling gangs, as well as providing more safe and legal routes for asylum seekers

• Addressing the questions about the cost of the plans, Home Secretary Suella Braverman says the scheme is a "long-term policy" and costs will ultimately depend on the total numbers relocated
• Braverman tells MPs the scheme is not a "punishment" but a "humane and practical alternative" for those who come to the UK through "dangerous and illegal routes”

Image source, UK Parliament

Green MP Caroline Lucas argues the "vile" Rwanda policy will not act as a deterrent because expulsion is supposed to happen rapidly and automatically for anyone without prior permission to come to the UK.

But she says the High Court judgement found each individual case must be assessed first so the process cannot be rapid or automatic.

Lucas asks the government to put an end "to this useless cruelty" and provide safe and legal routes for refugees to reach the UK, which function effectively.

In response, Braverman says "we will do whatever it takes to make progress on stopping illegal migration" and bring an end to Channel crossings.

Labour's Hilary Benn asks whether families will be split up if someone arrives in the UK to claim asylum in order to join a child, spouse or elderly parent.

He asks for reassurance that the individual would not be sent to Rwanda.

Braverman says anybody arriving in the UK "irregularly" will be eligible for consideration, but "we have excluded families from the scheme".

Decisions on who is sent to Rwanda will be made on a "lawful and rational basis", taking into account "individual merits", she says.

Thanks for joining our live coverage. We're continuing to bring you the latest from the House of Commons after the High Court ruled earlier that the government's Rwanda asylum plan was lawful.

Liberal Democrat MP Christine Jardine says the plan is "immoral, ineffective and incredibly costly for taxpayers".

She says the government should be focusing on stopping Channel crossings and tackling smuggling gangs, as well as providing more safe and legal routes for asylum seekers.

Jardine adds that ministers should deal with the issue "at source" - not after people arrive in the UK - so people are never put in a position in which they take the dangerous route across the Channel.

Suella Braverman argues that the UK cannot have an open border policy, with unlimited capacity for everyone to come into the country.

The home secretary adds that the government has to take "a pragmatic, measured and compassionate approach".

Natalie Elphicke, the Conservative MP for Dover, says she is saddened that after the recent events neither Labour's shadow home secretary nor the SNP "are prepared to say that people should not be getting into these boats in the first place".

As we've reported, at least four people died in the English Channel earlier this month when a boat carrying more than 40 migrants started sinking.

Speaking in the Commons, Elphicke says: "Isn't it even better than [the] Rwanda [scheme] that people stay safe on land in France and do not take these crossings in the first place?"

In her response, Braverman says people should not be "crossing through other safe countries" and they should not be choosing "to come to the United Kingdom via these means".

"And the sooner that we are able to deliver a policy that reflects that the better," she adds.

Labour MP Kevan Jones raises a question about how much the Rwanda policy is costing. He says £140m has been spent so far, but not a single individual has been removed.

He then challenges the home secretary to publish "all the costs" of the scheme, asking: "Is it a good use of taxpayers' money, or simply a way of fulfilling one of her weird dreams?"

That's a reference to Braverman's earlier comments that it was her "dream" to see a Rwanda flight depart before Christmas.

Braverman tells Jones the scheme is a "long-term policy" expected to last for at least five years - and that costs will ultimately depend on the total numbers relocated. The government has been held up by "litigation", she says, but once that's over, the scheme will deliver "value for money".

SNP spokesperson Alison Thewliss says it's a "dark day" - describing the Rwanda plan as "state-sponsored people trafficking".

"Slavery, apartheid and marital rape were all lawful at one time, but none of them were right," she tells MPs.

But Braverman says Thewliss's "ideological zeal is blinding and preventing her from taking a rational approach".

She says she's proud that the UK has "welcomed 450,000 people through safe and legal routes to this country since 2015".

"I don't think anyone can claim that we aren't forward-leaning in all of this," Braverman says, accusing the SNP of standing for "open borders and uncontrolled migration".

Braverman stresses that the court concluded that the government's plan is "lawful".

She says the High Court's judgement is a "comprehensive analysis of the reasons why".

The home secretary tells the Commons the Home Office "won", after the court looked at various aspects and legal grounds.

"We have been clear throughout that no-one will be relocated if it is unsafe for them," she adds.

Yvette Cooper goes on to ask how many people are expected to be sent to Rwanda next year and how much the policy will cost per person.

Labour's shadow home secretary accuses the government of failing to tackle the criminal gangs behind Channel crossings.

Instead of the Rwanda policy, Cooper says the government should be using the investment to go after these gangs.

She says the government is "chasing headlines" and "ramping up the rhetoric" - claiming these are "damaging distractions" from work to tackle people-smuggling gangs and sort out the asylum system.

Labour's shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper says instead of "sorting out problems" with the asylum system, the government has put forward "an unworkable, unethical, extremely expensive Rwanda plan which risks making trafficking worse”.

She says the High Court's judgement on the plan sets out evidence of "serious problems" in Home Office's decision-making.

She adds that there is no evidence the scheme will act as a deterrent or address the serious problems facing the country.

Cooper suggests ministers seem to have effectively decided they are so "incapable" of getting a grip on the asylum system they "want to pay a country halfway across the world to take those decisions for us."

The home secretary goes through the High Court's ruling that the Rwanda scheme is legal - and in line with the UN's Refugee Convention and UK human rights obligations.

"This judgement thoroughly vindicates the Rwanda partnership," she insists.

Suella Braverman adds that she's spoken to Rwandan minister Vincent Biruta to confirm they'll deliver the scheme "at scale, as soon as possible".

She says it's what the "overwhelming majority of the British people want to see happen".

Home Secretary Suella Braverman tells the House of Commons that being relocated to Rwanda "is not a punishment".

She defends the government's plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda, saying it is a "humane and practical alternative" for those who come to the UK through "dangerous and illegal routes”.

Braverman says "we need to break the business model of people-smuggling gangs", whose trade in "human cargo is evil and lethal".

She says the "global migration crisis" requires international solutions.

The UK's "ground-breaking partnership with Rwanda" means those who have come to the UK via dangerous, illegal and unnecessary means can be relocated, she adds.

Home Secretary Suella Braverman is speaking again in the Commons - making a statement about the Rwanda scheme.

She says Britons "support controlled migration" - as shown by the fact many of them have opened their homes to refugees.

But, she says, "they do not want open borders".

Braverman adds: "We cannot tolerate people coming here illegally."