Former home secretary Suella Braverman has intervened in the Commons to blast the Windsor Framework.

She summarised the court ruling as saying the framework "must be read to mean that Northern Ireland is effectively to be treated as part of the European Union".

"I believed the assurances made to me at the time," she said, presumably in reference to Downing Street, although she did not say.

"But isn't it now patently clear that the Windsor Framework has operated in a way to undermine our sovereignty, to undermine Northern Ireland's place within the United Kingdom?"

She added that Rishi Sunak's flagship agreement with the EU has "fundamentally failed upon its first contact with reality".

Legal migration minister Tom Pursglove responded by repeating that the government intends, and reiterated that "immigration is a reserve matter and there should be consistent application across the UK".

Labour's Stephen Kinnock has had his say on the Belfast High Court ruling that provisions of the government's flagship illegal migration legislation - which created powers to send asylum seekers to Rwanda - should be disapplied in Northern Ireland (more here).

The shadow immigration minister said it "truly beggars belief" the bill appears to have left Northern Ireland "with immigration rules that are different to the rest of the UK".

He questioned why the government chose to "ignore" warnings from MPs that this could happen (see previous post).

Mr Kinnock went on to say that Labour is committed to the Good Friday Agreement and the Windsor Framework "in full", and accused the government of being "more committed to its failing Illegal Migration Act".

More broadly, he argued all pieces of government legislation to tackle immigration are "completely failing on their own terms".

"It has been a shambles from start to finish," he declared.

He called on the minister to "stop flogging this dead horse of a Rwanda policy and instead to adopt Labour's pragmatic plan to stop the Tories' small boats chaos and fix our broken asylum system".

Labour has 'no credible plan'

In response, legal migration minister Tom Pursglove said: "Same week, different rant, and week on week we hear the same rant about the opposition's position on these issues."

He said Labour has "no credible plan" to stop small boats crossings, and rejected Mr Kinnock's "characterisation of the situation".

He went on: "We are committed to upholding our legal obligations. But the Safety of Rwanda Act does not engage the Good Friday Agreement."

He said while the government has "thousands of officials" working on this issue, Labour's policy would mean a "migrant amnesty".

The DUP's Gavin Robinson - who tabled the urgent question about the Illegal Migration Act - has just given his response to the minister's statement in the Commons (see previous post).

The High Court in Belfast ordered yesterday that provisions of the flagship legislation - which created powers to send asylum seekers to Rwanda - should be disapplied in Northern Ireland (more here).

The judge found several elements of the Illegal Immigration Act cause a "significant" reduction of the rights enjoyed by asylum seekers in Northern Ireland under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.

Mr Robinson said they "need not be here" in the chamber.

He told the House: "When I and my colleagues raised concerns [about the Illegal Migration Act and the Rwanda bill] here in parliament, we were told by the government we were wrong.

"And yet the High Court yesterday in Belfast said we were right."

He said the government "chose to dismiss the concerns that we outlined", and "had an opportunity to put this issue beyond doubt".

As a result, he accused ministers of having "significantly impaired the uniformity of the UK's immigration policy".

Government to appeal

In response, legal migration minister Tom Pursglove said the government is "considering... the judgment very carefully".

But he reiterated the government's intention to appeal.

"We've consistently made clear that the rights commitments in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement should be interpreted as they were always intended, and not expanded to cover reserved issues like illegal migration," he said.

He concludes by saying that the Rwanda legislation passed last month asserts the "sovereign will" of parliament that should be respected.

Tom Pursglove, minister for legal migration has just spoken in  the Commons about the government's Illegal Migration Act.

The High Court in Belfast ordered yesterday that provisions of the flagship legislation - which created powers to send asylum seekers to Rwanda - should be disapplied in Northern Ireland (more here).

Here are the key points of what he said (this post was updated live):

• Mr Purglove opens by expressing the government's "disappointment" at the ruling;
• He says the governments believes the policy is "lawful", "compatible with international law", and also compatible with international law;
• "The government will take all steps to defend its position, including through and appeal," he says;
• He says the ruling does not impact on the government's plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, adding: "Nothing will distract us from that".

As we reported yesterday, the High Court in Belfast ordered that provisions of the UK's Illegal Migration Act - which created powers to send asylum seekers to Rwanda - should be disapplied in Northern Ireland.

It ordered the "disapplication" of sections of the act as they undermine human rights protections guaranteed in the region under post-Brexit arrangements.

The DUP's Gavin Robinson tabled an urgent question asking if the home secretary will make a statement on the matter.

However, legal migration minister Tom Pursglove is taking questions, rather than James Cleverly.

Watch the session in the Commons live in the stream above, and follow updates here in the Politics Hub.

Michelle O'Neill faced fierce criticism for attending the funeral of IRA leader Bobby Storey during the global pandemic.

With thousands lining the route, the then deputy first minister had breached the power-sharing government's own COVID restrictions.

At the time, Ms O'Neill, who is deputy leader of Sinn Fein, said she would "never apologise for attending the funeral of a friend".

Four years later, and sorry no longer seems to be the hardest word for Northern Ireland's first minister.

She asked if she could address bereaved relatives directly, but was told she was there to give evidence.

Not once, but twice, the first minister said she was "sorry" - "sorry from the bottom of my heart".

During the pandemic, Unionists preferred to take their lead from Westminster, but Nationalists looked to the Irish government.

But Ms Neill told the inquiry she "absolutely refutes" any suggestion she was playing politics during the pandemic.

As we reported, three men have been charged with offences under the National Security Act, including assisting Hong Kong's intelligence service and foreign interference (more here).

It has been reported that one of the men charged previously served in the Royal Marines, and Defence Secretary Grant Shapps was asked if he is concerned about vetting in the navy.

As legal proceedings are under way, Mr Shapps would not comment on this case.

But more broadly, he said vetting is "incredibly important" and we "have to recognise" that the threat comes not just from conventional warfare, but from spying and cyber attacks.

But he notes that the three men were charged under the new National Security Act, which Mr Shapps says "is actually a sign that the law we passed is working to do the thing we said it was supposed to do".

But he added that vetting processes will "always be kept under review".

Grant Shapps is next asked if he would be happy for British weapons provided to Ukraine to be used on Russian mainland territory.

The defence secretary reiterated the UK's complete support for Ukraine, saying Russia winning would be "unimaginable and unacceptable".

He said: "I've heard repeatedly, including said to me by [Ukraine's] President Zelenskyy, which is that without Britain, they wonder whether they would still have been in this war at all."

He listed the UK's commitments to Ukraine, and criticised the world for having taken its "eye off the ball" recently.

"The amount of time it's taken to get the rest of the funding through has directly led to the position we see in Kharkiv today," he said, with Russia launching a fresh invasion.

He added that he does not think the situation is "fatal", however, and said it is "an important lesson to the world not to lose attention about Ukraine".

It comes after the US Congress spent several months wrangling over new funding for Ukraine's war effort, as the move faced staunch opposition from Trump-aligned Republicans.

Specifically on whether he would be comfortable with Ukraine using weapons in mainland Russia, Mr Shapps refused to answer the question specifically.

But he added: "We will always only allow our weaponry to be used in full compliance with international humanitarian law in Ukraine and elsewhere."

The situation in Kharkiv has been described as "dire" - follow the latest in our dedicated Ukraine live blog:

The defence secretary is now taking questions from journalists, and he was asked firstly if the UK has enough sailors to crew the new ships he is commissioning.

Grant Shapps replied that having seen the new ship designs, he learned "they all require fewer people to run them".

On current amphibious ships, a crew of around 400 would be needed, but modern ones require "far smaller crews".

But on the broader question of recruitment of navy personnel, he said it is "absolutely essential" that more people are trained and brought in.

"It may be because the Royal Navy's seen action in the last few months that applications have gone through the roof - at an eight-year high," he added.