Oral evidence: Reality TV, HC 2203

Oral evidence, 25 June 2019.

Witnesses

Julian Bellamy, Tom McLennan and Graham Stanier.

Chair

I welcome the witnesses for this evidence session of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee as part of our inquiry into reality television. Before we start the questions and the evidence session, I remind Members that in accordance with the House’s sub judice resolution, reference should not be made to matters before the coroner's court and, therefore, the inquest into the death of Steven Dymond should not be referred to. However, discussion of the wider issues relating to “The Jeremy Kyle Show” and other shows is permissible. I state that for the record. We would like to start our questions relating specifically to “The Jeremy Kyle Show” with reference to the use of the lie detector test, which has been a key feature of the programme. For the benefit of the record and for people watching, we are going to play a very short clip of the use of the lie detector test and Jeremy Kyle delivering the results of that. Then we will ask some questions about the test itself. Could we play the clip? Thank you. [An excerpt was shown from the BriteSpark Films documentary for Channel 4 Dispatches: "Jeremy Kyle: TV on Trial".]

Chair

Tom McLennan, you are executive producer of the programme. How long has the polygraph test or lie detector test been a feature of “The Jeremy Kyle Show”?

Tom McLennan

The show has been on air for nearly 14 years. We have recorded over 3,000 episodes. The lie detector has been part of talk shows in Britain for probably over 20 years and on talk shows all around the world, but since the beginning of “Jeremy Kyle”.

Chair

Since the beginning of the show?

Tom McLennan

Yes.

Chair

How accurate do you think the polygraph test is?

Tom McLennan

We have always made it very clear to the viewers and to the participants in the show that the lie detector is not 100% accurate. We have always felt that that is incredibly important. We make that point before the guests even come to the studios for recording. We tell them before they take the lie detector and afterwards. As you will see on that clip, as Jeremy is giving out the results, we also put on the screen that the lie detector is designed to indicate whether somebody is being deceptive. Practitioners claim it to have a high level of accuracy, although this is disputed. We always wanted to be extremely clear not only for the people on the show but also for viewers.

Chair

You are quite right, in the contracts for the participants in the show it says it is not guaranteed to be 100% accurate, and the company that does the tests says that on its website too, but how accurate do you think those tests are? I understand you think they are not 99% accurate, but what level of accuracy do you believe those tests have?

Tom McLennan

We know they are not 100% and that is why we have always been incredibly clear with the people coming on the show before they filmed and before they took the test, and to the viewers.

Chair

I am sure you are aware that “Dispatches” did a programme about “The Jeremy Kyle Show” and in that Professor Ray Bull of Derby University said he believed that even in perfect conditions with a trained expert using the machine, the test had at best a 66% to 70% chance of an accurate score.

Tom McLennan

I think if you asked different experts you would get different opinions. That is why we were always very clear to make sure that everybody was aware that it was not 100%, and that is why we came up with that disclaimer.

Chair

Yes, but the disclaimer does not really mean very much, does it, because “not 100%” might mean nearly 100% but there might be some minor discrepancy? Professor Bull’s estimate is that two times out of three the test is accurate but one time out of three it is wrong, and that is quite a big difference, isn’t it?

Tom McLennan

I have worked in other countries on lie detectors and if you ask different people you will get different opinions. We felt it was incredibly important—and I can’t stress this enough—to make sure that every single person who had a lie detector test was fully informed that it was not 100% accurate.

Chair

Yes, but “not 100%” and “maybe only two-thirds right” is a massive difference. There is a massive difference in the way that is perceived. As you will have seen—this is the reason we wanted to play the clip—Jeremy Kyle is choosing his words carefully. He is not saying, “You are a liar”; he is saying, “The test says you are a liar”, but nevertheless it is not, “The test says you might be a liar”, or, “The test says you might not be right”. It is being presented as black and white, “You lied”, and that is causing considerable distress to the people receiving the results.

Tom McLennan

I think we have to remember that a good proportion of the people who appeared on the show were viewers and they would watch the show on a daily basis. When we were going through all our procedures, we would ask them, “Have you ever seen the show?”, and they would always come back and say that they had seen the show and they would watch it regularly. If they had not seen the show, that would be a huge flag for us. They would have watched and they had applied to be on the show. They had also wanted to take a lie detector. They had seen the show and knew of Jeremy’s presenting style. They knew the accuracy because we had made it very clear. They were completely fully informed by the time they were appearing on the show.

Chair

Have you asked the company that does the tests what it believes the accuracy rate is?

Tom McLennan

Yes, we have talked to them over a long period of time and they have told us that it is not 100%. They have made it very clear.

Chair

Yes, but you are the executive producer; you are responsible for this programme. Have you inquired as to how effective these tests are or what the likely success rate is?

Tom McLennan

Yes, which is not 100%.

Chair

Beyond that, have you said, “It is not 100%, so what is the actual percentage because I have to be responsible for this programme?”

Tom McLennan

As I said to you, if you asked examiners you would get different opinions.

Chair

What is the range you have been told?

Tom McLennan

We would get different opinions and we felt it was incredibly important to make sure that everybody was informed that the test was not 100%.

Chair

What is the range? You say you have had different opinions. What is the range of opinion?

Tom McLennan

We could talk to five different examiners and get a range of opinions and send them on to you.

Chair

Do you have those figures with you?

Tom McLennan

I do not have those figures right now.

Chair

Do you not know?

Tom McLennan

I know that is not 100%, and we made it very clear to everybody including the viewers.

Chair

It is pretty fundamental. Do you not know what the range is? You don’t have that information in your head?

Tom McLennan

I don’t have the information in front of me, no.

Chair

I find that astonishing. This has become one of the most criticised elements of the show; one of the most controversial; one of the things that causes the most amount of stress. It is presented as fact. It is disputed how good the technology is, but you don’t know yourself what the range is of the likelihood of getting a true and accurate reading out of the test.

Tom McLennan

We knew it was not 100%. We put that on screen to the viewers. We told the contributors that the lie detector is designed to indicate whether somebody is being deceptive. Practitioners claim it to have a high level of accuracy, although this is disputed.

Chair

But you can’t define what a high level of accuracy is, other than not 100%, but 50% is not 100%.

Tom McLennan

I am not a lie detector expert so what we would do is—

Chair

No, but you are responsible for this programme. You are the person who is responsible for this programme. This is a key feature in this programme and I think if you were using that and if you were being responsible, you would know the answer to that question.

Tom McLennan

Like I said, I am not a lie detector expert, so we would hire in a lie detector expert who would do the tests and come up with the results. The results would be given to the producers and then be given to Jeremy. We would not get involved with the actual lie detector test.

Chair

You commissioned this and I think it is irresponsible if you don’t know the answer to that question—that you can’t say what the range is of the likely accuracy of those tests.

Tom McLennan

I think it is disputed so it is very difficult to come up with a figure.

Chair

I understand that it might be disputed, but I have asked you what the range is—not necessarily to pin yourself to a particular number, but to give an idea of the range. I am disappointed that you can’t do that. Where are the tests done?

Tom McLennan

They would be done in rooms in MediaCity and it would be done away from the production by an expert.

Chair

What is the time difference between the tests being done and the results being given to the person who has done the test, as they were on the clip?

Tom McLennan

Normally the test would be done probably the day before. Sometimes it would be done on the day of recording. Would it be useful if I explained the production process of how the show was recorded?

Chair

I am sure we will come on to that as we go through, but at the moment I want to focus on this bit. We have another range of topics we want to discuss. It is not secret information and you can read up on the way polygraph tests are done. Obviously, a machine cannot tell whether someone is lying; it is reading bodily functions, heart rates and perspiration rates. How likely do you think it is that that test is going to be accurate when this is being done in a controlled environment with someone who is away from their home, staying in a hotel at MediaCity, maybe on the day they are going to make a television programme where they are probably quite nervous and quite anxious about that? How likely do you think it is that they are going to give a calm, measured reading in that test?

Tom McLennan

We had experts to take the test, and the contributors were fully informed beforehand of what the test involved. They would have asked us to appear on the show and to take a lie detector test.

Chair

They may have been informed. They have been told by you that an expert is going to do the test and it is not 100% accurate, but experts say it is accurate. They don’t know how accurate it is and they are not doing it in controlled conditions. They are doing it in a makeshift facility on the day potentially they are going on a television programme where they might be feeling quite anxious. Do the people who are doing the test work for the company that owns the equipment?

Tom McLennan

Yes. We employed professionals to take the test.

Chair

They work for a company. Is it called UK Lie Detectors or something like that?

Tom McLennan

Yes.

Chair

I think they are based in Manchester as well.

Tom McLennan

I think their offices might be in Norwich but I would need to check that.

Chair

Okay, but the test is not being done in a controlled medical facility or research laboratory; it is being done at MediaCity. Do the people doing the testing have medical qualifications?

Tom McLennan

I don’t think they have medical qualifications, but they have qualifications in lie detectors.

Chair

Is there a body, an organisation, that issues qualifications in being a lie detector tester?

Tom McLennan

There is. I will get those details and give them to you.

Chair

But those are likely to be the qualifications, if they have any at all, of these people.

Tom McLennan

Yes, and the people that we used had been doing this for many years and were very competent.

Chair

It seems a very precarious environment for people who are potentially going through what could be a life-changing moment. I am not sure that the show is preparing people for what this means or even briefing them properly as to how potentially likely this test is to be very flawed. It is not being done in a controlled way, not by people with medical qualifications, not being done in a specialist facility, and people are not being told what the range of percentage is for how likely this is to be true or not. That seems to be quite a precarious position to put people in. Mr Stanier, from your position as director of aftercare, of the people you have met who have been on the show and have had concerns or anxiety after the show, how much has that been linked to people who have been through lie detector tests and may have been adversely affected by that?

Graham Stanier

We explain it differently. What we would say prior to the show is that some people will fail this test, but yet they will be telling the truth. We explain it differently. We don’t use percentages. We just make it very clear that some people will fail that test, but yet they will be telling the truth. I think that is a fairer way to explain it.

Chair

I don’t think it is very fair because I don’t think people have been given the full picture of what these tests are, how inaccurate they could be. They are not being told that information, but the question I asked you was about aftercare after the show. Do you think that the polygraph test is a contributing factor to people who suffer with concerns, depression, after they have been on the show?

Graham Stanier

Yes. When somebody—

Chair

Yes, you think it is?

Graham Stanier

They do become distressed because they disagree with the result. That is why we have a guest welfare service after the show, in order to alleviate that distress. What we want is for people to be comforted, controlled, calm after that result.

Chair

In that aftercare process do you say to them, “Don’t worry, the test is probably only two-thirds of the time accurate so the chances are it might not be true”? Do you say that to them?

Graham Stanier

We do, because we have mentioned it prior to the show, so we will reiterate that point. We will go back to the point that we raised before the show, which is that some people will fail this test yet they will be telling the truth.

Chair

Yes, but if they have also been told before the show that it is not 100% accurate but been led to believe it is highly accurate, in aftercare if you have someone who is distressed or a couple who may be very distressed and about to make a life-changing decision based on the result of this test, do you sit them down and say, “Actually, the accuracy of this is greatly disputed. It might be a third of the time it is not accurate at best and, therefore, you shouldn’t rely on this test”? Do you sit people down and have those sorts of conversations as specifically as that?

Graham Stanier

I won’t refer to specific numbers because I am naive about the figures of accuracy.

Chair

Are you aware of figures of accuracy?

Graham Stanier

I have always been aware that the lie detector was not 100% accurate.

Chair

Yes, I know that but you said, “I am aware of the figures”, so are you aware of a range?

Graham Stanier

No, I am not. I am not.

Chair

You are the director of aftercare on this programme and you do not have any figures for the percentage of accuracy of the test?

Graham Stanier

I would prefer to say to them before they do the test that some people will fail this test yet they will be telling the truth, and then after the test I will raise that again.

Chair

It is just meaningless, isn’t it? It is a meaningless piece of information to give to people.

Graham Stanier

From my point of view, it is about keeping them informed.

Chair

But you are not, are you, because you are not giving information that could be relevant and would help them put the test into context?

Graham Stanier

I am informing them that some people can fail the test but yet be telling the truth, and then I can raise that if people are upset after the show. I can raise that again and say, “This is what we spoke about before”.

Chair

Yes, but that is in the context that before the show people have been told it is not 100% accurate but the people who do the test believe it is highly accurate, so they believe it is highly accurate and it is being presented on the show as definitive by Jeremy Kyle. There is no ambiguity in what he is saying there. Afterwards, you are not saying to people, “There is a range of scores here. You shouldn’t rely on the test”. You don’t even know what the range of accuracy is yourself—you just said that.

Graham Stanier

I prefer to say to them that some people will fail the test.

Jo Stevens

Can I go back to you, Mr McLennan? You said that there are different views from different experts about the reliability of the lie detector test. Can I just clarify: have you actually got information about that? Have you commissioned it, did you look at it, or were you talking about doing that in future when you gave your answers previously?

Tom McLennan

What we know is that the test is not 100%—

Jo Stevens

No, can you answer the question, please? Have you, as a programmer, as the executive producer, sought out those different views of experts that you discussed about the reliability of the test, or is that something that you intend to do in the future? I want to know whether you already have the information and you have looked at it, or whether you don’t have the information at all.

Tom McLennan

I have been around lie detectors in my professional career for the last 15 to 20 years, so I know that there is different opinion. That is what I was talking about earlier.

Jo Stevens

I will ask you the same question that the Chair asked Mr Stanier. What is the range?

Tom McLennan

This is why we wanted to make it clear to the contributors and to the public that it was designed to—practitioners claim it to have a high level of accuracy, although it is disputed. We felt it was incredibly important to get that point across to the contributors so they knew, plus the viewer.

Jo Stevens

You can’t tell us what the range is because you don’t know what the range is.

Tom McLennan

We know it is disputed so that is what—

Jo Stevens

You don’t know what the range is, do you, Mr McLennan, because otherwise you would tell me?

Tom McLennan

We know it is disputed.

Jo Stevens

If you were going into hospital to have an operation and the doctor said to you, “This operation is not going to be 100% successful”, would you just sit there or would you say, “What is the likelihood of it being successful?”

Tom McLennan

What we did is we gave the information to the contributors and they decided. Like I said earlier, they had watched the show, they had applied and they gave informed consent to come on the show and also they wanted to take a lie detector.

Jo Stevens

How can they give informed consent if you don’t tell them what the accuracy of the test is? You can’t just say it is not 100% accurate, because that could mean it is 1% accurate or 99% accurate. How can they give informed consent in those circumstances?

Tom McLennan

I think if we had given a percentage that could have been more dangerous, because if we had spoken to different people we would have got different percentages. We felt it was very responsible to give this, which is that it is not 100%, because we wanted people to be informed before they took a lie detector and before they went on the show.

Jo Stevens

Why is the premise of the entire show based on an exercise that is obviously flawed, that is inaccurate? The premise of the show is fake, isn’t it?

Tom McLennan

One thing I would like to say is that the show dealt with lots of different issues. Sometimes we would do shows about inspirational children and different things. Yes, we used to use the lie detector. When you go on to YouTube and you see the show, you will see the moments of the show with the most conflict. People who watched the show, which was a huge number of people—I think one year 55% of the country watched an episode of “Jeremy Kyle”—would see a different thing. They saw a show that was conflict, but was also resolution and always striving for resolution.

Jo Stevens

But they will see lie detectors being used, so can you answer my question: why do you use something that is so flawed as a premise? Okay, you might not agree with me that it is the central premise of the show, but it is a significant part of the show. Why do you use something that is so flawed and why do you not tell people how flawed it is in specific terms?

Tom McLennan

We used different tools—the lie detector is one tool—to try to get to resolution. We used DNA testing. We would also put people in in-house rehab units to try to help them with drug and alcohol abuse. There was a range of different things and the lie detector was one of them, but I think the most important thing was we felt that our duty of care was really important and that we needed to make it very clear to the contributors and to the viewers that the tests were not 100% accurate.

Jo Stevens

You have a very, very unusual view of the concept of duty of care, Mr McLennan.

Chair

I appreciate there are other aspects of the show, but I think we all know that if it was not for the lie detector test we might not be sitting here today.

Clive Efford

In the light of your answers regarding the accuracy of a lie detector and the fact that you accept that there is a significant amount of disagreement about the accuracy, do you still consider the way that the results were presented to the participant in the clip we just saw to be appropriate?

Tom McLennan

Obviously, we did not pick that clip, but watching that clip now—

Clive Efford

It exists and it was broadcast. Do you accept that?

Tom McLennan

Yes. Just watching the clip, I think Jeremy did have a strong opinion about the lie detector. That is why we also felt it was so important to make it very clear that it was not 100% accurate and that is why we put it on the screen as he was giving the results.

Clive Efford

What did you take from him implying, when he waved the card, that this is the reason why they wouldn’t go on the stage? What do you think he was indicating there?

Tom McLennan

Like I said, Jeremy has a very strong view, so he obviously believed in the result there and he was saying that to the contributor, so that is why we needed to make it very clear.

Clive Efford

In a previous answer, you said that you have been in association with programmes that have used lie detectors over 15 years or so. Other than in reality TV shows, where have you used lie detectors?

Tom McLennan

Only within television.

Clive Efford

ITV would not use lie detectors on its own employees, for instance.

Tom McLennan

I don’t believe that has happened.

Clive Efford

You do not think that would be appropriate, but it is okay for reality TV.

Tom McLennan

I don’t believe that has happened, but I think every single contributor on any show that has had a lie detector has been fully informed and has also agreed to take part.

Clive Efford

Mr Stanier, in an earlier answer you used the term—and you did it twice—if a participant disagrees with the result. Is that a pejorative term?

Graham Stanier

It will happen when the result comes out and they say that they disagree with it. They failed and they will say, “No, I was telling the truth”.

Clive Efford

Are you not indicating there that you accept the accuracy of the lie detector and, therefore, these people are disagreeing but they are not right in disagreeing?

Graham Stanier

I accept—and this is definitely the language that I use with guests—that some people will fail that test yet be telling the truth. I totally accept that I don’t know the percentage of success or the percentage of failure. I would rather work with guests in that way.

Chair

Mr McLennan, you said Jeremy Kyle felt strongly about the tests. Is that correct?

Tom McLennan

Yes. To my understanding he strongly believed in the test.

Chair

He believes in the tests themselves. Does he believe the tests are an important part of the show?

Tom McLennan

Yes. I obviously can’t talk for Jeremy today, but my understanding is that he did believe in the test.

Chair

It is interesting, because it has been suggested to us that Jeremy Kyle is just the presenter of the programme and does not really have much of a say in the format of the programme, but clearly you believe that he thinks this is an important part of the format of the show.

Tom McLennan

Yes, it is one of the tools that we used and I believe that Jeremy believed in the test.

Giles Watling

The overriding impression given by the show is that the lie detector is definitive. That is the impression that is given, otherwise you would not have a show. We are talking showbiz here and “The Jeremy Kyle Show” has been described as a form of bear baiting. Has there ever been a case where somebody has failed the lie detector and has subsequently proved that the lie detector test was wrong? If that has happened, has it been publicised and have you, as newspapers do, printed a retraction?

Tom McLennan

I cannot recall a case right now of that happening, but I can look into that and write to you after this. I want to make sure that I am giving you the correct information.

Giles Watling

It would be interesting to find out. That brings me on to the guests’ understanding of what they are getting into. I have a career in show business. I understand how it works and as an actor I had a union—Equity—behind me and I had an agent and they had entertainment lawyers, so I had the backup. You are picking on members of the general public who do not have that sort of backup. They are not professionals in the arena and you have people whose understanding, for many reasons, of what they are getting into might not be as deep as perhaps mine might be. You are then to a certain extent, it would be fair to say, exploiting that because you are presenting them with someone who has the razor-sharp mind of a barrister and can tear them apart in public, which is part of the entertainment in a sort of Roman Colosseum-like way. Would you say that is a fair assessment?

Tom McLennan

I wouldn’t. I don’t believe the people who came on “The Jeremy Kyle Show” were exploited. To talk about the process, I think we did take our duty of care incredibly seriously. What we would do is 99% of the people who applied to come on the show applied because they were watching the show on a daily basis. They had a problem and they wanted to come on the show. They would apply directly to the show. They loved Jeremy and they wanted to hear his advice. I know some people will watch the show and see clips and will find that hard to believe, but the truth is that the people who were watching the show watched on a daily basis and they wanted to come on the show and they wanted to hear Jeremy’s advice.

Giles Watling

It is an interesting thing you said there—that they had a problem. Are you not in some way exploiting the fact that they had a problem?

Tom McLennan

I think just because somebody has a problem does not mean that they are being exploited. The fact is that they wanted to come on this forum and talk about their problem and, yes, the show was conflict but it very much was resolution as well. We were always striving for resolution. We did have proper systems in place and 90% of the people who applied to “The Jeremy Kyle Show” did not get on the show. That was because we would go through lots of different checklists with them and if any flags came up we would pass them to the aftercare team, which really was more of a guest welfare team, and they would be spoken to. If there was any point in the process where they felt that they should not appear on the show, the producers did not override the aftercare team. They would absolutely be listened to. If Graham said that person cannot come on the show, that person would not be on the show. The aftercare would carry on throughout. It is interesting in the clip that you showed earlier, I noticed there were two mental health nurses in the room while that was going on. There would be aftercare afterwards and counselling put in place, and we would keep in contact with them.

Giles Watling

The guests who come on your show are in a bad place to start with.

Tom McLennan

No, they would have a problem.

Giles Watling

They would have a problem.

Chair

We will talk a bit more about the aftercare later, if that is okay. Thank you.

Ian C. Lucas

Can I clarify, first of all, that the show is an ITV production and you are the person in charge of the production; is that right?

Tom McLennan

Sorry if I did not make that clear. I am Director of Entertainment, North, so I am in charge of many different programmes across lots of different genres, including factual, current affairs and different things. We also have daytime output and I was one of the executive producers of “The Jeremy Kyle Show”.

Ian C. Lucas

Are the researchers who are speaking to contributors to the show employed by ITV?

Tom McLennan

We would make normally three, potentially sometimes even four, shows in a day. We would normally record on a Thursday and Friday. The team would normally have three days of casting where they would go through the telephone numbers for all the people who had contacted the show. They would then talk to them and they would also talk to the other side of the person that they had a problem with. If both sides agreed, they would go to senior management, discuss the story with them and then they would start going through the checklists and getting the aftercare team involved where appropriate.

Ian C. Lucas

How many of these researchers are there?

Tom McLennan

There would be six teams and each team would have a producer, an associate producer, a senior researcher and a junior researcher.

Ian C. Lucas

Does that mean three people in a team?

Tom McLennan

Four people in each team and each team would be making one show per week.

Ian C. Lucas

How do you find contributors to the show?

Tom McLennan

Ninety-nine per cent of all contributors would call. There would be an advert within the show saying, “If you have a problem or if you would like a lie detector, you can contact the show”, so 99% of people would contact the show. Occasionally, there would be social media adverts or that kind of thing, but we did not street cast or anything like that. People would apply to us. As I said, if somebody was not a regular viewer of the show, that would be a huge flag for us.

Ian C. Lucas

You placed social media adverts, for example, on Facebook?

Tom McLennan

From time to time that would happen, but normally it would be through the show.

Ian C. Lucas

In one of the checklists from the show, you ask a specific question: “Did you get in touch with the show after you saw an advertisement on Facebook?” Why did you ask that specific question?

Tom McLennan

The question above that is, “Are you a regular viewer of the TV show?”, and then we come to that question, which is just so we are fully informed of where that person came from. If they did not come through the normal way, which is 99% of people contacting through the show, we would want to know the fact that it was through social media.

Ian C. Lucas

Why did you say Facebook? Why didn’t you say on social media?

Tom McLennan

I am not quite sure. I think it is because Facebook was—

Ian C. Lucas

Is it because you advertised on Facebook?

Tom McLennan

I said I think there have been adverts on Facebook, yes.

Ian C. Lucas

But you specifically ask about Facebook. Do you advertise on other social media platforms?

Tom McLennan

I am not aware. I would need to find out that information.

Ian C. Lucas

When you advertise on Facebook, how do you decide where the adverts are going?

Tom McLennan

To my knowledge, 99% of the people are coming through the television on a trail.

Ian C. Lucas

You are targeting people on Facebook, aren’t you?

Tom McLennan

Yes, but —

Ian C. Lucas

Is that yes?

Tom McLennan

But not many people come on the show through Facebook adverts.

Ian C. Lucas

Why are you asking specifically about Facebook in your questionnaire?

Tom McLennan

I think we would want to know if they did not come through the route, which is an advert on the show.

Ian C. Lucas

Can I suggest that you are targeting individuals on Facebook? Isn’t that the truth of the matter?

Tom McLennan

No, like I said, 99% of people who came on the show would apply through the show. We would ask them if they were regular viewers, so we knew that they were informed with the presenting style and also the content of the show.

Ian C. Lucas

Were you trawling for contestants on Facebook?

Tom McLennan

I believe there were adverts that would go up on Facebook, but 99% of the guests would come through the show.

Ian C. Lucas

Did you have a shortage of applicants? You said 90% of people don’t get on the show.

Tom McLennan

We believe around 1,000 people would apply to be on the show a week and 90% of those would not appear on the show.

Ian C. Lucas

Why were you advertising on Facebook?

Tom McLennan

That has happened because obviously the show, like any other daytime show, is trying to get a range of stories and topics.

Ian C. Lucas

Were you microtargeting advertising on Facebook—

Tom McLennan

I don’t believe we were because the advert that we were putting on—

Ian C. Lucas

For people with particular issues and particular problems?

Tom McLennan

We were looking for people who had a problem that they would want to resolve in that forum.

Ian C. Lucas

You were going out there and looking for people with problems. You were advertising for people with problems.

Tom McLennan

I can only give you the same answer, which is that 99% of the people who came on the show would be through the advert on the show.

Ian C. Lucas

Do you think that it is responsible to advertise for people with problems, to microtarget?

Tom McLennan

We were advertising for people who had seen the show and would like to appear on the show.

Ian C. Lucas

Can I ask you about Mr Kyle’s involvement in the show and what his role is? Is he involved in scripting meetings on the show?

Tom McLennan

Scripting meetings? No. I can tell you Jeremy’s involvement. He would normally come up either the night before or the morning of record day. We would normally record on a Thursday and Friday. Then he would come to a briefing on the Thursday morning. We would go through all the notes of the guests that we had taken the night before. We would go through a synopsis. Graham would be in the room. We would talk about if there were any concerns. But that would be the first time he would hear the stories that would be on the show that day.

Ian C. Lucas

Would he only meet the participants on the day of the show?

Tom McLennan

Yes.

Ian C. Lucas

Does he have preliminary meetings with them to discuss their particular problems?

Tom McLennan

No, the producers would have those conversations and the aftercare team, which is really important, would do a face to face in the morning and meet all the contributors before they went on the show. Even at that late stage, which did happen occasionally, if there were any concerns for a guest’s welfare we would not go ahead with that participant or story.

Ian C. Lucas

Did Mr Kyle himself meet with the individuals before the show?

Tom McLennan

No, he didn’t.

Ian C. Lucas

Okay. In the notes that you sent to participants in the show, you were talking about the notes that are collected from the participants, and you say, “With these notes, Jeremy is better equipped to advise and offer as much help as he can to resolve whatever problem or issue you may be facing”. Does Jeremy offer advice and help to contributors?

Tom McLennan

People would come on the show because they had seen the show and the show was conflict resolution. If it was a conflict resolution show, they were coming on and Jeremy would strive to find a resolution for that story. Graham was quite often on the show because we tried to make a big point that this was something that was very important to us on the show—that even after the cameras and the show had finished, Graham and his team would step in and also try to put together any aftercare that we felt was important.

Ian C. Lucas

But the notes don’t say that. They don’t say, “Our team is better equipped to advise and offer as much help as it can”. It says, “Jeremy is better equipped to advise and offer as much help as he can”. When does he give advice and offer as much help as he can—at what point? Is that during the show?

Tom McLennan

The viewers of the show who watch loyally every single day will absolutely know that there was conflict but there was also resolution, and that was important. He would be striving for resolution.

Ian C. Lucas

Okay. Let me talk about the clip earlier on. What help did Jeremy offer in that case? What assistance and help did he offer?

Tom McLennan

We didn’t see the end of the story but any viewer, anybody who watches it, knows that Jeremy is always striving for resolution at the end of the story, if it could be achieved. Sometimes it definitely could not be achieved but he would always be trying to get resolution.

Ian C. Lucas

Does he offer any advice and help after the show? Is he involved in talking to people after the show?

Tom McLennan

No, that would be more Graham and his team, which is not just Graham. There are four in your team, aren’t there? He has four people and they would be involved in that afterwards.

Ian C. Lucas

The only advice that he offers is during the show?

Tom McLennan

That is correct.

Ian C. Lucas

I don’t think this statement is true: “With these notes, Jeremy is better equipped to advise and offer as much help as he can to resolve whatever problem or issue you may be facing”.

Tom McLennan

I think viewers who have watched Jeremy for years and years and years, potentially thousands of episodes, wanted to come on the show because they respected Jeremy, they loved Jeremy and they wanted to hear his thoughts on their problem. I think that was trying to reflect that.

Ian C. Lucas

I think they have a positive impression of Jeremy and that is why they want to be on the show. But what the notes that you provide say to them is that he is going to offer help and guidance to them, whereas in fact what he is doing is he is putting them on the telly. He is not there to help them; he is there to entertain. With respect to Mr Stanier, his job is to clear up the mess afterwards.

Tom McLennan

I don’t see it as that. Of course, we were—

Ian C. Lucas

I am sure you don’t; you were making the programme, but that is the reality. I think what you send out to people is really misleading.

Tom McLennan

I think it would not be to viewers of the programme. I honestly believe that people who watched the show on a daily basis knew what Jeremy was. Of course, with some of the things—

Ian C. Lucas

What is Jeremy? How would you describe Jeremy?

Tom McLennan

With some of the things we would see the more conflict moments, but regular viewers would see that Jeremy is a fantastic presenter. They wanted to come on the show, they wanted to talk to Jeremy and they wanted to hear his thoughts on their relationship problem or whatever the problem might be, and that is why they applied.

Julian Bellamy

If I may just add to this point, it was at its heart a conflict resolution show and a relationship show, and people did proactively apply in the hope of fixing disputes, getting to the truth, seeking help. I know first-hand, as the head of ITV Studios, how seriously duty of care was taken around informed consent, being fit to participate, being treated fairly. In this almost 15-year period, 20,000 people have appeared as guests on this show, 3,000 episodes have been made, and in that entire time there have been only five Ofcom complaints upheld against the show, three of which were about language and none of which relate to the actual duty of care or the unfair treatment or the health and welfare of guests. In fact, of that 20,000 number, only seven guests in the entire history have complained to Ofcom and none of those complaints have been upheld. I think that is a testament to the seriousness with which duty of care was treated.

Ian C. Lucas

Have you read these notes that I read out?

Julian Bellamy

Sorry, are you addressing that to me?

Ian C. Lucas

Yes, I am. I am addressing it to you, Mr Bellamy.

Julian Bellamy

Yes, I have read the notes.

Ian C. Lucas

I am going to read them again: “With these notes, Jeremy is better equipped to advise and offer as much help as he can to resolve whatever problem or issue you may be facing”. Do you think that is a fair representation of what Jeremy does?

Julian Bellamy

I think it is an absolutely fair representation of what happened in the show and that the people who applied to be on the show—

Ian C. Lucas

You say “the show”. It says “Jeremy”. It says Jeremy because you are trying to encourage people to come on the show because Jeremy is going to help them; not the team, but Jeremy. You use the word “Jeremy”.

Julian Bellamy

People were very clear about the nature and contents of the show.

Ian C. Lucas

I don’t think this is clear. I think this is misleading for vulnerable people who you have targeted. Do you know about microtargeting?

Julian Bellamy

That is one document and it does not capture the totality of the conversations that are had with the guests.

Ian C. Lucas

Do you think that statement is accurate?

Julian Bellamy

I am saying you can’t judge the programme on the basis of that one sentence. I am saying that you have to look at the totality of it. I would argue that of the 20,000 people who have appeared in this show, there has never been an Ofcom complaint upheld about unfair treatment of guests.

Ian C. Lucas

Do you know about the advertising on Facebook?

Julian Bellamy

It is a relatively standard practice to advertise for programmes in that manner across social media.

Ian C. Lucas

Can you tell us where you targeted and what instructions you gave to Facebook about where they should place these adverts?

Julian Bellamy

No, I can’t.

Ian C. Lucas

Can you come back to us and tell us?

Julian Bellamy

Of course I can.

Ian C. Lucas

Thank you very much.

Julie Elliott

Mr Bellamy, would you say that that sentence that Mr Lucas has read out is a true sentence or a false sentence?

Julian Bellamy

Sorry, which sentence are you referring to?

Julie Elliott

The sentence he has read out to you about Jeremy personally helping people solve problems. Is that a true statement or is it a false statement?

Julian Bellamy

I think if you watched the show—

Julie Elliott

Is it a true statement?

Julian Bellamy

Yes, in the show it is a true statement.

Julie Elliott

You think that is a true statement?

Julian Bellamy

If you watched the show it is self-evident that that is what he does.

Julie Elliott

No, I simply want an answer: do you think that is a true statement or a false statement?

Julian Bellamy

Yes.

Julie Elliott

Thank you. Can I ask you about lie detector tests? Do you know what the percentage of accuracy is on lie detector tests? You are the big boss of this organisation. Do you know?

Julian Bellamy

I echo what Tom said, which is that they were not 100% accurate.

Julie Elliott

Do you know what the range is?

Julian Bellamy

I don’t.

Julie Elliott

Thank you. If we move on to some of the information that we have released at the start of the hearing today, which your company provided us with, there is a lot of information about assessments of whether any support may be required from our aftercare team. We have already heard in evidence this morning that aftercare is not really the right description of the team.

Graham Stanier

No, I think—

Julie Elliott

Can I ask the question? What I am concerned about is what pre-going on the show care is given to individuals.

Graham Stanier

The aftercare part is about after the show and there are all the same numbers in the team, guest welfare. The production team will refer people where there are concerns and there will be—

Julie Elliott

Is any there any face-to-face sit-down meeting with that person?

Graham Stanier

There is but not at that point.

Julie Elliott

At the point before they go on the show, is there any individual assessment of the person from anyone who is medically qualified?

Graham Stanier

They are specialist mental health nurse practitioners and they will do face-to-face before a show.

Julie Elliott

If we move to this “The Jeremy Kyle Show” checklist document that you provided us with, on page 6 it says, “Read out. We require the following medical information due to the nature and subject matter of the programme and in order to ensure that we meet our duty of our care to you as a potential participant in the programme including providing suitable access to phone-in venues”. That is fine. There is then a series of boxes. Are the questions in the boxes posed verbally or does the person read those?

Graham Stanier

Is this on the guest’s welfare continuous assessment?

Julie Elliott

This is on the document that I said was called “The Jeremy Kyle Show” checklist.

Graham Stanier

That is a production document.

Julie Elliott

Who goes through that with the individuals?

Tom McLennan

The researcher or associate producer or producer would go through this and as soon as there were any flags it would be passed over to—

Julie Elliott

Nobody with any medical qualification would go through that?

Tom McLennan

It would be gone through by production, but then if anything—

Julie Elliott

I presume they don’t have medical qualifications.

Chair

My reading of that list is that it looks like it is a call list that a casting researcher would go through on the phone or something. Is that correct?

Tom McLennan

There is scripting and everything to make sure that everyone is saying the same thing.

Julie Elliott

Where I have read that bit out on page 6 of that document, halfway down it says, “Read out”, and I have just read it out, “We require the following medical information” and there is a series of boxes below. Are the boxes below read out?

Tom McLennan

Yes.

Julie Elliott

The one I am particularly concerned about is, “Do you have dyslexia or difficulty reading and writing?” Is that read out to the individuals?

Tom McLennan

It is read out, yes.

Julie Elliott

From the answers that come from that, if somebody says, “No, I am fine” or, “Yes, I am fine”, is anything further pursuant to that done with the individuals?

Tom McLennan

The main flag for that would be when we go through the consent forms and everything else, we would be made aware of that, so we could go through it more fully.

Julie Elliott

What I am concerned about here is what assessment researchers or anybody else are giving to the people who have applied to be on the show and have got to this stage about their understanding, their level of language skills, their understanding of their literacy skills, their understanding of the comprehension of what, having read some of these documents, are quite complex legalese documents that I would suggest the average member of the public would not necessarily have a huge comprehension of. Is there any assessment of that done at that point?

Tom McLennan

It is all part of a longer process. Every single conversation we are having with them is building up to the informed consent. You are absolutely right, the reason for the dyslexia comment there is because when we go through some of those forms we know that we need to go through them more verbally than written. This gives a snapshot, but on the day Graham and his team would also do a face-to-face assessment with every single person and if there was any—

Julie Elliott

About literacy skills and language skills and comprehension skills—is that done at any point? If you look at all the evidence on people without the level of literacy and language skills that their age would say they should have, if somebody can read and write their name, their address, where they are from and so on, they would say they could read and write, but could they read and write to the level that could understand the documents that you expect them to sign to give informed consent, going back to the point that my colleague Jo Stevens was making? What assessment of language and literacy skills and comprehension skills do you make?

Tom McLennan

I personally have quite bad dyslexia, so I understand what you are talking about.

Julie Elliott

I am putting dyslexia to one side. I am specifically asking about language skills, literacy skills and comprehension skills. What assessment is your organisation, at any level by anybody, doing before someone is given the documents to sign that you are saying gives informed consent? What are you doing on that?

Tom McLennan

From the very first conversation until the moment that they appeared on the show there would be lots of conversation and obviously the checklist and forms would be gone through with them. If there was a worry that somebody was not understanding properly, that is something that would be discussed. It is very case by case, but I do see your concerns.

Julie Elliott

What would flag a concern to you?

Tom McLennan

Like I said, that is why it was very important to do a face-to-face before. With the best will in the world, all the forms in the world might not pick up things and sometimes a face-to-face was the best thing. This is why we are saying that even at that late stage and we would hope through all of our checklists and procedures—and just to really make clear, the procedures constantly evolved. These are not just the procedures that we put in place 14 years ago and thought we had done our job and let’s carry on with them. On sometimes a monthly basis, we would move—

Julie Elliott

Can I draw you back to this question?

Tom McLennan

Yes. I just think it is quite important to—

Julie Elliott

If somebody answered yes, they are fine, to that, would any further questioning or assessment be made of somebody’s language, literacy and comprehension skills?

Tom McLennan

It would have happened throughout the process of conversations and on the one-to-one.

Julie Elliott

How?

Tom McLennan

It is something that did concern me and it is something that I feel we took very seriously, but I can see where your concern is.

Julie Elliott

You are not answering my question. You are not telling me in any way, shape or form where you are assessing these skills.

Tom McLennan

I am trying to explain the process from the very first conversation. If any flags came up through the checklist they would be passed on to the duty of care team, the aftercare team, who would talk to them about a range of different issues.

Julie Elliott

But if somebody answered that question, “Do you have dyslexia or difficulty reading and writing?”, by saying, “No, I am fine”, would any further assessment be done of that person? It is a straightforward question.

Tom McLennan

Potentially not, but there would still be conversations going forward that we would hope would pick up these things.

Julie Elliott

The conversations would specifically ask about language and literacy?

Tom McLennan

I can’t say they specifically would, but there would be conversations and a face-to-face with the team before they went on the show.

Julie Elliott

You keep physically gesturing to Mr Stanier. Mr Stanier, what would follow if somebody said they had no issue?

Graham Stanier

You have highlighted something there because it does not say “refer” and you have identified that that needs to happen. They need to refer to aftercare who can do an evaluation on that.

Julie Elliott

But if somebody answered that question that they can read and write and they don’t have dyslexia, that would not come to you, would it?

Graham Stanier

No.

Julie Elliott

There would be no further conversations, would there, Mr McLennan?

Tom McLennan

I would have hoped it would have been picked up in the one-to-one, but I can see where you are coming from.

Julie Elliott

Would there be any further conversations?

Tom McLennan

There would not have been any official conversations but there would have been a one-to-one conversation.

Julie Elliott

If somebody’s answer to that question satisfied you, there would be no further assessment of that person, that their understanding of quite complex contractual documents was at a level that really fulfilled your duty of care. That would not happen, would it, Mr McLennan?

Tom McLennan

There would be no more official conversations.

Julie Elliott

Thank you.

Jo Stevens

The checklist that Ms Elliott has referred to is all self-disclosure, so you ask the contributors to the programme and they give you information. It strikes me as a little bit odd when a lie detector test is a big part of the programme that you rely entirely on self-disclosure from contestants. Do you not think it is odd? The premise of the programme is whether or not people tell the truth, isn’t it, and you are relying entirely on self-disclosure here?

Tom McLennan

Yes. Part of the process would be the checklists and the conversations and everything else. Part of the checklists was also talking to friends and family that were connected to the contributor. In those questions, we would be trying to check to see if the information that they are giving to us is correct. It was self-disclosure but we also talked to friends and family around them.

Jo Stevens

On other ITV programmes like “Love Island”, confirmation from a GP, for example, is asked for about a condition maybe, if there is self-disclosure about a condition. Why don’t you do that?

Tom McLennan

Graham can probably talk more about that as the head of aftercare.

Graham Stanier

In self-disclosure there is no reason, for me anyway, to believe they are going to be dishonest. They have to be honest in their self-disclosures. This is a sad reflection because some people don’t have GPs and some people don’t attend a GP practice. While on the one hand it may come across that we are improving a service, that unfortunately is a reality.

Jo Stevens

Of the contestants that appear on the show, do you know how many don’t have GPs? Do you ever ask them if they have a GP?

Graham Stanier

I work a lot in addiction and for a lot of the addicts that I speak to that I send to rehab, it is very difficult. I am just looking at that group. That is probably the group that would inform me that they don’t attend a GP practice.

Jo Stevens

You do not know how many people don’t have a GP?