16/07/2013 Newsnight

11 hospital trusts are placed in special measure. Whose fault is

that then? The front benchers blame each other. If the NHS is

considered Labour's proudest achievement, today is their darkest

moment. This report is about his Government and failings happening

now. We will hear from the Health Secretary now. After the rows and

expose says, making political lobbying transparent rather than

plain packaged plans are expected on MPs' desk tomorrow. We are

obsessed with lobbying. The man who invented modern lobbying takes on

his citiblgs. Capitalism north vet niece style.

Is this what it is to plan your business? No!How a communist

dictatorship got itself a market economy. And...Is It terrible?The

sex stays but the mumbling has to go. I don't know why, but no.How

the BBC Director General has declared war on this kind of thing.

The lurid headlines of the weekend suggested 13,000 preventable NHS

deaths, but the truth of the Keogh Report today suggested something

far more anodyne but just as dismaying. Trapped by mediocrity

said the report. It uncovers long standing problems at the trusts,

mediocrity known about but never addressed. The Government and

Labour were understandably furious, mostly at each other.

Today was supposed to be about making our hospitals safe for

patients. Instead as the Keogh Report was presented to MPs, it

became a political blame game rapidly. The Health Secretary,

Jeremy Hunt, said problems had begun under Labour. If founding the

NHS is considered Labour's proudest achievement, today is their darkest

moment. As a Labour Government is exposed as caring more about its

own reputation than our most vulnerable citizens in the NHS.

Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham hit back. Accusing the

Health Secretary of playing politics with people's lives.

report is about his Government and failings happening now on this

Government's watch. He then referred to decades of neglect in

the NHS in the 1980 and 1990s and the challenges of long waiting

lists? The last Labour Government dealt with that issue, I'm proud of

it and we are proud of our record on the NHS. It is depressing that

issues that ought to be about quality and safety of patient care

then descend into a political argument between Labour and the

Government. We should be reaching to the higher ground asking the

kinds of questions Sir Bruce has done in his report, understanding

what causes failures of patient care. I hope politicians will move

beyond today's discussion and to have that more plaiture discussion

that the NHS -- mature discussion that the NHS itself is looking for.

The review found 14 hospital trusts There is absence of a culture of

openness, a lack of willingness to learn from mistakes and lack of

ambition and ineffectual governance. 11 of the 14 hospital trusts were

put on perb measures today. One criticised for out of hours care

and poor track record on bed sores, and for shifting patients from

ward-to-ward, sometimes multiple time, was the George Eliot Hospital

Trust near Birmingham. It was making sure patients got to the

right ward at the right time, we are increasing beds in the hospital

and look to go see if we can put additional nurses and doctors into

the hospital out of hours. So there are some really good and positive

stuff we can take forward. Each trust met the Keogh team at a risk

summit to discuss their future. The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust

was not singled out for special measures, but its management team

has been told to make improvements in talking to patients and other

areas. We let patients down in terms of not getting good flow

through the organisation so patients waiting for longer than

they should have. In making some of our discharge processes not being

as slick as they should be so patients are waiting for long

periods to go at the end of their stay with us. Most of the trusts

accepted the findings of today's report. Many were saying they were

looking to increase nursing levels and would be talking more to

patients. Should people feel more reassured about the NHS tonight?

think they should be thinking that despite some of the findings that

we made that we have a fantastic NHS, it is a big organisation,

there are some areas which do less well an others, but in the

hospitals we have visited and we have found serious cause for

concern we have dealt with them quickly. The issues that these

hospitals have to address now are about improvement, not immediate

The 14 Hospital Trusts were put under scrutiny because they had

higher than expected death rates over the last two years, but the

review team is sceptical about such data. Statistic kal estimate of

unexpected deaths can't be described as needlessly lost lives.

Personally I don't set much store about the hospital mortality

standardised ratio. The good news is we need to look at mortality,

and there is a way of doing it, that is by case note review. We

look in great depth at each and every death in a hospital. We get

clinicians, physicians to do this who have been specially trained,

using all the standardised techniques. From that we can

determine what proportion of deaths are avoidable. Isn't that a very

time-consuming process? It is a time-consuming process, but there

is immediate benefits to the clinicians because they learn

things about their own hospital and care. The author of today's report

described this as a difficult day, but one he hoped would be a turning

point for patient. It may well be a turning point for politics too, as

the battle over who loves the NHS the most begins a new chapter.

A little earlier I spoke to the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt. This

is a major report today into an issue of major concern for the

entire country. Why would you choose to make such blatant

political capital out of it? not. Actually as Health Secretary

it is a very difficult day for me today, it is very difficult for any

serving Health Secretary to come to the House of Commons and to say you

are putting 11 hospitals into special measures that is nearly 10%

of all acute trusts. The last thing you want to be responsible for is a

service where there are failures. But the difference about today and

it is a very big moment for the NHS. The difference is that because we

are now being completely transparent about where there are

problems, that means that people like me are now going to be held to

account for turning round those failing hospitals. Why would you go

to the Commons and accuse Andy Burnham of silencing

whistleblowerers, and being to blame, and tweets from backbenchers

all over the weekend pointing the finger at Burnham saying he should

lose his job, where does that get you on this? The fact is one of the

big changes we have had to make is overhaul the entire regulatory

system that was set up by Labour. So you think he was to blame for

this? Well the issue about not confronting failure, I absolutely

do think that Labour are squarely to blame. David Cameron, your own

leader, quoting the Francis Report said that they were not to blame,

he did not want to see scapegoats and it was not the fault of the

previous Secretary of State. Why is this different and why are you

different to your leader? Well, what David Cameron was reflecting

was what was in the Francis Report about the specific issues at Mid

Staffs. What we are talking about here is a whole series of problems

in hospitals that the NHS tried to solve behind closed doors and they

weren't fixed. And the way that we are going to restore confidence and

for me as Health Secretary, what I have to do now, is to deliver

improved hospitals. Where these were failing hospitals I have to

make sure they are now improved. How many more people died as a

result of these failings in care do you think? It is very difficult to

put an exact number on T it is hotly debated by academics.

think it is thousands, that is what you said today, you said thousands

more people may have died? I said they may have died. What happened

with Mid Staffs was that excess mortality rates. What does that

mean? You must let me answer the question. What does "may" have died,

did they die as a result of these failings? I think people did die

avoidably, yes. There is an argument between academics about

precisely how many, but what we do know is that excess mortality rates

are a lead indicator for problems in care. What Bruce Keogh looked at

was the 14 hospitals can excess mortality rates, and in all 14 he

found serious problems in care. Those sorts of figures people are

saying are clinically meaningless and academically reckless.

Academically reckless, you have said thousands may have died as a

result? You are putting words into my mouth. You said that, you said

thousands may have died as a result of this? You said may have died, we

don't know how many. Let me say this, they may have died. Why isn't

that academically reckless, why isn't it clinically meaningless?

said to put a number on it. I didn't put a number on it. But he

would agree with me that there may be thousands of people who died.

But many people living in these areas particularly, and more widely

afield, will be very concerned at what they found. When do you think

they can rest easy that things rup to scratch, that things are

medically safe. Let me make a general point about

confidence in the NHS. Give me a time frame? All the hospitals will

be inspected within the next 12 months by the new Chief Inspector

of hospitals, who starts work today. This is a brand-new Ofsted-style

regime. We will be able to see. You can invite me back and we will see

the progress that has been made. How long do you think that will be?

I would expect to see progress by the time of the first inspection

they do. But. Which is?Within the next year. I don't want to give the

time scale for every single problem to be pointed out. Within a year

would that be too long if they were still in special measures in a

year's time, pick a time frame? want to answer, it is very

important, the point about confidence is you don't restore

confidence for the people who use these hospitals and live near these

hospitals by minimising the problem. You restore confidence by showing

them that you are doing something to sort it out. We need a system

whereby people like me can't get off the hook. It is so public, we

have 1 hospitals in special measures. If we don't get the

hospitals out of special measures soon. You will be the person coming

to me and saying why haven't you succeeded in turning this around

and I will be accountable for it. When? I want it as soon as possible,

but some of these problems are deeply entrenched. Are you

comfortable as Health Secretary that the PM spokesman has a company

that lobbies on behalf of big tobacco? Are you talking about

Lynton Crosby. Lynton Crosby's work is for the Conservative Party and

...He Has a company that also lobbies on behalf of Big Toe bab

co-? He hasn't lobbied me or the Prime Minister on issues to do with

public health. There is also transparency. Does he never help

the PM or advice on issues of policy and public health? No.So

that is a whole area he's not allowed to touch? Yes. Are there

any other issues he's not allowed to touch? I have given you a

straight answer to the question you asked about public health, I don't

know where you want to take it. Don't you think it is odd to have

somebody who is your election co- ordinator that can't touch a whole

area of issues? It is right that he shouldn't. His company has clients

in that area. Would you like to bring in this plain packaging for

cigarettes now? I want to wait and see what the evidence says, but I'm

very sympathetic to measures that stop young people taking up smoking,

it is our number one killer. not be brave and just do it.

Ireland has set the pace, why not do it? These are very hot low-

fought legal issues and we need it make sure if we are doing it that -

- hotly fought legal issues and we need to make sure we have the ducks

in the row. Why not be a world leader? We have to have the

evidence there. When you have a country like Australia that

introduced it in January, it won't be too long before we know the

impact in terms of the amount of young people it has stopped taking

up smoking. And when you have that evidence that's the time, it is a

big decision, but that's the time to make your decision. Jeremy Hunt

thank you. So there you go, clarification from the Health

Secretary that Lynton Crosby, the Conservative election co-ordinator

never advises on issues of policy in public health, it is a whole

area that he's not allowed to touch. Well tomorrow that question of, if

you like, undue influence in lobbying comes to a head, or may do.

Proposed reforms to the lobbying industry will attempt to do what

Leveson tried to do with the press and Ipsa is trying to do for MPs'

expenses. Will it be more successful, or does influence flow

where money is happy to pay. In a moment we will hear from James

Woolsey and Tim Bell. Central Lobby can be an

intimidating place, with queens, prime ministers and saints. Yet it

is meant to be for the common man, a place to drop in and lobby your

MP. Lobbying doesn't have to be a dirty word. But it is. It is the

next big scandal waiting to happen. David Cameron almost got it right,

first came phone hacking then lobbying. The latest furore over

why the Government decided not to introduce plain packaging for

cigarettes and whether that might have something to do with the fact

that their Aussie election strategist, Lynton Crosby's

lobbying firm is employed by the tobacco industry. Labour certainly

sees a connection. Now we know that Lynton Crosby's company had a

contract with Big Tobacco. And at the same time Lynton Crosby was

advising the Prime Minister on what should be in his Queen's Speech and

we know that the Prime Minister dropped his bill on tobacco

packaging, I think that is a clear conflict of interest. David Cameron

has to come clean and explain why once again he's standing up for the

wrong people. It was this footage of Conservative MP, Patrick Mercier,

apparently offering Fiji to reenter the Commonwealth in exchange for

�4,000 that brought "cash for questions" back into the headlines.

I don't charge a great deal of money for these things.

The story came as no surprise to many in Westminster. The Central

Lobby of the House of Commons and this place is infested with

lobbyists, and their tentacles stretch in every corner of the

building, every area of life in the House of Commons is full of

lobbyists. And they are there lurking, ready to persuade, ready

to corrupt politicians to do their bidding. And what they will do is

to bribe and bully and bamboozle politicians in the interests of

their rich paymasters. Tomorrow the Government is expected to try to

tighten the rules on lobbying by proposing a register of

professional lobbyists. For faith to be restored in this place people

need to believe that politicians are making decisions based on what

they think is right for the country, rather than on-lineing their own

pockets. A register of professional - on lining their own pockets. A

register of professional interests sounds like a good idea. The only

problem is only a fraction of people paid to meet MPs around

policy will end up signing up to it. What is the problem with the

register, is it that you don't want to be on it? I absolutely want to

be on a register, bring it on. The problem is I think it will just

include consultancies. We looked at Biz department figures, last year

988 departmental meetings were had with ministers, special advisers,

and a permanent secretary. Just two of those 988 meetings were with

people like me, the rest were with trade groups and in-house lobbyists

and lawyers. The Government's bill is expected to set up a register of

professional lobbyists. It is also likely to try to limit the amount

third-party organisations can spend on campaigning for political

parties. That will affect trade unions. But Labour's got other

ideas and has tabled amendments. It wants all paid lobbyists to end up

on the register, and it wants any lobbyist doing a senior job for

Government to be declared. Perhaps unsurprisingly people think that is

aimed at exposing the business affairs of Lynton Crosby. Forget

any idea that the political parties will reach consensus on this. Some

fear what will get lost is campaigning to make things better.

Lobby is not all bad. We exist to lob hey, I'm an MP and not an

expert in all fields, I rely on talking to others, NGOs, charities,

local businesses talking to me. You have to be open to lobbying. The

issue is it has to be transparent and no money should change hands.

If you dole with those two aspects lobbying doesn't have to be

negative. The Government's proposals is meant to decontaminate

lobbying, as long as they are points scoring against each other,

it is hard to see that happening soon.

Lord Bellamy bell is a Conservative peer and P -- Lord Tim Bell is a

Conservative peer, and runs one of the most successful lobbying

outfits. And Dr James Woolsey repeatedly has spoken out against

lobbying. Welcome both. I want to go back to the question of Lynton

Crosby, would that be usual to have whole policy areas completely off

limit like that? In my experience of advising political parties on

election campaigns is it is not about policy but how you get votes

and who you tafrgt your messages to, and how you deliver those drg

target your messages and now you different -- how you target your

messages and how you get them out. I worked for Margaret Thatcher for

15 years if I told her what policies to decide on she would

have thrown me out of the room. Jeremy Hunt was certain that those

lines should not be crossed? Jeremy Hunt speaks for himself, I don't

speak for him. I do know Lynton Crosby extremely well, I can

guarantee you that he did not persuade the Prime Minister to

change his position on plain packages. Are you convinced own

that? If you come in and say you want to scrape the barnacles off

the boat and one of those barnacles is entire public health policy you

don't need to have a conversation about smoking and tobacco because

it is disappeared. In the report we were hearing about...What Do you

mean the importance of disappeared? I think it has been removed. Two

very key public health measures are being removed. Just to reflect back

on today's events, NHS doctors and nurses all the time are being told

about the importance of reducing avoidable mortality. We have the

really big win in avoidable mortalties in public health, and

yet the two areas which could have made a real difference and the real

tools that could have been used to reduce smoking and reduce alcohol

abuse, they have been removed by the politicians for short-term

political expediency, in my view. By lobbyists? You could argue this

is one of the most spectacular examples of hidden lobbying. We

don't know. I think the point is that actually if you are also being

paid by major tobacco companies and internationally, but the point is

we don't know, by big alcohol, then of course, to make a statement that

can't influence the kind of advice you are giving is wrong. The public

have a right to know. It doesn't smell right? I don't care what it

smells like? You don't care what it smells like, extraordinary.

type around Big Tobacco and Big Alcohol, the same as small alcohol

and small tobacco. As it happens I'm a smoker and happy smoking, all

the stuff that Sarah talks about and the health Tsars and fascists

have gone on and on about smoking hasn't affected me. I did the very

first anti-smoking campaigns in this country when The Royal College

of Physician report came across with the linking of smoking with

cancer, and emphysema. We did all the anti-smoking advertising, later

on we took on a cigarette brand called Silk Cut, I don't take issue

with that I believe it should be free. I'm a real Conservative

Conservative I believe in the continued...If It doesn't work then

fine? The point is if it didn't work why would people pay vast sums

for it. It should include people giving high-level political advice

at the heart of Government. I think that's something that the public

would welcome. What position are you in at the moment, do you feel

comfortable with Lynton Crosby and the position he's in for your Prime

Minister? I would like to know who else is paying him. The public have

a right to know that as well. To see public health completely

removed from the political agenda at the same time as somebody is

advising about what policy should be in the lead up to the election.

I'm afraid it isn't the case to say these things are unconnect. What

reforms do we need tomorrow? don't need any reforms. None at all,

you are happy with the position of Government? I have never known a

lobbyist that gave a politician money or gifts or took them on to

events to persuade them to change policies. If you want to define a

lobbyist, which the Government define as wishing to influence

public policy then every MP is a lobbyist, every journalist,

everybody who talks about politics is a lobbyist, every constituent

that comes to your surgery is a lobbyist. For God's sake this is

smearing a small group of people. You have no evidence for it

whatsoever apart from a few fraudulent activities. You don't

have the faintest idea what lobbyist gets paid. What does it

matter if they get big money or not? The public want transparency

about that. The public has never asked me for transparency. Jo it

should also be around things like think-tanks, for example, anybody

who lobbies for money. It couldn't do that. So everyone should sign up

to this register? I I think they would want to. You heard the guy in

the film there are only two people on it because they are transparent

about what they do? The APCC has every single one of the companies

to be named tomorrow, as I understand it, which is what you

call the professional lobbying companies, they are already members

of it. They already publish their client lists and how much they are

paid. It is published on a publicly available website. It is already

there. The head of the PRCA, the head of APPC have all said to the

Government you don't need to do this, but they completely ignore

you and what they are doing is smearing a lot of people who make a

considerable contribution to this life. All of us do things that make

a difference. They make a difference to people's lives. I

happen to to be a real Conservative, I believe people should be paid for

what they do. I don't believe there is anything wrong with being paid,

nor do I think everybody is corrupt. Do you find if big money changes

policy? That is where we are going to. Does it matter if that happens?

Not if the policy out of it is good. If somebody has a lot of money they

should be able to influence policy? That is not how it work, if you

look at what lobbyists get paid. The financial takeover company

decided to make financial companies pay fees in order to discover if

they were being overpaid for doing takeover bids. Lo and behold it

turned out they weren't paid millions but tens of thousands of

pounds. Are the public sophisticated enough to see through

the people that are trying too hard, if you like. Do we really need

regulation to sort this out? point is the public have an

absolute right to know who is behind, what is the big money

behind organisations that are advising at the heart of Government.

Isn't the worry that you paint the political classes as grubby,

corrupt, when we have one of the cleanest systems in the world?

do because people challenge, we should continue to challenge. It is

not unreasonable in my opinion. introduce absurd regulations that

have made no difference anywhere else. We are going to have to leave

that here. How do you get capitalism to work

in a communist state. Now 25 years ago the entire economy of Vietnam

was Government-controlled. The debate continues here. Today just a

third of it is, the country still calls itself commune is, but this

process of liberalisation is reckoned to be key to Vietnam's

rapid growth. We have gone in search of Vietnamese milk, bun of

the burgeoning industries flourishing in a country not used

to' free market. They still preserve a few remnants of war. But

Ho Chi Minh, the city normally known as Saigon, is almost

unrecoginsable as the place the Americans withdrew troops from 40

years ago. Vietnam's commercial centre sports all the Gaudi

accessories you would expect from a booming economy. The high class

hotels and cafe lifestyles. Just like this city, the communists who

won the American war, as the Vietnam War is known here, have had

a makover. One bonders what the communist hero,

Ho Chi Minh would make of the fact that the Stock Exchange is named

after him. This place is still run by the Communist Party, but

apparently Vietnam is now a socialist-orientated market economy.

What that really seems to mean is capitalist powerhouse. Over the

last 15 years the Communist Party has overseen a spectacular economic

boom. But now growth is lagging, in large

part because the boom has been based not on wealth, but on the

country's poverty. Look at the scale of this place? There must be

hundreds of people working here. It is like those dark Satanic mills,

and these guys make garments and clothes for all the big western

countries. It really is amazing. Vast workshops like this making

clothes and other manufactured goods for the west are the engine

driving Vietnam's boom, they flourished because they are so

cheap. And they are cheap because the workers get paid so little.

This is definitely not for the local market. Hi is pretty typical

of Vietnam's new urban work force, he has migrated from the

countryside and works long hours for what is, by international

standards, very low pay. So how hard is it working here? Not hard

He heads home as soon as his long day shift is over. This is your

place? But almost immediately's back in front of a sewing machine.

What time do you think you will It is a long day for you Hi. The

Vietnamese Government recognises that piece work is never going to

make people like Hi or Vietnam rich. So it has been encouraging the

development of new industries, which generate higher profits and

can pay workers more. Dairy products have never been a big part

of the Vietnamese diet. Vinamilk is hoping to change that. It has grown

rapidly to become one of the biggest companies listed on the Ho

Chi Minh Stock Exchange, valued at over $5 million. The architect of

Vinamilk as success is its formidable former communist boss,

Madame Lien. Do you like cows? So what are your plans for the

A multinational, an ambitious woman, very ambitious? Yes.Vinamilk is a

poster child for the success of the communist Government's

privatisation programme. Just over 25 years ago the entire economy was

controlled by the state. Now it is just a third. So this factory is

all powered milk products? children. That process of

liberalisation is reckoned to be the key to Vietnam's rapid growth.

Madame Lien says she sees no contradiction between the country's

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 43 seconds

growing private sector and its Which sounds rather like capitalism.

And the problem with capitalism is that capitalists tend to do what's

best for the bottom line. Not what is best for workers. Despite the

boss's -- bosses' minimalist sympathies, just a few people can

run this vast milk powder factory and the dairy in the Highlands has

the latest labour-saving equipment. The state still keeps a very tight

grip on other aspects of society, here is the minder who accompanied

the Newsnight team wherever we went. Can innovations and enterprise

thrive while the state keeps such a close watch. Many investors seem to

think so, this is a software engineer who works for a country

that looks to borrow ideas from leading companies in the best like

Google and Ebay, and tailor them for the Vietnamese market. Once

again this is not labour-intensive work. Do you think this is a bit

like business? Man, you are a tough competitor. Is this what you feel

like when you are planning your business? No!He lives the kind of

modern urban lifestyle that many young Vietnamese aspire to, he's

optimistic about the future. Actually I'm lucky now because I

was born in the peaceful town -- peaceful time, not only me but many

students have the space to study and work, not only in our country

but in developed countries like the US and Europe. Not everyone shares

his optimisim. Hoong is one of Vietnam's army of new graduates,

Vietnam's universities have almost two million students, a seven-fold

increase in just 15 years. It is another arm of the Government's

strategy to upgrade the economy. You are selling these mobile

phones? Yes.You are not working in what you want to do? Yeah. I really

want to have a job in suitable with my degree. But I can't find a job

like that. But Hoong's experience is typical. She graduated two years

ago with a degree in hotel management. But she can't find work

in the hotel industry. Are there many of your friend from university

What do your parents think of the situation. It must be quite

difficult for them? The problem is that in vet nam it is not -- is

that if Vietnam is not using its brightest and best it will find

itself in the middle income trap. Rising wages will price it out of

bottom end manufacturing, yet it doesn't seem ready to break into

the more lucrative higher value markets quite yet.

I think that the BBC chief Tony Hall remarked today "muttering is

something we could look at". If you are in any way hard of hearing

muttering is something you you have to look at. The announcement was

greeted with more whoops of joy than a reduction in the license fee.

Has the quiet man had his time? Or have we a mix of kitchen sink

realisim. (quietly) it is very beautiful here. Yet all around such

decay. The children are starving. Did you think this was just a

fairness dispute, a little bit of nothing. A wife did she hang?No

Jeggers was for her. Perhaps he should. He must want more.

(quietly) then what? Then, picnics. So now that he's started. It is

hard to stop even if he wanted to. He thinks they are weak and all day

he is making table legs and side boards. (inaudible) with my dresses.

You turn it down to the bank tomorrow, we don't want any

criminals thieving off you. Nothing like making a point with a

bit of choice editing, but to discuss the mumable is Michael

Simkins a RADA-trained actor who has performed on the stage and TV

dramas and big screen and the Sunday Mirror's TV critic is with

us. Is it about not wanting to be ham, is that the biggest worry?

can blame the bloke behind me, Marlon brand dough, before him

whether it was actors who were positively sup pine like Gary

Cooper, who people who delivered it stucatto like Edward Robinson, you

could always hear what they said. Brand dough broke the mould and

started the trend for a more realistic style. That has been

exemplfied by the cultural change, everything is spartan and dialogue

understated. That is how a lot of people communicate. Like the

younger generation today. We are not goinging to lose that are we?

don't recognise this as a prevalent problem. Tony Hall was honest

enough to admit he's 62 and was perhaps talking to his own

generation. I think a lot of the complaints are actually, we saw

Eddy Redmain there, and an absurd example. You have soundtrack,

actors speaking perfectly normally against the backdrop of pounding

rock music because that is groovy and MoD he were, and people of a

certain age can't hear what is being said. It is this kind of urge

towards modernism that possibly gets in the way of clarity. When

you are training and you are a RADA man, is the emphasis on projection

and on the kind of acting that speaks to a 1,000-seat theatre?

emphasis is less now. When I was training back in the primevil days

back in the 1970s, actors cut their teeth in great big theetures where

you were playing to 800 seats. When Donald Syndon opened his mouth on

the first night he blew me into the orchestra pit, I couldn't believe

anyone could deliver 70-80 yards without raising his voice. That has

changed. Following on from your point the poor old beleaguered

actor, however well they do it on set it is overlaid often with

soundtracks and ambient noises which gives it a nice theme.

are not told to mumable? No actor it is told to mumable. If you are

trying to do the love scene with the royal Philharmonic orchestra

behind you, I defy Brian Blessed to do that. The actors are being

unfairly accused, they might deliver the line well and they turn

the music down to make it moody. What about the rest of the

technology, flat-screen TVs, this is mooted as one reason why you

can't hear anything, there is no sound bar? I hadn't thought of that,

but I think Michael and I agree we don't see this as a prevalent

problem. It may be, as Tony said I'm sorry if I sound like a grumpy

old man, it may be a grumpy old man complaining about something he

personally find irritating. Programmes like The Wire are cool

because you can't quite understand them? There is a lot of copying of

the Wire, that could have done with subtitles. I thought you could get

it? Hi to get subtitles watching it. Follow on from that technology has

moved on hugely, when you are filming, the boom operator, the

sound man, they can pick up the tick of your wristwatch but also

your gurgling digestive system doing last night's curry. The actor

sometimes inadvertantly hands over the mechanics of his performance to

technology. You are often in the thrall of people who are expert,

however much they may be, it is not you judging the performance I in

more. That must make you feel impotent? As an actor. A lot of

things make me pole impotent! It does mean there is so much

technology around the actor can forget they are the person

delivering the part. Thank you very much indeed. We hope you heard

every word of that, we will take you through a mumbled paper review

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 43 seconds

now. The Times has a picture of a That's all from us tonight, it is

not just the mumbling that is going, it is also the pesky squished up

credits at the BBC programme, you (continuity announcement mumble

about the next programme). Good evening, more sunshine and more

heat, just about sums up the forecast for the British Isles in

the next few days. Today we still have some cloud across Northern

Ireland and Scotland, a bit more cloud for northern England than

early on in the week. For Northern Ireland with sunny spells through

the afternoon, a few spot temperatures will get close to the

mid-20s, the same can be said for southern and eastern Scotland. The

North West plaged with the remnants of a weather front. Shetland should

brighten through the afternoon. Northern England should have long

spells of sunshine in the mid-20s, across the south-east of England we

may get close to 30 degrees. With that kind of heat we may spark off

a very isolated thunderstorm. If we see any showers developing they

could be lively, but they will be few and far between. Further west

more sunshine, of course, and again widely in the 20s. Very little

changes in that story as we look at the later part of the week. Just

ever so slightly subtle changes, temperatures coming down on

Thursday and Friday picking up a more Eastleigh fetch to our weather.