donald trump has returned to the white house, three days after he was hospitalised with coronavirus. he is certain to be still infectious and his doctors say he's "not yet out of the woods" but within minutes of getting back, he publicly removed his face mask. he's posted a video on twitter urging americans to "get out there" and not be afraid of the virus. earlier the presidet left the walter reed military hospital in washington where he had been treated for coronaviorus for three days. he walked unaided down the steps of the hospital to a motorcade that took him to the nearby presidential helicopter for the short flight home. the british government says an investigation has begun into why nearly 16,000 coronavirus cases went unreported last week. ministers have blamed a technical glitch, which is now said to have been resolved. more than 12,500 new cases of the virus have been recorded in the latest 24—hour period.

now it's time for a look back at the day in parliament. hello, and welcome to monday in parliament. testing times for ministers as 16,000 positive covid test results go missing. this isn'tjust a shambles, it is so much worse than that than this. and it gives me no comfort to say it. but it is putting lives at risk. justice for postmasters wrongly convicted of fraud, but questions remain. how did a respectable organisation like the post office, a major software company like fujitsu, and the greater good of the civil service and the ministers from all parties fall prey to groupthink? and a familiar figure takes strike in the house of lords. i, ian lord botham, do swear by almighty god that i'll be faithful and pay true

allegiance to her majesty queen elizabeth. but first: the health secretary has told mps that a computer glitch that meant nearly 16,000 cases of coronavirus went unreported should not have happened. matt hancock said that what he called an "ongoing incident" was being investigated fully. the positive test results were not included in reported daily cases due to a "failure of automated transfer of files" from laboratories to public health england's data system. public health england phe said all those who tested positive had been informed. but it means others in close contact with them were not. i want to reassure everyone that every single person who tested positive was told that result in the normal way, in the normal time frame. they were told that they needed to self—isolate,

which is of course now required by law. however, these positive test results were not reported in the public data and were not transferred to the contact tracing system. mr speaker, this incident should never have happened, but the team that acted swiftly to minimise its impact and now it is critical that we work together to put this right, to make sure that it never happens again. almost 16,000 positive cases went unreported for a week. that means as many as 48,000 contacts not traced and not isolated. thousands of people blissfully unaware that they had been exposed to covid—19, potentially spreading this deadly virus at a time in hospital admissions are increasing and we're in the second wave. this isn'tjust a shambles, it is so much worse

than that, than this. and it gives me no comfort to say it. but it is putting lives at risk. isn't the underlying problem here that the lighthouse laboratories have been overwhelmed by demand and are going to continue to be overwhelmed 7 do we not need to think about the structures in particular whether the responsibility for nhs staff testing and care home staff testing should being moved to hospital laboratories and universities. well as he says people with positive tests got the results and are self isolating, they did not get direct advice and they did not get the details of their contacts. from the governments own data, people with covid—19 report an average of three to four contacts each, for this pursuit 50 to 60,000 contacts were not identified asked to isolate and therefore, will have continued to spread the virus. my right honourable friend and everyone in the house hopes that there will be a safe and effective vaccine available in the months ahead. but the head of the vaccine's task force has said she expects it to be available to only

half the population, concentrating on the over 505 and the most vulnerable. is that the secretary of state's understanding? what are the indications on the other half? the impact of deploying the vaccine is my department working with the nhs and the armed forces were helping enormously with the logistical challenge and we will take the advice on the deployment of the vaccine based on clinical advice from the joint committee on vaccinations and immunizations. but this is another incident that further undermines public confidence in the delivery of the covid—19 response and it is another example of where logistics and planning have let us down and why can't the government learned from previous successes with the nightingale hospitals and the ppe where the military were brought in much more overtly to deal with the logistics and the planning and delivery of those programmes and they should do so on testing traits.

they are involved, but the specific issue was in a phd computer system which we already identified as needing replacing and i commissioned the replacement of and that replacement is currently being built. we have lost a vital week in the fight against the spread of this virus in our country because the problem with spreadsheets is that the secretary said they knew about it injuly and we are paying £12 million of these private companies to run the service and get the health secretary has told us that there are no penalties for these companies for poor performances. who is going to get our money back, mr deputy speaker and who's going to take responsibility? can the secretary tell us where the bucks stop?

i have come to the house to be clear and transparent to the house and nation as the nature of this particular problem. i think it is wrong to constantly be be picking on a small number of many, many cogs in the wheel that we have of the system, because it happens, this particular system with a phe legacy system in even though it doesn't quite fit the honourable lady's narrative, that is the fact of the matter. i like the honourable lady and we have worked together in the past, including on issues like this and she is usually incredibly reasonable and i am happy to assure her that she gets a full briefing on this one and any further questions she's got, i'd be very happy to answer. matt hancock, who spent more than an hour—and—a—half answering mps questions.

no one mentioned the snp mp margaret ferrier, who spoke in the chamber last week after testing positive for coronavirus. the speaker had warned mps criticism of her behaviour would have been against the rules. now, an mp says an inquiry into what went wrong with an it system that led to hundreds of postmasters being accused of fraud is "half—baked", whilst another raised fears that it could be a "whitewash". on friday, it was announced that the post office wouldn't contest appeals against convictions in 44 cases, raising the likelihood of them being quashed. last week, the government launched an inquiry by retired high court judge sir wyn williams to gather evidence into the horizon system and see if lessons have been learnt. 0ne mp welcomed friday's ruling — up to a point. but it eventually belies the agony and torment that has gone on of these individuals and hundreds of other individuals who have lost their livelihoods,

lost their good names and in some cases, lost their freedom. in other cases, people have lost their lives. and i am sorry, minister, but what you said today is not good enough. the decision to prosecute postmasters was an operational matter for the post office and government is not involved in the operational decisions. but in hindsight, knowing what we know now, it's clear that different conclusions could and should have been reached by the post office and is what the inquiry is exactly out there to work out those lessons. how can an organisation like the post office, fujitsu and ministers from all parties fall prey to groupthink on such a grand scale, that despite this computer error occurring across the country, it was assumed the only possible explanation was that all sub postmasters effected were dishonest? what action will my right honourable friend take to ensure that they will

all be held to account? during the chairmanship, we can seek evidence and complement what is already available from the findings, but speaking to the post office and fujitsu who have agreed to comply with this inquiry, but also to, i hope, that sub postmasters in conversation with serene williams can share their evidence and their stories so we can get to the bottom of this is my honourable friend says. this may be one of the largest miscarriages ofjustice in our history. 900 prosecutions, innocent people bankrupted and imprisoned. careers ruined, families destroyed, reputation smashed and lives lost. can the minister tell us why they're only shareholder allowed to post office to continue to oppose the appeals for so long?

far from it being an operational matter, as the minister said, will the minister admit that this represents a gross failure of oversight and really tell us how much this has cost the post office and ultimately the taxpayer? what happened in terms of the government, as well as the post office, that will come up in the inquiry and it is right that there are questioned so we do find out what happened and when. this is being reviewed in scotland and the rest of the uk, should result in financial compensation to all of those innocent people who suffered as a result of the horizon scandal. and does the minister still not understand that the review is not an independent inquiry, as was promised by the prime minister? i welcome the establishment of the inquiry but can the minister ensures that this is not going to be a whitewash?

postmasters my constituency are very anxious to know that. the truth is that ministers have set up a half— baked inquiry to this extraordinary scandal without the powers to fully get to the bottom of this mess, will the minister return to this house to set out in full the compensation arrangements and any financial implications to the future the post office ? let's see what the result is from the inquiry of the first place. 0ther mps wanted to know if the people at the top would be held to account. my constituent is pleased that their appeal is not being contested, but they do wonder what actually is now being taken against those of the top, those in the management and leadership positions that presided over this scandal?

those present or former post office officials who perpetuated the agony of the victims must be punished, not promoted and shamed rather than rewarded with honours as i believe happened in at least one prominent instance. i would have expeceted at least them on their knees sat across on his ashes, this is so important. will he make sure that these people getjustice because this was not done by machines, it was done and organised by people and they should be held to account. barry sheerman. you're watching monday in parliament with me, david cornock. don't forget that if you need some relief from the wet weather, you can binge watch past episodes of the day in parliament on the bbc iplayer. a conservative former

cabinet minister has accused the government of trying to rush through a bill which would protect undercover operatives from prosecution if they are forced to break the law on operations. the government hopes the covert human intelligence sources criminal conduct bill will complete its journey through the commons in a single day next week. the last time the government rushed a security bill through in this way, i and others had to challenge it in the court of law. the government lost and had to rewrite the bill. we don't want to do that again. so what can we do, mr speaker, to ensure that these profound issues are properly debated before we allow the government to break our laws whenever it chooses? but when the debate on the bill began, a minister tried to re—assure mps. i know that there are concerns about the bill somehow providing a licence to kill or commit torture. let me be clear that there are upper limits to the activity that could be authorised under this bill, and these are contained in the human rights act. this includes the right

to life, prohibition of torture, or subjecting someone to inhuman or degrading punishment. it is unlawful for any public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with the european convention of human rights. labour supported the bill. the activity here is not new activity. it's been going on under existing practices and has been for many years. it should be on a statutory footing, as it allows for necessary and robust safeguards which we on these benches will be pressing for. nick thomas—symonds. the government has suffered a series of defeats in the house of lords over its immigration bill, which would end eu freedom of movement rules here in the uk. peers voted overwhelmingly to support an amendment to continue an amendment to continue existing arrangements so that unaccompanied child refugees could be reunited with close relatives in the uk. the measure was brought forward

by labour's lord dubs, who was a child refugee himself from nazi germany. he told the story of a visit he'd made to a refugee camp in syria. i was talking to a young man there who had just finished school in the camp. and i said to him, "what now?" and he said, "well, i don't know. i've tried to get a job in the camp, i've tried getting a job outside the camp. i have no future." and, my lords, in my experience, human beings are able to put up with very difficult conditions if there is some hope at the end there for them. but when there is no hope, there's only despair. and the refugees, people wanting to claim asylum will do very dangerous things in order to find safety. my lords, this amendment, if passed — and i hope it will be — will give hope to many child refugees in europe. the home secretary has now confirmed that legislation is planned next year to exclude asylum—seekers who try to enter through unlawful routes. could the noble lady the minister explain how it's possible to assess whether someone is genuinely seeking asylum on the basis of the route taken — which seems to be the implication of what the home secretary is saying?

this amendment is about family unity. and who can say that family unity isn't a good idea? in fact, i thought it would be a central tenet of any tory party manifesto, family unity. so i'm just staggered that there is any suggestion that this might not be a good thing. several peers were worried that the issue wasn't being addressed in negotiations with the eu. because there is no relevant ongoing discussion about new arrangements. there is no negotiation on this subject with the 27. the issue wasn't addressed in the first frost—barnier negotiations, which led to the withdrawal agreement. it's not being addressed in the current negotiations, which might lead to

a free trade agreement. i really want to know from my noble friend, the minister, on the front bench, are there ongoing discussions, as she said in her letter? or, as the noble lord just said, is that not the case? that's really what i want to hear. i know the noble lord is sceptical about this, but the uk has made a credible and serious offer to the eu to agree new post—transition arrangements for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum—seeking children. and it does remain our goal to negotiate such an arrangement. she said the government was committed to supporting vulnerable children. we do have a proud record of providing safe haven to those in need and fleeing persecution, oppression, or tyranny both through our asylum system and our world—leading resettlement schemes.

and i do assure the noble lords that this will continue. peers voted to accept the amendment by a majority of 94, and there were similar defeats on other votes. ministers will have to decide whether to try to reverse the defeats when the bill returns to the commons. more than three years after the grenfell tower fire, the housing secretary has been accused by a conservative mp of a "shocking betrayal" of people who are unable to sell their homes due to cladding on the building. 72 people died in the grenfell fire in west london, with the flames able to spread quickly due to inflammable cladding on the 2a—storey tower. the government has set up a fund to replace dangerous cladding on some high rise buildings in england, but it has yet to pay out. the secretary of state is overseeing a shocking betrayal of millions of people who are trapped in flat they cannot sell because of cladding, irrespective of the height.

mortgage companies are refusing to remortgage, shared ownership tenets that only own 10% are being forced to pay 100% of the costs. when‘s the secretary of state going to get out of his ivory tower, stop talking and start helping constituents? well, i don't agree with the analysis of the actions we've taken as a government. we are bringing forward the biggest change to building safety regulation in a generation. we've outlined plans for a {1.6 billion fund. of course there's more that we could do. this is one of the most challenging and difficult issues faced by the government today, or indeed any government built up over many generations. but we intend to tackle it and provide support for those in need. countless salford residents are among over 700,000 nationally living in dangerously—cladded homes, yet over 65 registrations to the building safety fund have been allowed to proceed, an estimated 1.5 million people can't sell their home, and exorbitant remediation costs are still being passed on to leaseholders for defects they didn't cause. will the minister end this protracted scandal today and commit to the proposals set

out by the "end 0ur cladding scandal" campaign and the hclg select committee? mr speaker, i have every sympathy with the situation that the honourable lady's constituents find themselves she will understand that in order to target the right buildings and make sure that the buildings most at risk are prioritised, it is important that the money disbursed by the government is spent effectively. we've had 2,784 registrations to the end of september. 1,857 of those — as many of them were received on the last day of the application in july — were incomplete. we are working with the owners and with the submitters of the registrations to make sure they get the information right.

and as soon as they get the information right, we can determine when we can get the money out the door, and i hope that we will get the first money out the door very soon indeed. christopher pincher. a defence minister has defended legislation intended to protect military personnel and veterans from prosecution for alleged historical offences in conflicts overseas. the 0verseas 0perations bill would place a five—year limit on criminal prosecutions from the date of an incident, unless there is compelling new evidence. the joint human rights committee, which is made up of mps and peers, is looking into the bill. the minister conceded it was a contentious piece of legislation. the reality is that we are faced with a really, really difficult situation of industrial levels of claims being brought against this department and against our people — the vast majority of which, almost all are found to be baseless. he cited the al sweady inquiry into allegations that uk soldiers mistreated iraqis in 2004. all of them were baseless, made up to generate money, found by the courts, right?

so we have to do something about that to give ourselves the capability to protect our people. and that's what it's about. one of the things that i think has been thrown at this bill over the past week or so are comments that effectively, the government is simply blaming lawyers and the law for failures to adequately recourse the system, effectively. and we have a duty to make sure that we do a much better level of investigation, that we are much more resilient to abuses of the legal system. so what we have to do is find a path down the middle that is balanced, that is both fair to victims — because nobody, least of all me, wants genuine victims of abuses in the military not to see justice. there's absolutely no place for those who break the law in uniform. but at the same time, we aren't willing to stand by and just usher through thousands and thousands of claims against servicemen and women, you know, going into old age. and the british public, i'm afraid, would agree with me that that's not the way

you treat your veterans. the committee heard that 27 service personnel had been prosecuted over events in iraq and afghanistan — eight were convicted. often the state brings a prosecution and, after due process, somebody is found to be not guilty. that doesn't mean to say that the prosecution was wrongful. we aren't talking about politics here, we're talking about law. what i want to know is whether any — whether there's any evidence you can give this committee that any of those 27 prosecutions brought in the last 20 years were in any way vexatious or wrongful. there is plenty of vexatious examples for you to look at. for someone to get to the prosecutorial stage where a prosecutor makes a decision, you know, this is all a pathway down which we walk when we have allegations of things that have gone wrong in our organisation. do you believe that the high esteem that our armed forces

are held in internationally, which we would all think is the case, is in part attributable to their high levels of accountability? and do you not fear that restricting their accountability by restricting claims in this way might undermine the high esteem within which they're held internationally? the idea that we were — that this in some way negates that standing when we were previously seen as, if anything, a bit naive when it came to protecting ourselves legally when taking part in these operations is not true. look, i understand it's contentious. i understand people have strong feelings. but the way we've done this historically is not right. and we have to find a way forward, and i hope that we can all work together to do so. johnny mercer. the cricketing legend,

ian botham, has taken his seat in the house of lords. lord botham, who is more accustomed to performing at a different lord's, took the oath in the tradititional — if socially—distanced — ceremony. i, ian lord botham, do swear that i will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her majesty, the queen elizabeth, her heirs and her successors according to the law, so help me god. lord botham's was one of 36 new peerages announced by downing street in august. he'll sit as an independent, or crossbench peer. that's stumps for this monday in parliament. thank you for watching. i do hope you canjoin me at the same time tomorrow for tuesday in parliament. until then, bye for now.

hello there. i thought i'd start with a reminder ofjust how grim a start to the month we've had. across a swathe of southern england and parts of eastern scotland too, over recent days, we've seen more rainfall than we'd expect to see in the whole of the month of 0ctober. and we're only in the first week, of course. winchcombe is in gloucestershire — 118mm here over recent days, compared with the october average of 81. now, we have got a bit more rain to come, over the next couple of days, but i'm going to zoom out into the western atlantic, because this is a developing area of low pressure, and it could bring some really heavy rain across those areas that have already seen a lot of rainfall this month, so more on that in just a moment. for the time being, we do have rain around right now. we've got some patches working across from northern ireland, pushing eastwards across wales and england, and another line of rain from an occlusion that's bringing some wet weather at the moment to south—west scotland and the far north of england. temperatures to start the day about 8—11 degrees. now, we are going to see further patches of rain pushing eastwards across wales

and england through the day. i suspect they could become quite lengthy patches of rain, quite persistent rain for a time, across north wales, merseyside and greater manchester. further showers for west scotland and northern ireland. becoming windy in the south—west through the afternoon, where we could get gusts of wind of 50—odd mph. the best of the sunshine for eastern scotland. but for many of us, it will be quite cloudy, with just a few sunny intervals coming and going. now, for wednesday, probably overall a little bit more in the way of sunshine. but again we've got showers around. those showers particularly affecting northern and western scotland. and given that wind direction, we might see a few sneaking down the irish sea into north wales and north—west england as well. temperatures coming down a degree or so, highs for most between 13 and 15 degrees. now, on into thursday's forecast, these weather fronts that had been forecast to bring the majority of rain across england and wales are actually going to push a little bit further northwards now on the latest model runs. and that sees rain potentially going as far north as the central belt of scotland,

maybe even north scotland for a time. now, further southwards, we will see some rain at a time moving across england and wales. but it's this trailing front that could cause some issues, not just through thursday, but actually thursday night and into friday, because that front could become aligned to give some lengthy outbreaks of rain across parts of england and wales and some of those parts where we've already seen a lot of rainfall so far. so we could see some further localised flooding towards the end of the week.

welcome to bbc news, i'm mike embley. our top stories: president trump returns to the white house after being hospitalised with coronavirus. within minutes he removes his mask and urges americans not to be afraid of covid—19. don't let it dominate you. don't let it dominate you. don't be afraid of it. you're going to beat it, we have the best medical equipment, we have the best medicines, all developed recently. the british government says an investigation has begun into why nearly 16,000 coronavirus cases went unreported last week. and in france — the number of people in intensive care passes 1,400 for the first time since the end of may. paris is placed on maximum alert. stairway t0 heaven plays