³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I've got to hurry you. If you could just be brief. I'm sorry I'll have to stop you there.

We know you just hate those phrases.

I have to confess - I loathe them too.

When an interview's going really well, when we've got a terrific talker, when they're at a fascinating part of the story -- it's just maddening and frustrating to choke them off in full flow.

So as a rule - we don't do it.

Working Lunch has the most precious luxury in television news - time. 1740 seconds of it every edition. So we've got a bit of wiggle room.

When our guests are being particularly brilliant and sparkling - as they often are - we routinely let interviews run longer than first planned.

But it's not a bottomless pit. If one interview gets more time, another item in the programme will have to make do with less. We can't just make our programme longer - or delay your afternoon movie or snooker.

So sometimes even the most outstanding guest has to be brought to a close.

We are very grateful to every guest who accepts our invitation. They help us to help you become better informed about the business world.

We are - in relative terms - quite generous with the amount of time we give to our big guests. In total, they get about 7 minutes per programme - or roughly one-quarter of our scheduled time.

And the most important point of these interviews is the answer. Unless there's a good reason to cut in, we let guests finish their points before asking the next question. We listen and respond to their answer.

I would never think that our questions are more important, or even as important. The questions are there to draw out the information you need, or guide the guests along their story.

That's why - if you cast your mind back to last November - I didn't interrupt the magazine publisher Felix Dennis when he tore strips off me when I asked him about the Oz pornography trial he was at the heart of in the early 1970s.

He made a robust, passionate defence of the social reforms of that era, and the changes his generation made to our thinking about relationships, equality and class. He gave me quite a tongue-lashing, and many of you thought he made me look like a twit. Good. What I looked like was unimportant. What matters was what he had to say - and while he was being interesting and decent, I wasn't going to stop him.

But there's an unspoken deal in interviews. Our guests have to make good use of that time. That means no waffle, no plugging their products, and no dodging the question.

When guest veer off that path, it's our job to help them back onto it again.

So - to Working Lunch viewers Mike F and Mike A - I'm sorry you were annoyed by our interview with Nokia on Tuesday.

Mike F wrote that he was "upset by the continuous interruptions to your guests, made by Declan Curry, just as they were getting to interesting points.Ìý We believe that he likes the sound of his own voice too much, and will not be watching much longer if this goes on."

Mike A begged Naga to "rein Declan in with his interviewing techniques - he is beginning toÌýinterrogate some of your guests as though they were giving evidence at a Treasury Select Committee!"

I'm sorry you both found it uncomfortable viewing.

But I was unhappy with the answers, and felt we were missing an opportunity to talk about innovation and product development - the crucial factors in keeping manufacturing competitive.

I thought I was polite in trying to steer the interview - but had to be firm.

As I knew there would also be viewers like Tim, who emailed a demand to "get that man to answer the question ..."

And I also knew - the clock was ticking.