voice-over: this is bbc news. we'll have the headlines for you at the top of the hour, which is straight after this programme. welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. the victorians coined the phrase "the mother "of parliaments" to boast that the westminster parliament was a model for the world. would anyone make such a claim today? in recent years, british politics has been characterised by chaos and crisis. through brexit and covid, prime ministers have come and gone with alarming frequency. public trust in politicians has plumbed new lows. my guest is speaker of the house of commons, sir lindsay hoyle. on his watch, is parliament properly serving the people?

sir lindsay hoyle, welcome to hardtalk. thank you. you are about to celebrate four years in the job of speaker of the house of commons and it has to be said that during your tenure, the public trust in politicians appears to have plumbed new depths. why is that? i think we inherited a situation where the country was divided. but notjust a division of the country north—south — far from it. what we saw was division within families, which you don't normally see, and brexit was so toxic for all,

whichever side of the fence. and you could have a household completely divided. i think it divided trust in politicians and the belief in politicians. and you look back to that time and you think both sides were making claims that could never, ever be delivered. it was a very difficult time. and i genuinely believe that, you know, the british public�*s always been questionable of politicians. i accept that. but i think a lot of that trust was lost over that period. whether you were for or against, it didn't matter. trust was lost. so, you've alighted on brexit — a hugely divisive, polarising issue, butjust one issue — and it seems to me there is a more pervasive problem. looking at the most recent institute of public policy research survey, they found thatjust1i% — li% of british people believe that parliamentarians are doing their best for the country. that is stunningly bad, isn't it?

i believe politicians generally do it for the right reason and with everything, there's some people who may not and there's some people that may have lost the trust of the electorate. but the one good thing is, we're always answerable. we are answerable to the electorate. they decide the fate of politicians. and that's the good thing about democracy — if you don't like them, you get rid of them. and we've seen that. yeah... they, they... and we'll see it again. they're elected representatives but, once they win an election, they are, unless things go badly wrong or unless parliament is deeply divided, they're there for five—year terms... well, i've got to say, stephen, 2015, 2017, 2019... well... they haven't quite lasted five years! that's a very fair point and we'll get to the level of chaos in a moment, but just thinking about the way in which mps treat the job — before we get to policy differences, before we get to ideology, let'sjust think about personal behaviour. it is undeniable that in recent years, more and more politicians are behaving

in ways — bullying, intimidation, sexual abuse — in ways which the public, frankly, find repellent. you're the speaker of the house of commons. are you able to control your mps? well, let's be honest. do we really think this is something that's just happened? or do we think within the history of parliament, there's been bullying and intimidation? what we have got — and, quite rightly, when dame laura cox came in, she made many recommendations. the one thing i wanted to do as a new speaker was sign off those recommendations. what it allowed us to do was set up a system where people could actually come forward with complaints and be supported. and that's why we know what the level was and we know what the level is going forward because people could have anonymity in reporting and that those were being investigated. previously, there was no scheme, so we never knew about it. it was swept under the carpet.

political parties may have known about it but the house was not dealing with it. so, your contention is that things aren't getting worse? because chris bryant, the labour mp who used to chair the house of commons standards committee, he's come up with a number — a stunning number. 2a mps, he says, have been suspended for at least a day because of their bad behaviour in the parliament, which began in 2019. that's two dozen mps suspended. well, let's start off. isn't that a good thing that we do suspend people? we don't brush it under the carpet and we deal with the facts. and i think with that figure, we ought to be asking what was the suspension for? there are different reasons for suspension. some could've been within parliament with a particular party that shouted down a prime minister that had to leave. they were suspended for a few days. so, there are different reasons for what that is. you can'tjust sweep it together and say well, it's just this or that factor. far from it. but you're absolutely right. previously, things weren't getting dealt with. things are now

being dealt with. i want a better place. i want a parliament we can be proud of. i want people to say, who work there, "this is a good employer. "this is what i would recommend to my friend. "come and work in parliament." and i talk to staff. i go round the staff. i visit different departments, i meet with mps' staff, i meet with trade unions because i want to ensure that we get it right, and the only way to do that is by dealing with the problems. yeah. the first division association, which speaks for senior civil servants, people who work in and around politicians, they say that politicians have failed time and again to deal properly with sexual misconduct. sexual misconduct is a theme that comes up time and again. you talked about the laura cox report. there was another inquiry by gemma white, a senior lawyer. she said that mps' staff face, quote, "an unacceptable risk "of harassment and bullying in parliament, much "of it sexual". you haven't put a lid on it, have you? well, what we have done,

we've lifted the lid off so people can report it, and i think that's right. we don't want a lid on this. no, what i meant by �*lid' was, we're seeing it happening. but i've taken the lid off to say to people if you feel that you've been harassed, bullied or sexually assaulted in any way, come forward. if it's serious, don't come to me — go to the police straight away. and that is critical. these are serious complaints. please go to the police. if not, we have an icgs system that can report it and can deal with it. and i say to people — people, come and see me. we support people. we help people and assist people. and i've got to say, do i think it's getting better? of course. we're changing the ethos and the way parliament works and the behaviour, and that's why i set up the speaker's commission. we wanted to look into what went on. we are coming out with those recommendations. that report is out there about what we've found. we listen to staff, we listen to the tribune representatives, we listen to members

of parliament. —— we listen to staff, we listen to the trade union representatives, we listen to members of parliament. we want change, and we're coming forward with change. but — and there is a but — it seems the speaker's conference you refer to didn't really listen to you because you made it plain going into that conference that you wanted to change the way mps employ their staff. you said they shouldn't any longer be directly employed by the individual mp — there should be some sort of agency which gives staff to mp5, so they're not working directly for that individual. that was rejected, even though you thought it was a way of safeguarding the staff in parliament. that's my view, and one person shouldn't decide the view on everybody else because it was about listening, wasn't it? it's about listening to employees, it was about listening to staff and it was about listening —— it's about listening to mp5, it was about listening to staff and it was about listening to trade union staff representatives. they were the ones that said, "actually, we prefer the system "as it is now. "we think that's the way that we want to be." and that was the major trade union representation of unite. they were clear on that. so, what it has allowed us to do is to put in place

support for staff, support for mps to deal with those difficulties right at the beginning before they escalate, about early involvement, having a proper support system in parliament that wasn't there. do mps lie? what i would say is we could ask everybody in the street, "do you lie?" it's what the view is of lies. do ijudge a lie? and i think that's what you're trying to get me to. what i would say is that i haven't the power tojudge whether it's a lie or not. that's a shame, isn't it? what i would say is there are many powers that i could welcome. somebody said to me today, "would you recall parliament?" i haven't got that power. people think i've got more power than i have. and what i would say is we have a speaker that is neutral of political parties. so, i accept the rules of the house and i work within the rules. if the house wishes to change the rules, of course, i'll work with the new rules. but, of course, i cannot make thatjudgement. thatjudgement is for others to make, not for me. i haven't got that power. in a very famous recent case, the prime minister at the time, borisjohnson, was adjudged to have deliberately misled

parliament. many people will remember that it was concerning behaviours inside downing street during the covid pandemic. he assured the house that the rules had been followed at all times. a committee — the parliamentary privileges committee — deemed that he had deliberately misled the house of commons. how corrosive is it when that happens? anybody who misleads the house, whoever they are — whether it's a backbencher, senior minister, prime minister, it doesn't matter — that shouldn't happen. but what was good about this — nobody�*s too big within parliament to be challenged, to be brought and judged by their peers to be reported on, and i think that's the power of the parliamentary system. nobody ever thought — quite right that this committee would investigate and come out with the recommendations, and the recommendations where there were more

government members than opposition members. that is the power of parliament, that is the power of committees and that's what matters to me. it's about that power. i make no judgement. but let's consider what happened after borisjohnson was adjudged in that way. he decided to quit before, in all likelihood, he was going to be suspended. and then, there would have been a by—election in his particular political constituency, which he did not want to face. but he went with these words. when he resigned, he called the committee that had judged him a �*kangaroo court'. he said "it was a deranged conclusion, the whole thing "was a charade" and he ended with this — the "final knife thrust," he called it, "in a protracted political assassination". i want to put it to you that politics and that kind of language has become dangerously toxic. would you, as speaker, agree? i am very concerned about language. i'm very concerned about the way we speak to each other. what did you think of that, the — from borisjohnson what did you think of that,

the quote from borisjohnson as he left parliament that i just gave to you? that's why that report was so damning. and they absolutely looked into what he'd said and they concluded in that report that that language was unacceptable, and the house agreed. and that is what's important. this was being judged by your own peers. this is being judged by members who agreed with the report. they agreed that the findings were correct, and that's what matters. it's about having a system that works, and this system worked. you... people always say to me, "nobody dare challenge "a senior politician". well, it proved that not only was there that challenge but it actually was delivered as well. well, you speak with great passion on this subject but i would suggest to you that even though you wear the robes and have the office of speaker of the house of commons, many mps are simply not listening to you when it comes to changing their language.

to quote the sister of the murdered mpjo cox, kim leadbeater, she says, "mps must take "more responsibility because they are ramping up "a toxic debate which forces politicians to live "under the threat of fear and violence". why are too many mps not listening to you, listening to kim leadbeater as well? actually, it's about the issue of we never, ever want to see another murdered mp. i've got to say, i don't want to ever pick up a phone again to be told a member of parliament has been murdered — murdered because they stand up for their views and opinions. it's not about member to member. this is about people who do not believe in the democratic system. they do not believe in what we stand for and their answer is to intimidate, threaten and murder, and that's why parliament comes together. but kim leadbeater�*s point is that mps themselves must bear responsibility, fomenting the toxicity in the political debate.

kim, quite rightly, says we've got to look at that. well, let's look at the two people who were murdered. they were murdered by extremists. yeah, because the other one we should mention was david amess... sir david amess, absolutely. ..the conservative mp who was murdered while trying to help his constituents in his constituency. and that is the thing — thatjo cox was murdered on the way to help her constituents by a white extremist. and on the other hand, we had an islamic extremist, self—radicalised, that was determined to murder a member of parliament — it didn't matter which political party, by the way. he was determined to murder a member of parliament because they don't share our values. they don't believe in our values. they don't support democracy. they want to do it through threat and intimidation. but going back to your original point, you're absolutely right, it is not just about tolerance. it's about respecting the debate, it's about respecting

each other, it's about turning down the language because in the end, and i think this is what they were trying to aim at — that if we are disrespectful to each other, when you go out onto the high street, don't be surprised that the same language is used against us. and that's why i try to say — by being in parliament, by showing better respect for each other, whatever your political views are, and we are beyond brexit, when we were at our worst. and i've got to say, parliament has turned down that heat and i believe it is a better parliament, it is a more comfortable parliament with each other and we are in a very difficult period of the world. but looking at that, it's about respect of debate, listening to each other, not agreeing with each other — trying to persuade each other is one thing, and i expect a division — that's what votes are about. but it's about being able to walk through those chambers, voting lobbies, even the tea room, wherever it be, that you can sit down next to each other and have a civilised conversation.

do you think that the united kingdom gets the quality of elected representative that it deserves? the electorate choose the people who we have... but they choose from a pool of willing volunteers. if you look — and you've been in parliament for a long time. you, i think, first came into parliament in 1997 as a labour party mp. when you consider that span of, what, 26 years, do you think the quality of politicians that we have is improving or not? i think there are some exciting politicians coming through. there always is. it rotates. parliament rotates people through. and what i would say is that you will have those who want to climb to the top of the pole and those who want to be good constituency mps. but we are alljudged — we're alljudged by the electorate, whether they think they've got the right representation or not. and, of course, it's important.

what i would say is that i think it is about reaching out to society. we should reflect society within parliament, and that's important to me. let me ask you this — as speaker of the house, you care enormously that the people's representatives are truly able to hold the government to account. it seems that in recent years — it's not entirely new, but in recent years — there's been more and more of an inclination from government to try to bypass the house of commons, to use other means to, first of all, announce policies and then, frankly, to push through the detail through what's called secondary legislation, which doesn't get the same kind of scrutiny as primary legislation on the floor of the house of commons. are you worried that this is creating some sort of democratic deficit? i'm always worried because i think of myself as a shop steward of backbench mps from all parties. that's why i'm neutral. i am there to ensure the house

should hear it first. it doesn't, though, does it? well, it's about the power of the house and it's about holding the government, the executive, to account. and, absolutely, we went through a very difficult period. myself and the prime minister had a different view about where announcements should be made. well, one example, for people who don't know, just a couple of months ago, the government announced a major change to its environmental policy, how it's going to deliver net zero by 2050. it involves some detail like pushing back the deadline on the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars. very important stuff. it wasn't announced to the house, to elected representatives. it was announced first through a media leak. you were furious but you, as speaker, are powerless to stop it happening. well, not quite. what i would say is i used the tools i've got. i will use channels behind to speak to, to say this is not acceptable.

and what i can do, which they don't like, i will hold the minister there and secretary of state to account on urgent questions. should you have the power to actually recall the house of commons to sit? because that particular announcement... as i said, i will say again to you, i would love to have that power. and the power has never been given to me or any previous speaker. so, you sit there with the glorious robes and the gavel but you have very few real powers. we could do with more powers. i'm always up for seeing what more i can do. but, to be honest with you, it's very, very interesting, isn't it, that i have the final say but not the first say. so, i decide in the end whether the house should sit or not. i cannot introduce it but i can sign it off. so, in the end, i can block it but i can't start it. the powers are the wrong way round. it would be better if i could start it, rather than being able to block it. and that's something i feel very passionate about. and you're absolutely right. it was a very difficult period

when we were in the middle of a pandemic, with announcements being made in downing street and not to the house, and it became a very difficult conversation between myself and government. and in the end, we had to compromise. and the compromise was that if you need the experts there, of course, we can have them on the floor of the house. so, what we said is that whatever happens in downing street must be given to the house at exactly at the same time. so, we had the secretary of state and the prime minister announcing at the same time. he had the experts but we had the secretary of state to tell us. isn't there a problem that goes much deeper than process? process is important, as you've just explained, but it goes deeper than process — that is that the last few years in britain, with the chaos of multiple prime ministers — one of whom, liz truss, only served for six weeks — multiple ministers in each department so that, i think, in the department of health, which has been rather important through covid, we've had five ministers in the last 3.5—4 years. that kind of churn in politics, the lack of stability,

it says something which to many people leads them to conclude that the system is unfit for purpose. you sit on top of it. would you agree? what i said was — and i was very clear at the time — i never, ever want our parliament to be put in that position again where we have three prime ministers in six weeks, where we have ministers who are resigning, where i do not even know whether we're going to have a minister to answer questions. as i said, this was banana republic politics. this was politics at an all—time low. we began with me saying in the past, we crowed in britain about having the mother of parliaments. you are saying we now have a banana republic? what i said was that that, for that period, was my biggest worry about democracy and what the world thought about the mother of all parliaments, what it thought about the bastion of democracy, and i've got to say... we looked like a laughing stock, didn't we? we did.

and i agree. it was stability that we needed. it was absolutely absurd. and i'll give you a — quite interesting. a minister came in and i said to the minister, "i thought "you would have resigned". he said, "lindsay, if i resign now, there's nobody "to answer the questions". that's the level of chaos we got to. thank goodness we're bringing back some stability where parliament matters, government matters. the executive has to be held to account. and we also need to know who is the prime minister and who is the minister. so, we never, ever want to go through that again. and what i would say is the public are going to make a decision on the chaos of that period and on the chaos of what they see. hang on — is that you as speaker being actually rather political with that? you're asking the public to judge the last few years and you're telling me that the last few years have been a banana republic? you're entering politics. no, that was me making a very clear statement.

if i don't know who's going to answer the questions, what level of governance have you got? how is anybody accountable if we don't know if anybody�*s going to turn up? that is bad. that is a bad habit for the uk. that is a bad habit for the parliament that i believe in, and the fact that members of parliament who turn up to ask a question of a minister are not sure the minister is going to be there or if the minister's only going to be there two minutes, it was a low time and i've got to say, we'll move on. but in the end — and it's not a political point i'm trying to make of any political persuasion. we are alljudged, whether it's the green party, whether it's the speaker's standing or whether it's conservative. whoever it be, we are accountable to the electorate, and it matters to me. this country matters to me. i am proud of the constituency i represent. we have to end there, but sir lindsay hoyle, it's been a pleasure. thanks for being on hardtalk. thank you very much.

hello there. it's going to stay very unsettled across the uk as we head through this week with low pressure still very much in charge. so, long spells of rain, heavy, thundery downpours. the winds are likely to pick up at times. and we'll also see, on wednesday night into thursday, our third named storm of the season, storm ciaran, named by the met office on sunday. and those rainfall totals are really going to start to stack up again as we head through the next five days — you can see all the blues on our rainfall accumulation chart here. more wet weather for flood—stricken areas, such as eastern parts of scotland, too. now, low pressure is centred out towards the west of ireland, just sending bands of showers swirling around. it should be a largely dry start to the day

across scotland but it is quite a chilly one and it's still quite breezy for many, particularly towards the channel coast. but the winds are certainly lightening as we head throughout the day. now, the heaviest of the showers on monday will tend to be across northern ireland. we could start to see some localised flooding, maybe, as those rainfall totals stack up. also, some more heavy showers across western wales, the southwest of england towards channel coast, too, just drifting further northwards and eastwards. further east, largely dry. and for scotland, the lion's share of the sunshine north of the central belt. but here, the air is going to feel chillier. now, on tuesday, again, scotland, still a welcome respite from all of that rain. it should stay largely dry and sunny. a few isolated showers in the north. elsewhere, out towards the west, we will see some showers, some brighter spells and a warm front starts to creep into southwest wales and south—west england by the end of the day on tuesday. temperatures again 9—15 degrees celsius. now, that warm front will track further northwards and eastwards as we head through tuesday night and into wednesday, bringing with it widespread heavy rain and some strong, gusty winds as well.

and some of that rain in the chillier air across the highlands will be turning to snow. just take a look at that easterly wind piling all of that rain onshore into aberdeenshire yet again. it's windy out towards the west here. further south, we're expecting some showers. temperatures again 9—15 degrees. but of more concern than the weather on wednesday is going to be the weather on thursday. now, this is storm ciaran. it's a very deep area of low pressure. you can see the tight squeeze on the isobars here. gusts of wind towards channel coasts on wednesday night and into thursday could get as high as perhaps 80—90 miles an hour, even inland 50—60 mile an hour gusts. there'll also be widespread heavy rain along with those damaging winds, so do keep an eye on the forecast. bye—bye for now.

live from london, this is bbc news. israel's intense bombardment of northern gaza has continued overnight. staff in a hospital in gaza city say it is impossible to evacuate terrified patients. and tributes for matthew perry, one of the stars of the hit tv show friends, who has died at the age of 5a. hello, and a very warm welcome to the programme. i'm sally bunn dog. we begin with the latest on the israel—gaza war where israel's bombardment of northern gaza has continued overnight into the morning. these are some of the latest pictures overlooking gaza city shows explosions in the distance and the noise of aircraft. heavy shelling had also been taking place near a key hospital

in gaza city. the palestinian red crescent in gaza says israel has told