this is bbc news. we'll have the headlines at the top of the hour as newsday continues, straight after hardtalk. 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. you could have a household completely divided, and 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 that just 4%, 4% of british people believe that parliamentarians are, quote, "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... and we'll see it again. they're elected representatives, but of course, 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... 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's just 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 have 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 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. that is the key. 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 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 mps, 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 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? 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 thatjudgment. thatjudgment 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 they were 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. 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 quote from borisjohnson as he left parliament that ijust gave to you? that's why that report was so damning. 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 has beenjudged 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.

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 mp, jo 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, or 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, 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 three and a half, four 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 were saying we now had 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. we've got more heavy rain, more strong winds as we head into thursday, all due,

of course, to storm ciaran. that's been tracking its way right the way across the atlantic, heading over the southwest of england. it will move eastwards towards east anglia. it will bring more heavy rain. and given how wet it's been in october, that could lead to some flooding. the winds also could potentially be dangerous and hazardous, bringing some disruption. this is where we've got the amber wind warnings from the met office. the winds already picking up in the southwest. those stronger winds will transfer through the english channel to affect coastal areas in the south east of england. the winds are likely to be even stronger for a while in the channel islands. gusts of over 90 miles an hour already had gusts of 100 miles an hour along the coast of brittany. so some really strong winds across the far south of the uk could be quite windy in other areas and around the storm, around that low pressure, we've got these showers of longer spells of rain as the wind picks up in scotland, it will get wetter here. we may miss the worst of the wet weather in northern ireland temperature wise.

well, of course, nothing to write home about — a cool 10—12 degrees, but at least you're in the afternoon. the winds in the southwest will start to ease and that's because the storm is going to be tracking away and at the same time, it will be weakening. so as we get into friday, the area of low pressure, what was the storm is going to be sitting out in the north sea. so it's not going to be as windy on friday. it's not going to be as wet. there'll be some sunshine, but also some showers blown in and there'll still be some blustery winds. the windiest weather, perhaps the wettest weather will be across eastern scotland and the north east of england. and those temperatures may be a degree or so higher, but still only 12 or 13 degrees at best. now, as we head into the weekend, we see that area of low pressure continuing to fade away in the north sea.

another one coming in from the atlantic, not expecting this one to be named because the winds aren't going to be as strong. the strong winds will still be through the english channel. but we've got more rain to come across southern parts of the uk, into wales, in the midlands, followed by some showers. further north there'll be some sunshine and perhaps a few showers as well. and those temperatures not really changing a great deal. so after all this very wet and very windy weather, we've got some more rain on saturday for the southern half of the uk and then we're all in the same boat on sunday. sunshine and showers and not as windy.

welcome to newsday. reporting live from singapore, i'm mariko 0i. the headlines. more than 400 people, including dozens of injured palestinians, cross into egypt from gaza —

the first to leave since the latest war between israel and hamas started last month. translation: this - crossing should be open for everything gaza — food, supplies and fuel. we have almost 20,000 people who are severely injured and need to travel abroad for treatment. another large air strike hits jabalia in northern gaza a day after dozens were killed there. the un's humanitarian chief says the war has entered an even more terrifying phase. in other news, pakistan arrests undocumented foreigners — many of them afghans — before the midnight deadline for them to leave the country. and the uk announces a "world—first agreement" on how to manage the riskiest forms of artificial intelligence as it hosts a major ai safety summit. live from our studio in singapore...

..this is bbc news.