killing 10 and injuring 15 more. officials say the incident was deliberate, but there are no wider national security implications. the suspected driver, who's been arrested, has been named as 25—year—old alek minassian. the french president, emmanuel macron, has arrived at the white house at the start of a 3—day state visit to the us. he's set for talks with president trump on trade, syria and the iran nuclear deal. he's the first foreign leader to make a state visit to the us since donald trump came to power. well—wishers have joined the duke and duchess of cambridge in celebrating the arrival of their third child. he's a healthy baby boy, fifth in line to the throne, after prince charles and william, and his older siblings prince george and princess charlotte. a kensington palace statement says both the duchess and her baby are doing well. you are up—to—date with the headlines. now on bbc news, monday in parliament. hello and welcome to the programme.

coming up: the home secretary announces a concession for the windrush migrants. i want to enable the windrush generation to acquire the status that they deserve — british citizenship. but is it enough to satisfy her critics? when she says that people can apply for citizenship if they want it, does she understand that that citizenship was theirs all along? also on the programme, a pilot scheme for voter identification doesn't go down well. may i say that the minister is making a pretty poorjob of this? and worrying evidence on the state of cyber security in the uk. that is quite a big statement that we don't have enough people in the uk to keep the uk safe.

i think there is recognition of that. but first, thousands of people from commonwealth countries who arrived in the united kingdom before 1973 will be given free uk citizenship if they want it. the home secretary made the offer as she attempted to draw a line under the scandal about the way members of the windrush generation have been treated. but several opposition mps were not impressed and called for her head. amber rudd told the commons that the windrush migrants had been caught up in measures designed to crack down on illegal immigration. but these steps intended to combat illegal migration have had an unintended and sometimes devastating impact on people from the windrush generation who are here legally, but have struggled to get the documentation to prove their status. this is a failure by successive governments to ensure these individuals have the documentation they need, and this is why we must

urgently put it right. the home secretary said she'd be waiving citizenship fees and language tests. she'd also provide compensation for those who'd been disadvantaged. so i want to enable the windrush generation to acquire the status that they deserve, british citizenship, quickly, at no cost, and with proactive assistance through the process. she said her department would take a new approach. the home office is a great department of state. it works tirelessly to keep us safe and protect us. it takes millions of decisions each year that profoundly affects people's lives and, for the most part, it gets these right. but recent events have shown that we need to give a human face to how we work and exercise greater judgement where and when it is justified. but amber rudd's opposite number

said the situation had been foreseeable. the home secretary must understand how upset communities are about what has happened to this generation, and they feel it reflects something about the way this government regards the entire community, and absolutely... in closing, people are saying "rubbish". people are saying "rubbish". let me say this. my parents, brothers and sisters and cousins largely worked in the national health service, in factories and in london transport. i remember one of my uncles saying to me that he had never missed a day off work. this was a generation with unparalleled commitment to this country, unparalleled pride in being british, unparalleled commitment to hard work and contributing to society, and it is shameful

that this government has treated this generation in this way. when she says that people can apply for citizenship if they want it, does she understand that that citizenship was theirs all along? and we, as west indian and caribbean have given so much over so many hundreds of years. the time has come for this home secretary to bite the bullet. will she emerge from the shadow of the prime minister and scrap her predecessor's hostile environment policy and will she scrap her predecessor's unrealistic immigration targets and instead commit to an ethical, evidence—based emigration policy, or, if as a member of the current government, she feels unable to do that, we'll see stop acting as a human shield for the prime minister, have the decency to resign and go to the backbenches

and fight against these disgraceful immigration policies, which are bringing these islands into disrepute across the world. but a conservative didn't want the government to lose sight of its policy on people here illegally. my constituents in kettering, whilst recognising the value of the windrush generation 100%, do what the government to crack down as hard as it can on illegal immigration, and can she assure me that she won't take our eye off the ball when it comes to tackling illegal immigration to this country? the home secretary said it was important to make the distinction and to tackle illegal immigration robustly. several labour mps were keen to hear about the compensation being offered to windrush migrants. it's estimated that 50,000 people, a relatively small number, are caught in this indignity, incompetent

it'll be all right on the night policy and, when she commit to reimbursing fully to find these people? can home secretary confirm that compensation will be paid for loss of income, loss of benefits, legal fees, home office application fees, airfares, emotional distress and any other costs that have arisen from this debacle? amber rudd said she was setting up a compensation scheme and would be consulting on what it should cover. the chair of the home affairs committee was concerned about the home office's attitude. there is a real and widespread concern that there is a culture of disbelief in the home office, the changes to the burden of proof have been created by the government's net migration target and the desire to get as many people to leave as possible. will she remove all that concerned by saying now that she will get rid of the net migration target, as the select committee has advised?

amber rudd replied that she wouldn't talk about net migration targets "at the moment." her statement received support from the conservative side. any attempt to lay any of this at the door of the current home secretary is plainly absurd. it isjust ridiculous. but some on the opposition benches begged to differ. does she not really think the honourable thing to do given what has been discovered on her watch and what has been unleashed is for her to consider her position and to resign? it's astonishing to me that faced with one of the largest scandals we have seen in the way that a specific group of british citizens have been treated by her department, that she hasn't seen fit to take proper responsibility and resign, so we'll see now tell us, in the light of her failure to resign, what on earth is her concept of ministerial responsibility?

it is my committed intent to make sure that i put this right. i believe that the measures that i've set out today will address that, but i will make sure that it remains a priority and that, i believe, is what people would expect of me as a minister. amber rudd. down the corridor in the lords, peers were causing more trouble for the government on the issue of brexit. their lordships inflicted further defeats on the eu withdrawal bill — the legislation designed to stop britain ending up in legal limbo at the time of brexit by moving eu law into uk law. last week, the issue was a customs union. this time, peers from across the parties combined to support a move that would mean the european charter of fundamental rights staying in place after brexit. the exclusion of the charter conflicts with the central purpose of this bill, to read across eu law rights as an exit date

to ensure continuity and to avoid legal uncertainty. but another independent peer said keeping the charter would mean the uk remaining under the scope of the european court ofjustice, or ecj. there would be more uncertainty if it's retained, defending against the rule of law. this is because the retention of the charter would be a trojan horse with a tapeworm in its intestines, because its interpretation would depend on the ongoing, neverending, twisting and turning judgements of the ec]. my lords, for years, legal writers are pointed out the shortcomings of the ec]. if we have this charter as part of our law in the future, it will make very little sense. who is going to interpret the charter? of course, the european court of justice, with all the shortcomings

pointed out by the thoroughness. my lords, this would be a great mistake. this would be a response to the point made by the noble lord, lord pannick, why should the charter be the only element which is left out? as one commentator has said, a professor, taking the charter out of the case law is like trying to take an egg out of the envelope. one of the fundamental aspects of this charter is that it professes to give rights to set aside acts of parliament when they are in breach of these particular responsibilities, and my lords, in my submission, it has been a fundamental part of our constitution for many, many years that acts of parliament cannot be set aside by the judiciary. a labour peer said the charter was needed because it contained many important rights. the inviolability of human dignity,

the non—discrimination, the right to be forgotten, the rights of the elderly, data protection and so on. ministers have argued, and others too, that it's not necessarily to reaffirm the rights in the charter. i ask simply, why not? why not reaffirm rights? we need reassurances for our rights and their protections, now, more than ever. my lords, we don't need this charter. we, in this great british parliament, set the benchmark for human rights, and certainly not the ec]. another labour peer wondered what the objection was in the charter. is it indeed an ideological reason? is it not wanting to see something, which has got the words "eu" attached to it?

is that the reason for it? or is it, which would be even more sinister and would worry me anonymously that there is an unhappiness, a suspicion, about fundamental rights? because if there's any element at all that what lies behind this is a suspicion about fundamental rights, a suspicion that people should not be able to exercise those rights, then that would be deeply, deeply, deeply unsatisfactory. my lords, we need to wake up to why the charter, in its present form, does not sit with our future constitutional settlement after we leave the eu, and why it does not fit with the body of retaining the eu law that is referred to in the bill. but a few minutes later, peers rejected the government's view and voted to keep the charter of fundamental rights in force after brexit. the bill will have to go back to the commons where mps will either accept or reject the decision of peers. and later in the day,

the government suffered more defeats on the bill's measures. you're watching monday in parliament with me, mandy baker. if you want to catch up with all the news from westminster on the go, don't forget our sister programme, today in parliament, is available as a download via the bbc radio 4 website. labour has criticised the government's decision to try out voter identification schemes in five areas at the local elections in england next week. at the moment, voters don't have to prove who they are when they arrive at a polling station, but under the pilot schemes, electors will be required to produce id — for example, passports or bank cards. the government says it's part of its investigation into ways to combat electoral fraud. in the commons, labour secured an urgent question on the trials. the party accused ministers of trying to suppress votes. this we already ask that people prove who they are in order to claim we already ask that people prove who they are in order to claim benefits or rent a car or even collect a parcel

from the post—office, so this is a proportionate and reasonable approach. democracy is precious and we believe it is right to take that more robust approach to protect the integrity of the electoral process. nobody will need to buy identification documents to be able to vote and the id requirements will not be limited to a passport or a driving licence. in these pilots, voters can use a wide variety of id, from marriage certificates and passports to bus passes and bank cards, depending on where they live. and if voters do not have the required id, local authorities are providing alternative or replacement methods to ensure no one is disenfranchised. the equality and human rights commission has written to ministers about the trials. the commission warned that id requirements will have a disproportionate impact on ethnic minority communities, older people, trans people who may not have id in the right gender or name, and people

with disabilities, and that some voters will be disenfranchised as a result. the windrush scandal has demonstrated it is difficult for some communities to provide official papers, which could prevent legitimate voters from taking part in our democratic process, which we all value. it's the same hostile environment that shuts fellow citizens out of public life. this voter id pilot is nothing more than an expansion of a hostile environment, it is windrush part two. the commission on human rights have said this will affect people with protected characteristics disproportionately. it will affetc older people, transgender people, people with disabilities both physical and non—physical disabilities, and ethnic minorities. this is an absolutely ridiculous situation and we have a sledgehammer from the government to crack a nut. these pilots do something people would regard as proportionate and reasonable by using routine,

everyday identification we already use in everyday life. you would use id to be able to apply for benefits or do a range of other things under government services. may i say the minister is making a poorjob of defending the indefensible. isn't it the case that what she is actually setting out to date isn't only a huge hammer to crack a nut but actually a disguise, a blatant attempt at voter suppression? absolutely. it is very difficult indeed for those already to vote, many of whom come to visit me in my surgery and cannot prove their identity to access benefits. she wants to take their democratic rights off them. i am proud to have been cited for one of the pilots in swindon and despite the heckling and scaremongering from the other

side, not all hope is lost with the labour party as only last week the north swindon labour party used the same voter id scheme for the selection of my latest parliamentary opponent. mr speaker, i think it is a lesson in doing what you say and saying what you do. chloe smith. now, the outsourcing company capita has come in for strong criticism during defence questions. the firm has a contract for army recruitment. it also operates the london congestion charge and electronic tagging for the ministry of defence. capita announced that it had made a loss of £531 million last year. a conservative former defence minister said things were not going well. capita's performance on the army recruiting contract has been distinctly sub optimal. laughter such that throughout the army they are now almost universally known by the unfortunate

nickname of crapita. given the company's £500 million loss of the country this morning, and given they have debts of £1.7 billion, and given they are rumoured to be preparing a £700 million rights issue, what assurance can the minister give the house that we have a plan b in place in case they were unfortunately to go the way of other things? can i start by thanking my right honourable friend, not least for his report filling the ranks, which made a major contribution in addressing some of the issues we have faced over recruitment, some of which are beyond the realms of any contract with capita, but are as a result of the changing dynamics of british population. i except the broader point there have been challenges within this contract and if he is asking me if i am

confident we have a business continuity case things go absolutely right, which i don't think they will, then yes. a labour mp also referred to capita's £500 million loss. that comes as no surprise when we look at the mess they are making of the recruitment project, and that is actually not a channel for recruitment but a logjam against recruitment. huge delays, many people losing interest in the meantime, and we must admit this contract has failed and it is time to bring it back in—house. speaker: minister. i don't accept that. i've looked at this incredibly carefully and met with the chief executive of capita now on several occasions and indeed i am convinced we continue to work very closely with capita and they are investing large amount of money. there have been challenges, no doubt, with the introduction of the new defence recruiting system, and the manual workarounds have worked. i have seen first—hand how most issues have been addressed and i'm

confident that in future months we will move forward this contract. the defence minister, mark lancaster. now here's a question for you, how can essential public services like gas, electricity and banking be protected if there's a cyberattack? last week the national cyber security centre, the fbi and the us government's department of homeland security issued an unprecedented statement about "malicious cyber activity" said to be carried out by the russian government. a joint committee of mps and peers wanted to find out from regulators what was behind that alert. this puzzles me, i have to say. here we have these three major organisations producing a significant alert, but you said it was not terribly new because you knew that already and your companies have presumably done different in the week meanwhile. it strikes me as being awed, and leads me to wonder whether there is a connection with salisbury or syria or it is all part of a national ramping up with russia or... what is it?

it seems a peculiar routine announcement by these organisations... 0r, nothing to worry about, go on, chaps? that advice goes direct to the companies today. it is not the role of 0fgem now to interpret that butjust i observed that clearly a public announcement was made in a way that suggests that the companies are responding to it. of the networks and organisations you've overseen, of them, what particular vulnerability keeps you awake at night, and what would you see as assuming there was a successful cyber attack on a particular organisation or asset which comes within your remit, which of those... what sort of a case would have the maximum damage? from my perspective,

i think we have seen the case in ukraine already where we have seen what happens when this goes wrong. in terms of a worst—case scenario, we're talking about a serious supply incident, and the sort of figures you get to quickly are very high in terms of the impact of the economy. in terms of specifically what keeps me awake or concerns me, it is more the fast paced nature of this. once you understand the risk, you must have a chance with dealing with this. is there something we don't know about that does exist? in my sector, the risk that a widespread failure of communications networks could have a knock—on impact to many other areas of the economy well beyond the communications sector. basic systems and controls are to a large extent the source of many of the vulnerabilities, so if firms were to improve password control and other things like that, we would see a large proportion of these vulnerabilities produced quite significantly.

what they are definitely keeping me awake at night is shared infrastructure or software. i would imagine a challenge around all this is the skills shortage you have alluded to. anything you want add about... we know there is a problem, but how are you addressing it and how do you frame it in what you are trying to do? from a perspective, particularly as we are setting up this, it is our principal challenge probably. one thing is a general shortage of people, and therefore you must be thoughtful about the resources you need any must be thoughtful about the functioning of this sector, so off gem are trying to learn and do everything... and secondly you must be flexible about pay, because people demand a huge amount in the market and they need to make sure they get the right skills in place. it might be we have to develop a pipeline of recent graduates,

getting people who perhaps don't have the same level of experience, but that you might see in private sector appointments, that you can't develop. i think there are things you can do, but it is difficult and it is a sector wide problem. thank you. a big statement that we don't have enough people in the uk to keep the uk safe. there is a common recognition of that. a worrying conclusion from the joint committee. finally, just in case you haven't heard, there's a new addition to the royal family. there was fevered excitement outside a london hospital as the duchess of cambridge emerged carrying the little bundle. the boy will be fifth in line to the throne and the queen's sixth great—grandchild. well, not long after the new baby was welcomed into the world the news was relayed almost simultaneously to both house of parliament, giving politicians the chance for a bit of hear—hearing. opening of the day in commons, the commons speaker rattled through it.

i'm sure that the whole house would want tojoin me in sending their royal highnesses, the duke and duchess of cambridge, our warmest congratulations on the birth of their son. lord fowler was a little bit more ponderous. i'm sure that all sides of the house willjoin me in congratulating their royal highnesses on this most happy of occasions. all: hear, hear! and that happy note brings us to the end of the programme. so, from me, mandy baker, goodbye. well, this week the weather's going to go pretty much back to normal. it's only compared to what we had last week, with that heatwave, and those temperatures in the high 20s for some of us.

this week it's going to change a little bit more, from sunny spells to darker clouds. it will remain very fresh. in fact, the indication is that, as we head through the week, the temperatures will keep on dropping. it could turn really chilly by the weekend, and the nights will be nippy as well. now, there's a lot of cloud out there in the atlantic which is ready to come our way, lots of showers, too. this is cool air, it's streaming in, and it's here to stay for the next few days. so, for the early hours of tuesday morning, a lot of cloud across southern areas. that actually is going to stop the temperatures from dropping too low. we're talking about 10—12 degrees across the south. in the north, where clear spells develop, around about seven or eight degrees, six there in the very far north. tuesday itself is going to be a bit of a mixed bag across the uk, there will be some sunshine around for sure, but also a lot of cloud and rain later in the morning,

spilling into parts of wales. that rain will probably move across this central swathe of the uk, probably a little bit in the midlands, quite possibly some across yorkshire, certainly moving through wales as well. in the north of the country, we'll have a mixture of sunshine and showers, particularly across scotland, and there'll be some showers across northern ireland as well, and cool in the north, 12 degrees. typically in the south, we're going to get around 15 celsius. and then tuesday night into wednesday, that weather system moves away. in its place, this low comes in from the north atlantic carrying quite a lot of fresh air, and what happens this time of the year when we've got cold air sitting on top of us, and then you get the strong sunshine? basically that means you get big showers forming, and it's going to be a real rush of them on tuesday — on wednesday, that is. so wednesday is going to be a very changeable day, from sunshine, to downpours, back to sunshine again. and then, through thursday, we're in that cool air stream off the atlantic, which is here to stay

into the weekend as well. and this is normalfor the time of the year. the average for this time of the year in the south is around about 14—16 degrees, a couple of degrees lower than that in the north, and that's pretty much what we're getting on thursday. you can see round 15 in london, ii in glasgow and in edinburgh. and again, a mixture of sunshine and showers on thursday. now, this is thejet stream here. whenever you see a dip in the jet stream, it basically drags the cool airfrom the north. so, as we head into friday, saturday and sunday, that cool air establishes itself across the uk. welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers

in north america and around the globe. our top stories — a van ploughs into pedestrians at high speed in toronto, killing 10 and injuring 15 more. the events that happened on the street behind us are horrendous, but they do not appear to be connected in any way to national security based on the information available at this time. the suspected driver who's been arrested is named as 25—year—old alek minassian. emmanuel macron begins his us state visit, but with three days of talks ahead, will his ties with president trump rea p rewards ? in the uk, the government offers citizenship and compensation to the caribbean immigrants known as the windrush generation.