In full: ITV and Jeremy Kyle bosses give evidence at reality TV inquiry | ITV News

for this evidence session of the digital culture media and sports of that committee as part of our inquiry into reality television before we start the the questions in the evidence session I would just like to remind members that in accordance with the houses sub judice e resolution reference should not be made to matters before coroner's courts and therefore the inquest into the death of Stephen Stephen diamond should not be referred to however discussion of the wider issues relating to the Jeremy Kyle show and other shows is permissible doesn't state that for the record we'd like to start our questions relating specifically to the Jeremy Kyle show with reference to the use of the lie detector test which I think has been a key feature in the program and for the benefit of the record and for people watching we're just going to play a very short clip of the use of the lie detector tests and Jeremy called delivering the results of that and then we will ask some questions about the test itself so they can play the clip thank you to the Jeremy Kyle show was the use of the lie detector tests a matter of these are agreed that both of the lie detector tests from November 2015 they all standard since November 2015 when you moved house and you passionately kissed anyone other than you said they were so no that's why you might come on stage I'm taller than your executive producer of the program how long has the polygraph test lied it all lie detector test how long have been a feature of the Jericho show so the show has been on Anthony 14 years with the quarters over 3,000 episodes and the lie detector has been a part of talk shows in Britain probably for over 20 years and and on talk shows all around the world but since the beginning of German cars since beginning of the show yes how accurate do you think the polygraph test is so we we've always made it very very clear to the viewers and to the participants of the show that the lie detector is not 100% accurate we've always thought that that's incredibly important so before the guests even come to the studios for recording we'll make that point we tell them before they they take the lie detector and obviously afterwards and as you'll see on that clip as Jeremy is we also put it on the screen but the lie detector is designed to indicate whether something is being deceptive but practice claim practitioners claiming to have a high level of accuracy although this is disputed so we've always wanted to be extremely clear not only with the people on the show also who is yeah so you're quite right in the con and in contracts the the participants of the show side it says it's not guaranteed we could be a hundreds inaccurate and the company that does the test says that on its website - but how accurate do you think those tests are I understand you think they're not like I'm saying accurate but what level of accuracy do you believe those tests out.i we know they aren't a hundred percent and so that's why we've always been incredibly clear with the people coming on the show before they they you know we're filming them before they the test anted the viewers so I'll show you where the the dispatchers did it up program about Jeremy Kyle show in that professor ray Bullard urban university said he believed in even in sort of perfect conditions with a trained expert using the machine that the test was at best a 66 to 70 percent chance of an accurate score I think if you if you ask different experts you'd get different opinions so that's why we're always very clear to make sure that everybody was aware that it wasn't a hundred percent and that's why we came up with that disclaimer yeah but the disclaimers doesn't really mean very much does it because not a hundred percent my mean nearly 100 percent but we might be there might be some minor discrepancy professor Bulls estimate is that two times out of three the test is accurate one times out of three it's wrong that's quite a big difference doesn't it weep like I say if you ask different people and different you know I've works in in other countries on on lie detectors and if you ask different people get different opinions so 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 was fully informed that it was not hundred percent yeah but not a hundred percent and maybe only two-thirds rights is a massive difference a massive difference in the way that's perceived and and as you've seen them and the reason were to play the clip Jeremy calls choosing his words carefully he's not saying you're a liar and saying the test says you're a liar but nevertheless it's not the test is you might be a liar or the test if you wanna be right it's being presented black and white you lied and that is being and that is causing obviously considerable distress to the people receiving the results I think we've gotta remember that you know the the people that appeared on the show you know were the viewers and they used to you know a good proportion of the peers and they would watch the show on a daily basis and when we were going through all our procedures if we ever we would ask them you know have you ever seen the show and they would always come back and say that they had seen this I'd watch it is a on a motor devices if they you know hadn't seen the show that would be a huge flag for us so they had watched the show they apply to be on the show they had also you know wanted to take a lie detector they had seen they had seen the show obviously they knew of Jeremy's presenting style they knew the accuracy because we've made it very clear so they were completely fully informed by the time that they were appearing on the show have you ever company it does the test have you ask them what they believe the accuracy rate is well yeah we've talked to them you know I long period of time and and they told us that it is not 100% very clear you're their particular producer you responsible for this program yeah so have you inquired as to how effective these tests are what the percentage likely success rate is yeah I which is not a hundred percent happy beyond that and he said if you said okay not have sense or why is he after percentage cuz I would be responsible as a city if you ask different examiner's to get different opinion so what's the range you can say so you know because we would get different opinions you know we felt it was incredibly important to make sure that everybody was informed that the test was the right now what's the range then do you know if you said with the different opinions or what's the range of opinion I mean we quit we could talk to five different examiner's and get a range of opinions and send them on to you well have you got this fixed because you don't know do you I know that it dates and a hundred percent show we've made it very goodly do you not know who D the viewers I know this is pretty fundamental program do you not know what the what the range is do you you don't have a permit in your head I don't have the information fun you know I find that astonishing actually because this is you know we don't become one of the most criticized elements for the show one of the most controversial one of the things that causes the most amount of stress its presenting as fact the it is disputed how good how good the atella G is but you don't know yourself what the range is in terms of the likely lightness to get true and accurate reading out the test I think we knew it wasn't a hundred percent we put on screen to the viewers we would tell the contributors that the lie detector is designed to indicate whether somebody's being deceptive practitioners claiming to have a high level accuracy although this is descriptive but you can't but you can't define more high level of accuracy is another mean not not upset but 50% it's not 100% I am NOT a lie detector expert so what we would do is remember your response you you are responsible for this program you are the person who's responsible for this program this is a key feature in this program and I think if you were using that and if you were being responsible you would know the answer of that question like I said I've not a lie detector exit of date so so we would hire in a lie to exit but they would do the tests they would come up with the results and then the results would be given to the producers which would then begin to Jeremy we wouldn't get involved with the outer light okay you commissioned this I think and I think if you don't know the answer to that question you can't say what the ranges of the likely accuracy of those days that I think I think that is irresponsible I think it's disputed so it's very difficult I understand it might be disputed but I've asked you yet what the range was not not certainly to pin yourself on a particular number but give an idea of the range I'm disappointed that you can't do that where the tests done so they would be done in rooms in media city and like I say it would be done away from the production by an expert and when with the in terms of what's the time difference between the tests being done and the results being should be given to the person who's done the tests as they wish as there wasn't that clip so normally the test would be done probably the day before sometimes it would be done the day of record okay so would it be useful if I explained the production process of how the show was without no no no well what's all the cons that as we get them oh my just wanted to take us on this bit but it's got to discuss yeah so it's not secret informations you've read up on the way polygraph tests are done obviously a machine can't tell whether someone's lying is reading bodily functions it's reading heart rate it's reading perspiration rates so how likely do you think is it that that has to be accurate well this has not been done in a controlled environment but someone who's away from their home staying in a hotel at media City maybe on the day they're going to make a television program where they're probably quite nervous quite anxious about that how likely is it do you think that they're going to give a car measured reading in that test I think you know we got experts to take the test and I think that the contributors were fully informed beforehand of what the test involved and they had they they they would have asked us to appear on the show and to take a lie-detector test they made before they were taught by you that this is an expert can do the test and it's it's got it's not hundreds inaccurate but experts say it's accurate they don't know how accurate it is they're not doing it in controlled conditions they're doing in a makeshift facility on the day potentially they're going on a television program when they might be feeling quite anxious and the people are doing the test what they are they people that has work for a company that the only equipment yeah we employed professionals to take the test and so they'll see that they work for company is a company that yeah that what UK lie detectives come come in yeah they're based in Manchester I think I think their offices potentially might be Norwich it okay I need to check that okay but it's not but that's not being done in a lot of controlled medical facility or research the auditorium or it's being done at media city and the people doing it if they have medical qualifications but doing the testing I don't think they've got the medical qualifications but they've got qualifications in in in lie detector is it was a bodies or an organization issues the qualifications in being a lot of tech to Chester that was that they've are and I can get those details and give them to those allow you to be the qualifications if they have any at all these people have yeah and did the people that we used you know had been doing this for many many years you know and and were so obviously very complicated it seems a very precarious environment for people who are potentially going through what could be a life-changing moment you know and I'm not sure that the the show is preparing people what this means or indeed even briefing them properly as to how you know potentially likely this test is to be very flawed it's not be done in a controlled way not by people with medical not done the specialist facility and people aren't being told what the range of percentages in terms of how light this is to be true or not and that seems to be quite a curious position to put people in mr. Stanek if in your position as doctor after caring for people that you've met you've been on the show who've heard concerns or anxiety after the show how much that been linked to people that have been through lie-detector tests you may be an adversary I think we buy that we explain it differently what we would say is that sir prior to the show is that some people will fail this test but yet they will be telling the truth so we we we explain it differently we don't use percentages we just make it very very clear that some people who fail that test but yet they'll be telling the truth so I think that's how fair a way to explain it well I don't think it's very fair because I don't think people have been given the full picture of what these tests are highly inaccurate they could be they're not being called to all that information but the question I asked you was about terms of off after show do you think actually the polygraph test is a contributing factor to people that suffer with you know concerns depression after the bit on the show I think yes when they do become distressed because they disagree with the result and therefore that's why we have a guess welfare service after show in order to alleviate that distress and what what we want is for people to be comforted controlled calm after that result yeah and so when in the after care process do you say to them look don't worry you know the test probably only 2/3 of time accurate so chances are it might not be true you say that's them we do because we've actually mentioned it prior to the show so we will reiterate that point that 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 yeah but if they've also been talking for the show it's not 100% accurate but being allowed to believe it is highly accurate the after care if you've got someone who's distressed or you've got a couple maybe very distressed maybe about to make a life-changing decision based on the results of this test yes do you sit them down and say look you know actually the the accuracy this is greatly disputed you know it might be a third of the time it's not accurate at best therefore you know you shouldn't rely on this test you said people don't have those sort of conversations as specifically as that again we won't refer to specific numbers because I'm naive about the the figures but you're aware of because they're of accuracy I've always been aware that the lie detector was not 100% yet I know that but you said you said I'm aware of the figures so you're aware of a range I know I'm not I don't know so you're the director of arctic air on this program and you don't have any figures for the percentage of accuracy of this I would prefer to say to them that some people will fail this test yet they will be telling the truth before they do the test and then after the test I will raise that again but does not meaning is this meaningless isn't it I mean it's meaningless piece of information to give people I mean from my point of view it's about keeping them informed they're not you know are you not giving them you're not giving them information that could be relevant would help them to put the test into context I'm informing them that there 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 in the context there before the show people have been taught it's not on it's inaccurate but the people do the test believe it is highly accurate so they believe it is finally accurate and it's being presented on the show as definitive by Jeremy Carl there's no ambiguity and then afterwards you're not saying saying to people well okay there is a range of scores here the test isn't you know she shouldn't rely on it you don't even know what the range of accuracy is yourself you just said that I prefer to say to them that some people will fail the test so students can we go back to mr. McLennan said that you 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 are you talking about doing that in the future when you gave your own verses previously like I said what we know is that the test is no can you answer the questions ladies have you as a program as the executive producer actually sort of those different views that you discussed of experts about the reliability of the test or is that something that you intend to do in the future I want to know whether you've already gotten the information you've looked at it or whether you haven't got the information at all so I've been around lie detectors in my professional career the last 15 to 20 years so so I know that there is different opinion I questioned that the chair asked so this is why it was very what's the range yeah well this is this is why this is why you know we wanted a very key clear to the contributors and to the public that it was you know designed to you know practitioners claiming to have a high level accuracy or those is disputed we felt it was incredibly important to get that point of course to the contrary right so you can't tell us what the range is because you don't yeah so you don't know what the range well we know it is you don't know what it is do you mr. McLennan we know otherwise you tell me okay so if you were going into hospital to have an operation and the doctor said to you this operation is not going to be a hundred percent successful would you just sit there or would you say well what are the likelihood of it being successful well I think what we did is we gave the information to the contributor and they decided you know but like I said earlier plies but that watch the show that applied and they gave informed consent to come on the show and also they wanted to take a like how can they give informed consent if you don't tell them what the accuracy of the test is you can't you know you can't just say it's it's not 100% accurate because that could mean it's one percent accurate or 99 percent accurate how can that how can they give informed consent many circumstances if we'd given a percentage that could have been you know more dangerous because I think if we spoke to different people we would have got different percentages so we thought it was very responsible to to give this which is that it's not 100 percent because we wanted were to be informed before they took a lie detector before they went on this is the premise of the entire show based on an exercise that is obviously flawed that's inaccurate I mean it's the premise of the show is fake isn't it no I think one thing I'd like to say is that the show actually dealt with lots of different issues and sometimes we do you know show is about you know inspirational children and different things and you know yes we used to use the lights I think when you go on to kind of YouTube and you see the show you'll see the most conflict moments of the show people who watched the show you know which was a huge amount of people I think one year fifty five percent of the country watched episode two German Karl you know people who watched the show you know would see a different thing they saw a show that was was conflict but was also wrestling always drawing is something that is so flawed as a sent as a premise okay maybe you might not agree with me that it's the central premise of the show but it's a significant part of the show why do you use something that's so flawed why do you not tell people how flawed it is I think it is this week we use different tools of the lie detector is one tool you know to try to get to resolution we use DNA testing would also put people in in rehab you know in house we have units you know to try to help them with drug and alcohol abuse so there was there was a range of different things that we would use the lie detector was one of them but I think the most important thing was that you know we felt that our duty care was really important and that we needed to make it very clear to the contributors and for the viewers that the tests were 100% yes a very very unusual view of the concept of duty of care mr. Clement yeah emoji I appreciated other aspects of the show but I think we all know if it wasn't for the lie detector test we might not be sitting here today just it in the light of your answers regarding and the accuracy of a lie detector and the fact that you accept that there is a significant amount of disagreement about the accuracy clip we just saw the way that the the results were presented to that participant you still consider that to be appropriate I think obviously we did not pick that clip but watching that clip now we watched the just watching the clip there I think Jeremy you know did have a strong opinion about the lie detector and so we stood that's why we also felt it was so important to make it very clear that it wasn't 100% accurate and that's why we put it on screen as he was giving the results and so what did you take for me there from him implying that you know he waived the card and that this is the reason why you wouldn't go on the stage what was he indicating there do you think but I think you know like I said James got very strong views so he obviously believed in the result though and he was he was saying that to the country contributor so that's what we need to make it very clear and you and you said that you in you you've been as in association with programs that have used lie detectors over 15 years or so in a previous answer other than in reality TV shows where have you used lied it's happening within television so so ITV wouldn't use lie detectors on their only employees for instance I don't think I don't believe those guys happened and they wouldn't think that appropriate but you don't think that they would think that appropriate well I just so painfully I gotta levy I don't believe that it's happened but I think every single contributor on any show that it's had a lie detector you know you know it's it's it's been fully informed and has also you know agreed to take form okay mister mister Stane you know earlier on so you you use you use the term and you do it twice actually and if a participant disagrees with the result is a pejorative term no it will happen in terms of the result comes out and they say that they disagree with it in terms of they failed the result they fail and they'll say no I was telling the truth you are you know indicating there that you believe in the accuracy of the you accept the accuracy of the lie detector and therefore people are disagree but they're not I accept that some and and this is definitely the language that I use with guests that some people will fail that test yet be telling the truth and I totally accept that I don't know the percentage of success or the percentage of failure I'd rather work with guests in that way okay just wanted mr. McClaren's don't you miss ed and the use of Jeremy Carl felt strongly about the test is that that correct yeah to my understanding he bit you know he strongly believed in the test yes so he believes belief believes in the test themselves as he believed the test is important part for the show yeah I obviously can't talk for Jeremy today but my understanding is that he didn't believe in the test so but I think it's just interesting because we it's been suggested to us that the Jeremy Carter's to potentially the program and doesn't really have much of a say in the format of the program but I think you know but clear you believe that he thinks this is an important part the format of the show I mean yeah it's one of the tools that we used and and I believe that Jeremy believed in the test okay the overriding impression given by the show that is that the lie detector is definitive that's the impression that's given me now otherwise you kind of wouldn't have a show we're talking showbiz here and it has been described the show at the Jeremy Kyle show as a sort of form of bear baiting and one of the questions that comes to mind well first of first of all I'd like to ask you has there ever been a case where somebody has failed the lie detector and has subsequently proved that the lie detector test was wrong and if that has happened has it been publicized and have you as newspapers do printed a retraction I can't I cannot recall the case right now of that happening but I can look into that and write to you after this you know I want to make sure that I'm giving you the correct information would be interesting to find out but then that brings me on to the guests understanding of what they're getting into yes and and it occurs to me I have a career in in show business I understand how it works and as an actor I had a union behind me equity and I had an agent and they had entertainment lawyers so I had the backup you're picking on members of the general public who don't have that sort of backup they are not professionals in their arena and you've got people who's for many reasons whose understanding of what they're getting into might not be as deep as perhaps mine might be and you are then to a certain extent would it be fair to say exploiting that because you are then 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 in the sort of Roman Colosseum like way would you say that's a fair assessment I wouldn't III don't believe the people that came on the German car show is that were exploited I think you know to talk about the process I think you know we we did take our duty to carry incredibly seriously and I think that what we would do you know is 99% of the people that applied to come on the show applied because they were watching the show on a daily basis they wanted 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 you know I know some people you know will watch the show and see clips and think you know we'll find that hard to believe but the truth is that the people who were watching the show you know watched on a daily basis and they wanted to come on the show and they wanted Jonah's advice so nobody went there interesting thing you said there was that they have a problem are you not in some way exploiting the fact that they have a problem I think just you know just because somebody's got a problem doesn't mean that they're being exploited you know I think the fact that they want to come on this form and you know talk about their problem and the show was yes it was conflict but it very much was resolution as well we were always striving for a solution and we did have proper systems in place that beforehand you know ninety percent of the people that applied on the Jeremy Kyle show did not get on the show and it was because we would go through lots of different checklists with them and if any flags came up we would pass them to the after care team which really was more of a guess welfare team and they would be spoken to and if you know if there was any point in the process that they you know felt that they shouldn't be he appeared on the show the producers didn't override the after care team they would absolutely be listened to if Graham said that person could not come on the show then that person would not be on the show and then the after care would carry on throughout it's interesting the clip that you showed earlier I could actually notice there was the to mental health nurses in that room you know while that was going on and then afterwards we would then there would be they would be after care afterwards you know and there would be you know counseling put in place and we would keep in contact with them so I forget to come on your show are in a bad place to start with well no they would have would probably no they would have a problem that we're told it was it all about the art care and I guess we might do that that's okay thank you can I just clarify first of all the the show is it an ITV production and you you're the person in charge of the production right yes so I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear so I'm a director of edutainment North so I am in charge of many different program most lots of different genres including a factory on current affairs and hidden things and also we have a daytime output and I was one of the executive producers of the German car shows so the researchers who are speaking to contributors to the show are they employed by ITV the researchers yeah yes so each team so we we would make normally three potentially sometimes even four shows in a day we've normally record on a Thursday and Friday the team would normally have three days of casting where they would go through all the telephone numbers and all the people that had contacted the show they would then talk to them and they'd also talk to you know the other side of the person that they had a problem with if both sides agreed they would then go to senior management discuss the story with them and then they'd start going through the checklist and getting the aftercare team involved when appropriate so how many of these researchers are so they'd be sixteen and each team would have a producer and associate producer a senior producer so a senior researcher and a junior researcher and then we'd have to lay round the three rival and everything else so that means three people in the team or or their people as well so for four people in each team and each team would be they would be making one show per week okay so how do you find contributors to the show so 99% of all contributors were to call so there'd be an advert within the show we're saying if you have a problem or if you would like a lie detector you can that you can contact the show so 99 percent of people will contact the show occasion there'd be maybe social media adverts of that kind of thing but we didn't kind of streetcars to anything like that where people would apply to us and like I said if somebody was a regular viewer of the show then that would be a you know a huge black glass so you placed social media adverts for example on Facebook I believe that yeah at time to time that would happen but normally it would be it would be through the show so in one of the checklists which is from the show he asked his fifth 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 I think above that quote the question above that is actually heavier have you have you are your regular viewer of the TV show and then we come to that question which is just so we're fully informed so we're fully informed where that person came from because we if they didn't come through the normal way which is 99 percent of people through contacting through the show we'd want to know the fact that it was researching me so why did you say Facebook what you say on social media I think I'm not quite sure I think it's because because Facebook was because you like our ties on Facebook well now I said I said I think there has been adverts on Facebook yeah you so cific me ask about Facebook specifically so do you advertise on other social media platforms I'm not aware but I can I wouldn't need to find that information out so do you know what sites you advertise on Facebook on it's on the when you get my question when you're advertised on my facebook I mean how do you decide where the adverts are going well like I said identity to my knowledge 99% of people are coming through the television on a trail I'm probably you're targeting people on Facebook on you yeah but like I say know that yes not many people come on the show through Facebook why are you asked me specifically about Facebook in your questionnaire because I think if we would want to know if they didn't come through the normal room which is an advert on the on the on the show can I suggest that you're targeting individuals on face is not a true for the matter no like I said 99% of people who came on the show would apply through the show we'd asked them if they were regular regular viewers so we knew that they were informed with the presenting style and also the content of the show we trawling for contestants on Facebook like it like I said that I believe there were adverts that would go up on Facebook but 99% of the guests who come through the show so did you have a short YouTube I mean do you have a shortage of up against yeah you said 90% of people don't don't get on the show you said yeah we believe around 1,000 people would be approached you know we've applied to be on the show a week and then 90% of those would not appear on the show okay so why are you advertising on Facebook well because if that was happened because obviously it's a show like any other daytime show that's trying to get a range of range of stories and new topics so all you micro targeting at the time I don't believe we work because I think the the the advert that we buy in market for people with particular issues and particular problems well we were looking for people who would view who had a problem that they would want to resolve in in that form so you would look going out there and looking for people with problems we know advertising for people with problems I can only give you the same answer which is 99% of the people who came on the show would be through the advert on the show do you think that's responsible I do have the times for people with problems - mica target well we were we were advertising for people who had seen the show and would like to appear on the show okay can I say I asked you about mr. Kyle's involvement in the show yeah and what his role is is he involved in scripting meetings on the show scripting meetings no I can tell you Jeremy's involvement so he would he would come normally come up either the night before or the morning of a record day we would normally record on a Thursday and Friday and so and then he would come to a briefing on the Thursday morning we would go through all the notes of the guests that we had had taken the night before we'd go for a synopsis Graham would be in the room we talked about if there was any concerns and but that would be the first time he would hear the stories that he would that would be on the show that day so he would he only meets the participants on the day of the show yes sirree yes does he have preliminary meetings with with them to discuss that particular problem know that the producers would have those conversations and the aftercare at E which is really important actually is would do a face-to-face of the morning of and meet all the contributors before they went on the show and even at that late stage which did happen occasionally if there was any concerns for I guess welfare then you know that then we would not go ahead with that participant or story so did mr. Kyle himself meet with the individuals before the show no you didn't okay it only notes that that you send two participants in the show you talking about the notes that are collected from the participants you say with these notes Jeremy is better equipped to advise and offer as much help as he can to resolve whatever problems or issue you may be facing so does Jeremy offer advice and health to contributors so yeah people would come on the show because they had seen the show and the show was conflict go solution in the if it was a conflict resolution show you know they were coming on and Jeremy would strive to find resolution for that story and then after that you know after you know 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 but even after the cameras obviously you know and and the show to finish then Graham and his team had stepped in and also trying to to put together any after yeah that we felt with the notes don't say that he said they don't say our team is better equipped to advise and offer as much time as he can it says Jeremy is better equipped to advise and offer as much help as he can so when does he give advice and operas which help as he can at what point so you know you guys during the show ya know if the viewers of the show you know who watched you know loyally every single day will absolutely know that yes there was conflict but there was also resolution and that was it he would be strike again resolutely so solely about it to talk about the clip you know you're on yeah what offer and help did Jeremy offer in that case so he was what assistant some help did he offer so so we obviously didn't see the end of the end of the story but he you know any any viewer anybody who watches it knows that Jeremy's always striving for resolution at the end of the story if it compared to sometimes it definitely couldn't be achieved but the the you know he would always be trying to get resolution right does he offer any advice and help after the show because he involved in talking to people after this you know that would be more than Graham and his team which is you know not just Graham he's got this for your teams and then for people and and they would be involved in that afterwards right so the only advice that he offers is during the show that's correct there s so you know I mean the statements true I think these notes Jeff Jerry's better equipped to advise and offer as much help as he can to result whatever whatever problem will receive you made me face him I think I think the viewer who who then you know it's watched Jeremy for years and years and years you know potentially thousands of episodes they want to come on the show because they you know they respected Jeremy the love Jeremy and they wanted to hear what his thoughts I've never blown this before I figured I was trying to reflect okay but I think they think James they have a positive impression of Germany that's why they want to be on the show yeah of course so what these what that nodes say them that you provide is that you know he's gonna offer help and guidance to them whereas in fact what he's doing he's putting them on the telly he's not he's not there to help them he's that good time I think and and you know with respect mr. stallion his job is to clear up the mess afterwards I I don't see is that you know of course we were gonna show you don't you've been making the program but that's the reality I mean this is really misleading what you send out the people I think to viewers of the program it wouldn't be I honestly believe the people who watch the show on a daily basis knew what Jeremy was yeah of course you know somewhat is just some of the things that we what is Jeremy how do you we'd see the kind of more conflict moments but the regular viewers would see that Jeremy you know it's a fantastic presenter they wanted him to they wanted to come on the show they wanted to talk to Jeremy they wanted to hear his thoughts on their relationship problem or whatever the problem might be and that's why they applied and if I may just and I just heard in this point here about it was at its heart a conflict resolution show and a relationship show and people did proactively apply in the in the in the hope of fixings and disputes getting to the truth out seeking help and that I know firsthand as they had a vitami studios how seriously duty of care was taken around him from consent being participative 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 only been five Ofcom complaints upheld against the show three of which were about language 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 of complaint Ofcom and none of those complaints have been upheld and i think that that is a testament to the seriousness of the duty and the way the series's which do to congress have you read these notes from have you read these notes that I read out so you're dressed in nothing yes I'm trusting to you mr. Bellamy ah yes I have read through I've seen and I'm gonna 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's a fair representation of what Jeremy does I think it's an absolutely fair representation of what happens in the show and that the people who applied to be honest you say the show says Jeremy well anyway it says Jeremy because you're trying to encourage people to come on the show because Jeremy is gonna help them not it not the team Jeremy use the word journey people were very very clear about the nature and content of the show but this is misleading for vulnerable people who you targeted they know about the micro targeting that does not capture that is one document that is does not capture the totality of the conversations that that I had with the guests surround you didn't it's accurate that's so I'm saying you can't just you can't judge the program on the basis of that one sentence I'm saying that you have to look at the totality of it and I would again argue that of 20,000 people that appeared in this show there's never been not come complained upheld about unfair treatment of guests do you know about the advertising on Facebook it's a relatively standard practice to advertise in that manner across social media for programs can you tell us which where you targeted what instructions you gave to Facebook though where they should place these up words no I can't but on my head can you come back to us and tell us of course I can thank you very much thank you Julian thank you check mr. Bellamy you that sentence that mr. Lucas is read out would you say that is a true sentence or false sentence so essentially we witnessed a sentence you're referring to your sentences read out you about Jeremy personally and so helping people solve problems is that a true statement or is it a positive well I think if you watch the show Tuesday in the show it is a true statement you don't you think that it's a true statement well if you watch the show that's what you don't sit you think that is a true statement yes thank you and can I just ask you about my detector tests but is your do you know what the percentage of accuracy is on lie detector tests you wouldn't you were the big boss of this organization do you know I know I go what what Tom said which is that they weren't a hundred percent accurate do you know what the range is I don't thank you and if we move on to some of the information that we've released at the start of the hearing today which your company provided us with and there's a lot of information about whether there's assessments of whether any support may be required from our after care team we've already heard in evidence this morning that the after care team is not really the right description what I'm concerned about is what what pre going on the shore care is given to individuals yeah the applicant parties about after the show and the other there are all the same numbers of the team guests well there that the production team will refer people where there are concerns and then there will be there is but not at that point at the point before they go on the show is there any individual assessment of they are specialists mental health nurse practitioners and they will do face to face before show so if we move to this Jeremy Kyle show checklist document that you provided us with on page six it says read out and it says we require the following medical information due to the nature and subject-matter of the program and in order to ensure that we meet our duty of care to you as a potential participants in the program including providing suitable access to filming venues that's fine there's been a series of boxes the series of boxes the questions in the boxes are they opposed verbally or does the person read those from the guest worker continuous assessment this is on the document that I said it was called the Jeremy Kyle show checklist that's a production that's a production document right so who goes through that with the individuals so the researcher or associate producer or producer would go through this and then as soon as there was any flag for them so nobody qualification go through that it would it would be gone through five reduction but then they I think my reading of that this is it looks like it's a like a cool list that a casting researcher would go through all the photos that correct yeah that's in this way but there's there's scripting and everything to make sure that everyone's you know page six sorry we were struggling to find it okay yeah halfway down it says read out and I've just read it out we require the following medical information yeah yep and there's a series of boxes below the boxes below where they read out yes so the one I'm particularly concerned about is do you have dyslexia or difficulty reading and writing that's read out the individuals it it's read out yes and the answers that come from that if somebody says no I'm fine or yes I'm fine is any further pursuant of that done with the individuals so I do so so that was mainly that the main flag for that would be because when we go through the consent forms and everything else then we would be made aware of that so we could go through yes more self fully with it here is what assessment are you is your whether it's researchers or anybody else yeah giving to the people who have applied to be on the show and have got to this stage yeah about their understanding like their level of language skills their understanding of their literacy skills that understanding of the comprehension of what having read so if these documents a quite complex legalese documents yes that I would suggest the average member of the public wouldn't necessarily have a huge comprehension of is there any assessment of that done at that point so I think you know the you know it's all part of a longer process you know because every single conversation we're having with you know it's it's kind of building up to the informed consent and obviously you're absolutely right you know with the dyslexia comment they're the reason for that is is because then when we go through some of those forms we know that we need to kind of go through them more verbally than maybe you know written but every you know this obviously gives a snapshot but you know on the day Graham and his team would also do a face to face assessment with every single person about literacy skills and language skills and comprehension skills it's not done at any point well because somebody if you look at all the evidence on people with with not a level of literacy language skills that their age would say they should have yeah and somebody would you know if you look at any evidence on this if somebody can read and write their name their address where the form etc they would say they could read right yeah 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 John Stevens was making so what assessment of language and literacy skills and comprehension is do you make this is something you know personally have quite bad dyslexia so I understand what assessment is jörgen ization at any level by anybody doing before someone is taken given the documents to sign that you are saying it would be you know the conversations from the very first conversation till the moment that they appeared on the show would be lots of conversations and obviously the checklist and forms would be gone through with them if there was a worried that somebody wasn't you know understanding properly then obviously this is something that would be discussed but it's very case-by-case I do see your concerns if somebody you know like I said that was why it was very important to do it face to face to face before you know because we're the best were the word you know all the forms in the world you know might pick things up you know sometimes a face-to-face was the best thing and that's why I was saying that even at that that late stage and we'd hope through all of our our checklists and procedures and actually just really make clear the procedures you know constantly evolved you know this isn't just a procedures that we put in place fourteen years ago thought we'd done our job I mean I just think it's quite important someone said you the language somebody answered yes to that they're fine would only further questioning or assessment be made of somebody's language literacy and comprehension I think it would it would have been it would have happened throughout the process of conversations and and on the one-to-one but it's something that you know obviously you know it did concern me and it's something that we you know I feel which it very seriously but I can see where your concern is how you know answering my question not telling me in any way shape or form where you're assessing these skills I'm trying to explain the kind of the process you know so the process from the very first conversation you know would be if any flags came up through the checklist you know it would be passed on to the due to care team the after care team who would talk to them about a range of different issues but if somebody answered that question do you have dyslexia difficult reading and writing if said no were fine would any further assessment be done of that person straightforward question well potentially not but there would still be conversations going forward that we would hope you know and the conversations would specifically asked about patience II know I can't see it pacifically would but there would be conversations and then face to face with the teacher and physically gesturing to mr. stern you mister Stanley what would follow if they could I think I questioned you know you've highlighted something I think that because it does not say refer then you have highlighted that are identified that that needs to happen they need to refer to after care who then can do an evaluation on that but if somebody answered that question that they can mean right and they haven't got dyslexia that wouldn't come to you would it no so there would be no further conversations with them in McLennan well I see I wouldn't even accept in the one-to-one but I can see where you're coming from so would there be any further there would have been any official conversations but there would have been one so there would be no there would be no at any point if somebody answered that question to that 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 wouldn't help they're with me and there would be no more official thank you just ease and the checklist that mazzaglia's referred to obviously this is all self disclosure yes so you ask you ask the contributors to the program they give you information and it strikes me as a little bit odd when a lie-detector test is a big part of the program that you rely entirely on self disclosure from contestants you not think it's harder the premise of the program is whether or not people tell the truth isn't it so and you're relying entirely on self disclosure here well yeah I mean part of the process was obviously the the checklist and the conversations and everything else part of the checklist was also talking to friends and family that were connected to the the contributor and in those questions would be trying to check to see if the information that they're given to us is correct so I could yeah it was self disclosure but we also talked to friends and family around them so for example on other ITV programs like love island confirmation from a GP for example is asked for about a condition maybe you know the self disclosure about a condition why don't you do that so it's a Greg can probably talk more about as the optical I think self-disclosure is there's no reason to for me anyway to believe they're going to be dishonest self-disclosure is yes they have to be honest in their self disclosures and I know this is a sad reflection because some people don't have GPS and some people don't attend GP practice and whilst on the one hand it may come across is that we're improving a service that unfortunately is a reality okay so of the contestants that appear on the show do you know how many don't have GPS do you ever ask if they've got GP I work a lot in addiction and a lot of the addicts that I speak to that I sent to rehab is very difficult so in the year right probably I'm just looking at that group that group is probably the group that would inform me that they don't attend a GP practice so you don't you don't know how many people haven't got a GP we see the poverty P that we could I know we do have a GP but it's not their GP we do have a medical practitioner who we can contact and consult with ok so one of the other documents that you very kindly disclosed to us is what's called a special category data notice for the Jeremy Kyle show so this is quite a lengthy and detailed document that people have to sign and agree to which enables you to keep and use very specific categories of data which would other what you'd otherwise not be allowed to use under data protection legislation and that includes stuff about people's physical and mental health their sex life their race and ethnicity stuff to do with the DNA testing and a lie detector testing I'm particularly interested that in this very lengthy and complex document it says right at the end that if you don't sign the document if you don't give us your consent so that you can have this data and I'll come back to the Hat what you use it for and how long you keep it and then depending on the information concerned we may not be able to proceed or continue with your application or participation in the program so effectively people have no choice do they there are if we want to come on the program they have to agree to holding this very very sensitive data and then doing with it what is set out in this document otherwise they can't go on the program yeah obviously you know recently with the new DDP our regulations coming in this is something that we've had to take very seriously and go through everything but you know you basically don't get many choice dear well it's this is obviously you're relatively new and obviously we have a team of business affairs and lawyers that you know are trying to make sure that we're compliant and that's what they're ok so it says also in this document that you will share internally with business affairs as you mentioned Europe compliance and insurance teams so I'm interested to know why would you share information about people's medical data with insurance teams I'm I'm not sure the answer I'm not a lawyer but I can get that information that can't pass it's because what concerns me is that if this information is being shared with insurance teams it would probably affect the contributors ability to get insurance in the future okay and how many contestants in your experience are put off going on the program after applying and getting through this process and there's self disclosure form because of mental health issues that's something that happens very often I think you know it's a difficult thing because obviously we we put in very you know you know it's different because we wanted to make sure that everybody who appeared on the show you know was was you know capable and okay you know okay to appear obviously we also had to be very careful that we weren't you know you know not letting people with you know mental health you know apply to be on the show because obviously you know sometimes they were do is you know so that's my question yeah off the people that applied to be on the show yeah how many do you reject for concerns about mental health at that first point and then people who actually you accept and then you go through this process with them yeah how many then in your experience have been rejected because of mental health issues it's gonna be that's gonna be very difficult well is it lots of people is it very few people has it ever happened I think referring to assessing team probably fifty sixty percent so fifty to sixty percent of people are then rejected yes at that point and then I finally I just wanted to come back to something that you said mr. Bellamy about complaints to Ofcom you said that there are only seven complaints made to Ofcom I think correct I guess on the show yeah how many guests on the show make complaints to you as I TV after the show I don't have that number to hand but I keep a record of what I would have to come back to you on that alright what I would say is if any one raises an issue or a concern or a complaint that isn't satisfactory resolved they are so you tell them to go to a prom right okay so it'll be very helpful for the committee to know first of all do you record complaints from guests contributors to the program and how many complaints you get as a percentage of the guests appear on the program if you could send us back thank you thank you Brendan Horan mr. Stanley could I ask you at the start of the session we saw Jeremy ko thrust a cart in front and face of a crying woman and be clear the lie detector says you're a liar the director then cut to her husband partner whoever who look to be on the point of a breakdown the director then cut back to Jeremy ko who repeated the process saying to this crying woman the light detector says you're a liar and your professional opinion it's this acceptable behavior are you comfortable that's what you saw it's not the behavior I would employ and that's a really black-and-white statement you know saying that somebody is a liar in in terms of the two contributors there were two members of aftercare and I think the example there was that there was someone sat with the female on the sofa and they were they were there because they didn't want to be on the center stage so they were taken into that room and then it was a very calm environment and then as her partner comes in there is another member of aftercare coming behind here yes all of that and I'll come back to the they're the people who will be on a moment but I'm asking you and your professional opinion as the person employed to look after these very vulnerable people are you comfortable with what you saw that is the presenter style I knew its hairstyle and I know about you as a professional comfortable with what you saw I'm responsible for me I'm responsible for me and my behavior I can't be responsible for the presenters behavior what is your rule then if you're really responsible for yourself and you're not responsible for the present of all the production before and I'm responsible for me and I'm responsible for the gas on the presenter the responsibility for the presenter large with production okay I'm not I'm very unclear and support your rule less then I imagine that you would be an integral part of the production team hired as a professional to say yes no you can do no you can't do but that's clearly not your rule no that is my role that is my role but then in the moment I think he becomes passionate I think he becomes opinionated and he will deliver in that way and if people are uncomfortable with that then I think that's a production issue to address that let's talk about that specific incident we saw what did you do in the immediate aftermath of that incident oh there were two members of aftercare allocated to two people so one per person and then they would have been taken upstairs to their dressing room no no I'm asking you did you go to mr. McLennan did you go to mr. kale and say that was a voter that was wrong you humiliated these people you exposed our vulnerabilities you played on them you Europe your style was overreacting my concerns on that specific ensign we saw did you go to the head of production or the executive producer or domestic kale and say that was wrong my main concern on that on that part would be to make sure that both of those people had adequate support and that I would have done you've got to remember the senior members of production are watching that part and even their opinion the presenter behaved any way other than reasonable it is for them to address there's not been a choice you didn't have to go and look after the guests at the choice of not speaking to must have tailor mr. McLennan you could easily have done both and I would imagine that it had been your V meant to have done both did you do both I didn't speak to the presenter or the series producer on that occasion so where do professionally comfortable with what you saw I'm never professionally comfortable with black and white statements okay I'll come back to a moment mr. Slaney but on on McLennan on that clip as well you referred to a moment ago and you said that in defense of what we saw you said that there was two mental health nazis and short no I I was under pinning at mental health Nazis but there to treat people with mental illness that these people and where these people involved a meet of mental health Nazis no sorry a part of I thought that was explaining it obviously was a big clear part of Graham's team there are two special it's a continuity of your hair so the assessing team then goes to into the support team and then the support team into the application that clip well the mental health nurses yes and your opinion mr. Stein you well the subjects in need of mental health nurses what they were needing in that particular case they were knee in need of a very calm environment after that event and just come back to Jeremy's time I mean we Jerry's you know he's been on the show for 14 years he was on the radio before there he's always had the same cell this isn't a new style that's changed he is hard and he's honest but people absolutely loved him and that's why they applied you know and and wanted to appear on the show yeah and that's why you would have something called a duty of care we took our G to come today and mr. Stein ye what was your career path before you became director of after Kieran Jeremy I had spent many years as a registered general nurse in the NHS then when I left the NHS I work for many years in occupational health with an interest in mental health in the workplace and then I took a period of time to studying for four years studying psychology and psychotherapy and then received a master's degree and - do you have a professional qualification in psychology I've studied modules of psychology but I have a professional qualification in psychotherapy which is often it happens that people will finish their first degree and then take a second degree and do postgraduate studies to study psychotherapy which is more an intervention a talking therapy so you are you registered with a health and care professional potential I am registered with the UK CP but not with the health and care professional okay who and the production was the person that was that fully qualified psychologists who was qualified and with their and registered with the health care professionals potential so Graeme was the head of our aftercare so the nobody who has the professional qualification in psychology that they just stopped with the health care professional council great like I said it took Graham was the head of our aftercare and yeah okay and sometime he who acted is view of professional second opinion when you were on the show and what qualifications did your second opinion house second opinion so you know did you work in isolation or no I work in a team yes but you're the head of the team so you're the head so you look after people who apply to come on to the show yes and then you look after them once they're on the show and then you look after them when they've left the show yes and so first of all it's are not a conflict you don't see that the could possibly be a conflict there and and what you do and secondly surely with that volume of people but that amount of care required I thought it'd be standard practice for a medical professional to have a second opinion or someone to have that second opinion we have four four members of the team and we work as a team and we have supervision with each other within that team we discuss things openly within that team so we support each other as a team of four and we support each other if I need any medical intervention then I can contact the doctor for instance I might need a medical examination on someone that's going to rehab to check out their suitability medically yes sorry I'm looking at this chicken may know it but just so you'd never felt the need for any level of secondary support or I get secondary secondary support from my team okay okay so you don't have a professional second opinion of someone who has a qualified psychologists who is registered at the Hilton in terms of a second person to say someone is suitable well yes we know that system doesn't exist okay yeah but I'm breathing I did read that evidence from the Association of Clinical Psychology the only psychologist regulated by an independent statute in Brodie in this case the H CPC should be carrying an assessment or directly decisions about psychological here for participants governance and accountability after key only a regulation can Gareth TVs but that doesn't seem to be the case and because there is nobody who has that HD see qualified as a no we have a team who supervised each other and work as a team okay can I had say mr. McClelland mr. Bellamy why he has done nobody from a member of the health and care professionals Council and baby process team I think this is something we're gonna have to come back to you on we're gonna have to look into and write to you answer is that we felt confident the duty of care processes were robust yeah and as you say we you and the team relied on Graham and his aftercare team so we were confident in the processes are you still confident yes I am still confident in the processes I think this is the duty of care I know how seriously duty of care was taken and whether it's about informed consent or treating people fairly or any aspect of Health and Welfare I know how serious it was taken and how extensive and detailed the policies are saying that look of course you know one of the things we always try and do whether it's on this show or any show yeah of course ITV Studios is perfect I'm sure we could always improve we're constantly striving to improve our duty of care processes and we you know we continue to do that so why why is on nobody on the team who has has a professional qualification in psychology and no one on the team through his registered with the health and care professionals Council I think you know it's it's at the moment there's there's a review going across the whole of ITV and this was happening before before the the car show fittest which is dr. Litchfield is going through everything but we have a risk risk management team that you know everything's gone through and checked like like Julian said you know we really did take our jutsu care very seriously 14 years ago and we you know it is something that evolved over a period of time we you know constantly putting in extra people you know went from between 1 to 18 before we added residential rehabs we you know bought a doctor that we could use within the show as well and it was something that we were constantly looking at and constantly updating and can I just say that the the the team itself qualified and highly experienced competent in carrying out assessments they've been trained within the NHS to carry out mental health assessment they've been trained in the idea chest to carry a risk assessment then betrayed within the NHS to carry out psychometric testing and that's why they have the title of specialised registered mental her registered mental health practitioners okay thank you couple of final questions versus Daniel how many times did you stop someone going onto this stage immediately prior to filming oh I think I heard some statistics the other day the the assessment is ongoing is continuous from the moment we speak to them I'm from and to the moment they leave the stage and then beyond that at that point is her face-to-face assessment maybe 50/50 of how many shows have been did you see 50 in the whole year yeah we've made we've made over 3,000 shows all the 3,000 shows did you ever stop a recording of a show sorry somebody coffee did you ever stop the recording of a show I have when somebody has been distressed in it and it wasn't a a conflict part but they were upset they were reliving something about recording was stopped and they were taken off the stage I thought it was necessary certainly so you have interrupted recording did you did you ever interrupt a recording when mr. kale was confronting one of the guests okay as a standard rule every guest is told as we walk down to theatre with them every guest is told at any point if you feel uncomfortable just walk off the stage I think that's probably why people see that so often and then on the left and the right of the stage will be to aftercare members and but they're always informed at any point you feel uncomfortable did you professionally ever intervene to stop a recording when you thought mr. Cale had overstepped the mark no I prefer to work with the guest inside if you feel uncomfortable leave the stage okay how many times after the recording of a show did you see this show should not be broadcast I shall tell you how that works well I will speak to the guests after the show if they have any concerns whatsoever no matter what I'm trying to get as your professional responsibilities not someone's desire to be on the television or someone's the no fear of upsetting the production team you prefer a responsibility of win when F ever did you go to mr. McLennan and say this program should not be broadcast at my opinion how many things no because why would I say that I'm trying to understand why well okay for example the club that we saw of the the people directly dreadfully upset by being called out the the lie detector claiming that a liar has was there never a point after the recording was sure that you wait to mr. McLennan and said for the good of this couple of this individuals mental health this program should not be absolutely you have in conversation with the methane's in the coming conversation with the guests if they raise any issues of concern that have happened during participation on the show I don't raise it directly with mr. McCauley but I do raise it with the producer of that show okay so how many times have you made that intervention and how many times have they acted honor and not broadcast on a person they always act on it so how many tend to be talking have have they on your seesaw not broadcast every time I make a recommend is followed how many how many how many episodes of Jerry McHale are sitting on a shelf know it we could any one year we would we would potentially over record by 18 shows so and we would drop parts if we felt it was necessary and anybody really want to make very clear is that if Graham ever said to us that he felt as to a part of a show should not go out that part would be dropped okay he would have the final say not not the executive who do then could you find out looking back in your records how many times mr. Stanley has come to adoption team and said for the mental well-being of the participants this should not be broadcast and could you write to us and tell us that exactly we can look into it yet it would be through the conversation see the guest yeah we must be happy oh yeah there's this paper trail on every single person who appears in the show so we can definitely look into how many shows with dropped or parts were dropped through conversations with Graham okay and I can try to get that to you thank you thank you Jake you guys this could flow on this point mrs. tan that you is the case you can't recall at the moment a single occasion where you've made that recommendation that a story should not be broadcast because new member of recommendations out after the show if it's raised with me which would it would be with one of the aftercare members I would then go into that room I would have a long chat with them and then if there were concerns then I would know I would say that I would then raise it with the producer and then it becomes a productions responsibility to take it up to another level okay so so you're saying you have done that you have your estimations to the production team that a particular story should not be broadcast yeah and mr. plenn and I have you do you know that the you've acted on that advice 100% if I know you see impossibility you would double chase specifically yes you believe you have not broadcast stories not 100% because mrs. Daniel Ramos if Graham had said to me did ya know I'm saying absolutely yeah Graham has said to me a story should not be broadcast and I have stopped it from being broadcast and because obviously contestant contestant I suppose is contesting is an entertainment program remember the public is on the show there's got no right to request that they saw they signed away all right they have but we can the people on the show plenty of examples not even recently in further back that we have you know stopped broadcasting certain stories for those three cities perforating thank you chair mock my reaction when ITV announced and I say I too have a great respect for ITV and many of the people work there and the job it does but my reaction is when this was canceled was good riddance quite frankly hmm I've only come across this program two three times as when I was having my hair cut years ago in Clapham oh the bar being used to have it on incessantly I couldn't change the channel so I changed my hair cut it and I just think it's a form of trash television predatory programming brought in from the US that people involved in making should be ashamed of themselves actually ironically as we sit here it was to politicians or for politicians Jerry Springer and Rob Guillory so could debase themselves in fueling the John so not before times was a concern Brendan's covered most of the questions that I additional questions I was going to ask him mister stunning but I I must say not having seen the program I was quite shocked by the clip that we that we saw which was despite the unreliability of lie-detector test which is widely acknowledged the presenter in people's faces were saying was saying this test says you're a liar they take that as a liar and yet you mr. mcclaren rather like a salesman of dodgy products were pointing to the small print that was on the screen but not not available to the contestant or guest to justify that behavior how would you view that comparison well I completely disagree I think the as I said earlier it's about informed consent for me and we could not have been more clear with the guests that applied to come on the show not only had they been viewers of the show so they absolutely knew the content but we make it very clear to them about the accuracy of the lie detector before they traveled to Manchester where we filmed before they took the lie detector and before they appeared on the show and then on top of that we made it very clear to the viewer I repeat the lie detector is designed to indicate whether somebody's being deceptive practitioners claiming to have a high-level accuracy although this is a disputed so I don't it was very important to us that everybody was informed from the contributor to the viewer that's clearly as people thought it up not reflecting the behavior that the presenter on a program of which your executive producer I've been on this committee for 14 years now we've had some character supporters and let's say your attempts justification put you in a sad category heroes wrong time loser mr. Stanek you're as I mean you're registered of the I just look them up among the familiar than the UK that's counselor for psychotherapy yes that's correct I don't know the organization but from your with your description of your role as a medical professional to use a broad category it's rather analogous to some somebody from the medical profession watching a dangerous driver using the behavior like that and saying it's not his his role to ask the driver to slow down and take the foot off the accelerator but your job is really to put people on a stretcher afterwards it's a strange view of a professionals do you - no I think I do believe that people have choice and they make a choice to do to go on the show it's about making sure that they're fully informed and that's just not by production it is part of the process that we do that as well and then it's a continuous assessment and throughout that assessment were constantly constantly saying to them we're gas welfare we're here to support you we are the team that you need to support you we will do that all the way down to the studio with table to the studios and then inform them then at any point that you feel uncomfortable then please leave the stage we're going to be here waiting for you we're just working with the guests constantly and I'll just go back to the pointman I believe that the presenter his style his language is something that is part of the production I'm not part of guess welfare of course it's language when you said when you on here that black and white language you know you're a liar it's not something I would I would use its no not the language I would use it going back to mr. horace points I mean you seem to be a professional wire of car crushes and see your job is just to put things back together afterwards I think you have to look at do you want to guess welfare program on the Jeremy Kyle show or not somebody has to do that job I'm quite happy to do that job I like looking after people I like treating people in terms of I like the aftercare program that I've created for them sending people off to mediation sending people up to rehab sending up people for relationship counseling for counseling you know I've been afforded a great budget to help people so yeah it's not just a bit that's on the stage it's what happens in Africa are being afforded opportunities to helping an enormous amount of people just and just to be paid a lot of money out of that great budget that can it can it can I just said that this this year alone we've put thirteen people through rehab they've been in there three months at a time we've spent 122 hours of paid counseling of mediation and anger management and a possibly 95 per year referred to free services so you know we I I know when you see clips on YouTube or or clips at the hairdresser's in isolation you know it probably doesn't feel like it but I the the reason we really wanted to come here today was to make it very clear that we you know we know the show was controversial but we did take her to take her very seriously beginning middle and end I'm just a lot of curiosity what happens the budget sorry because the budget you give the bouquet yeah it was I was never ever aware of a budget but what does that be so really said but I've never ever said to go at any point that he couldn't do something because of money and we're just always I make a request I just I just want to limitations view you're wrong pretty much self imposed quite frankly of being quite evident through the answer but could I just finish asking one question what's sometimes what's are the best advice to give a patient who comes home is distraught that they've they've tested positive for HIV medically dead by yeah what can be some of the best advice to give someone who's distraught is tested positive for HIV well it's often to go back and have another test because of the the false positives so when people failed lie-detector tests did you ever advise the program that perhaps they are they were so distraught that they might just take him again no I didn't I didn't ever know okay enough sir Thank You Julian woods mister you said earlier about how you were saying to participants that should they become furtively distressed or in depression they just walk off the stage that's correct isn't it is that what you said earlier on in the after the show in the show you told mr. O Hara believe that you often said before they went on there that if you find it too much yes please just walk on okay there's McClement when they walk offstage they're still in camera rolling yes so that's up there these some use you mr. stone you say that these people are then met like aftercare specialist online these people have a clipboard and a earpiece the earpiece is sent to the gallery is it not mr. Clement so it's very different so on the Jeremy Kyle show so you actually I talked about position yes yeah would normally be in the gallery right in in in this system which are makar show we had the point is must be planning you're in touch with them that's correct is it not yeah but we make netfloor so that's that's good okay so you're in touch with them it's these people especially all you're saying to that was to start yet basically you'll really distress we just walk off it's okay then they're put with a member of your production team and then effectively they become part of their entertainment once again they're still in camera they're still based you're instructing your individual faculty keep them within camera you'll be basically asking them to place a wooden camera keep them within camera so what you're effectively doing is a moment of distress that you have said to them away out you mr. McLaren are there effectively creating an environment for them to the future for further exploit that stress at the signs that's correct isn't it I don't agree with you the word fixed boy I think well the entertainment there's no privacy there's no space this is not a get out this is basically effectively a means by which to create greater tension greater drama on the show they go a stage and then you further effectively exploit them part of the entertainment their distress they signal to you a stop effectively they've said to you I need to get off because mr. Stein has advised love that but instead of actually effectively allowing them off the stage allowing them peace and privacy to recover their Falls you mr. McLennan effectively constructed a production that they're effectively allows them to be exploited further to remain part of the entertainment when mr. Stanley has told them that effectively by doing this they are not part of the entertainment I I don't agree with the the word exploit and like I said I think everybody was completely fully informed of of the show that they viewed it for many years a cognizant of TV production standards and the compensation works trying to explain earlier the the the talkback position the reason why that was on the floor was because then at any point a producer or an aftercare person like Graham could come over and talk to the person and talk back we could take the show to break or there was lots of things that were well well did the views I've ever heard of it on YouTube etc basically it's a moment of drama of a storm of the stage they're stopped by a person on the clipboard and a microphone in their ear they're kept in camera and then effectively they then stay there and they may be all your production person talks them etc but all the while they're distressed when they think they're in a safer space when they're achieving a safe space their distress is bad for people's entertainment well like I say I think it comes back to they would have watched the show that is something that would happen on the show so you know it comes to comes back to a form consent for me but the you know what we're talking about is the beginning middle and end and after of aftercare and actually what we're talking about is even in those moments where tensions were high there was members if Graham's team with them okay but they're on camera so maybe the main the ends of mr. Stein's team may be there because one comes during it and they're still probably around I thought that was my planner but they're still on camera that's the fact isn't it so let's have a look at the let's have a think back to the original clip we saw we saw an extremely distressed woman who effectively you know potentially life is being being ruined by cod science with all the veracity of had a toss of a coin and you know in that respect to that very moment how certainly you because I was struck by something the vulnerability of the woman the fact that many all participants are couples how certain are you and what checks are made to ensure the female participants in a relationship or actually anyone in the relationship it's not being coerced to go on to your program there is not effective D for example interview them separately so yes so Sophie the process so obviously we talk to the individuals separately on the phone we take lots of notes from them so we knew exactly what they wanted to say one of the reasons for that is is that we wanted absolutely make sure that they got out everything they wanted to say on the program because actually it was quite a short short period of time sometimes 30 10-15 minutes so we'd have those conversations within the night before on the day of we would separate them and we would go back through them with the notes and we would make sure that they completely understood everything that they've told us and make sure that they were you know basically pre-interview before they went on to the chase their video fort isn't there a danger that you are facilitating most normal emotional violence so I could answer that question that once they we do it face to face and they're in individual rooms you will ask that question about whether they've been coerced are they being put under any pressure to do the to do to show so you just say we burn the pressure do you sort of in any way to embellish that in any way to you sort us a particular situation because Jim there's one person who's contacted you it is it we you'll go so once they arrive at the studios they're then allocated individual rooms and then you will always do a face-to-face chat with them that morning before they go to the studio to go to studio and it's really important that we do because they're now often the evaluations have probably been overheard by somebody maybe it was a telephone conversation but you do have to make sure that they feel safe and that they haven't been put under pressure or coerced to come to the show so you really want to know that it's something they want to do and what about the interplay between different relationships that I mean Mike my concerns are effectively that there may be very work available women effectively who are who are presented with the suspicion by that partner that they have been you know they've been unfaithful etcetera as we saw in in that clip and effects with what then happens is that that that suspicion then is is there air in public and that this is deeply emotionally damaging reputationally but also as part of potentially of a more abusive relationship I agree and so what so close you had that is not part of a more abusive relationship you aren't effectively at the tail and a part of the process of abuse I am totally aware concerns and it is part of that process that we do talk to people separately when they're on their own because you really do want to establish that no you know they haven't been put under pressure or coerce to do a test in order to prove fidelity and you want to exclude at all cost that there is any there has been physical altercations and that relationship or violence in that relationship and another additional check that we will carry out is what we call source checking so as part of the whole process we will speak to two people who will be nominated by the guests and then we will speak to these two people and make that line of inquiry whether they are aware of any issues within that relationship is that have there been any any violence within that relationship so again we're trying to check on those issues what do you see when you discovered the husband violence in the relationship it would be gone it would be over well that wouldn't be wouldn't happen but is that where is that where your duty of care ends effectively though no absolutely not so if you speak to somebody and they're declined to come on the show absolutely doesn't end there at all it could be any situation some people are not engaging with national you know with NHS services you would encourage them to do that people who are obviously in relationships and it's been disclosed that there may be a victim of domestic violence then of course we need to reassure them that there are agencies out there that can help and support them yeah absolutely when we decline somebody and say that is not possible for you to participate for whatever reason it's not an endpoint for us we do have to put them in so whatever service they would find helpful when you say put them in whatever service what does that entail in terms of so if you identified when somebody was on the phone that they they had depression then you would recommend that they went to see pea I'd have the GP evaluate their own sense of if I should get someone on the bus frankly it's one it's be some sort of dodgy call from someone a bus rather than a trained medical practitioner so what is it actually you actually do do if you discover that someone coming old trying to come on to your show or you discover afterwards that someone has been a victim of domestic violence what do you actually do a part and say just go and see your GP no no I was talking about depression and when if it's a victim of domestic violence I'm definitely going to send them to or advise them or one of the team is going to advise them to seek help from domestic violence units it is important you don't just leave it I mean you've identified that there is a violence in that relationship then you need to progress that forward okay now there's been participants who've been in touch with the Select Committee and they've told us they're there the pressure is that there simply wasn't any aftercare why do you think they've said that mr. McClaren it's very difficult for me to answer I think you know the main reason I would have come to today was to make sure that we expressed to you that there was we had a you know a proper duty of care we there was a guest welfare was very important to us and that we that extended from before during and after the show that's not what your participants said though they said effectively that they don't feel as in any of the care see I I don't know who you're talking about so it's very difficult for me to comment right but this that simply wouldn't be the case mr. Fallon if I may is very hard to answering in fairness in the abstract and look anytime were made aware of any concerns it is something we look into and certainly happy to look into you know any any other concerns that you may have or any of the participants of concerns I would just you know echo again that I know how seriously duty of care is taken and I would also just echo again my point about Ofcom and the yeah I know the format the few times I mean we have obviously constituents no plans to standing you're joining us this is hearing in the few times that you have spare you fall them back on Ofcom frankly most people don't know about Ofcom any idea about it whatsoever so I really don't think it's particular I know it's one thing that you may wish to fall back on but I don't really think that here today I don't think that's a particularly sort of robust defense of your program the fact that people who who may actually frankly have men into serious issues don't know we're off cameras well don't go and complain to Ofcom so I mean that's great but I don't really think that's a particular thing but with us to say to you that you just said how you know how you're very happy in fact you've said before how your you'll reassure about the duty care the aftercare that's happened never say to you the letter to participant states the following if necessary if necessary counseling sessions will be arranged but that of course is completely up to you whether you want to take up this help to what portion our participants are offered counseling and also what criteria decisions are they you know is counseling based and who do participants call I mean this doesn't sound like a sort of open invitation this seems like if necessary of course it's completely up to you whether or not you want to take up any of this held it just asked me as I frankly it's there it's almost like giving someone a leaflet off you go doesn't seem to mean frankly that this is anywhere near robust enough for ITV Studios Davio's name associated with I didn't think that's right I mean I again know firsthand from from you know seeing Graham and the team that work that that if they have a very you know robust set of duty of care procedures growing probably more directly to that the point you raised I think it's about you know why that was like that because obviously today we're talking about the conflict resolution part but quite often we would do reunion parts and obviously if somebody was being reunited with their long-lost father who they hadn't seen for 20 years you know they were very happy and then potentially might not need counselling so it's it's it couldn't be a one fit the wall it had to be case by case so you're comfortable leaving it entirely up to participants well they're not they're offered to take up counseling it would it be it was sorry it would be it would be for Graham and his team to have that conversation with participants that's why they would always be seen before they left the street isn't this - hands off isn't the whole thing as the whole thing then - hands off and many years I mean the cool human if you've been as a paramour 14 years hasn't it cultures do grow up do you recognize now that potentially we have to care has been to hands off I think I think like I said at the beginning this is something that we took seriously 14 years ago but it is absolutely something that's evolved you know through time and and we were still looking at we still it was still evolving so it isn't just a process that had got old and not fit for service it was it was something that we were constantly refreshing and looking at how will you refreshed it recently like I said earlier that you know the for the in-house rehabs that we now you know give 13 people this year this is only something we've bought in the last few years we've taken so much I'm sorry to last Union 10 years how many years I couldn't get I think now probably three or four years there for you so that's in one court at the time that Jamie Keil has been on air as checklists and everything we were just we were refreshing we were looking at at the moment seeing if we could be improved like I said we have we were going through all processes once again even before before the acting of the show is say it's you know I just think that's a really important point that it isn't something that we've taken our eye off because it isn't because final question mr. stan you what were those have a main - GPS or mental health services after sessions referral to GP is our mental health service we would probably it's um when required so often yes we would certainly recommend for people to go and see GP services if we had conferral so is that is that what you told to say recommendation effectively say it would depend if you were had two concerns regarding someone's mood level you would refer them to you would discuss that with them with them this these people may not even go on the show they're made to chaperone somebody we may have had a chat with them prior to the show with there may be people that have been declined but they wanted to come to the show because they had friends coming to the show if they had been declined because of low mood then obviously would not obviously it's what we do we will refer them to GP service we will express our concerns that they've got long mood and then go to your GP have your GP carry out an evaluation of your mood so we're trying to engage people with services okay well you pull of buzzwords but I don't really see any particular practicality sort of end point at that you can seem to be saying that okay well off you go or slightly off you go there you are you should be going to see a doctor what what is actually resulted I mean you talked about the idea of a rehab before but in terms of mental health and GP services do you not take any more further part than that you know you've you've put these people on air and then effectively your take oh these were people prior to we're sorry after we will see people it's about problem it's about solution and I suppose my focus is always on what's the problem that you bring and then at the end of the show we can do a needs assessment what's the solution I can provide for you Thank You Clara just go back to the checklist so someone indicates that they want to go on the show and there's an initial telephone conversation and that invested up with somebody of the production team ringing up going through this checklist does everyone who indicates that they would like to go on the show get this follow-up call with this checklist yes so so to everyone who is gonna appear on the show would go through this checklist yes everyone who contacts the show following that initial conversation get called back we've to go through this this contact list does checklist it would so is everyone take taken through this checklist who indicates they want to go on the show I think so is this sample sort of sift that goes on in the first phone call I think actually sits GD but VR came in I think I think this is something that we had to we had to have certain scripted before so actually we'd we'd have this conversation we read this out to pretty much everybody here appeared on so so there's no form of vetting process in the initial contact whatsoever this is it this is this is that this is what they call the chasing okay so in you when we go through this if you think they've just been updated it was going to be updated so can I just ask you very briefly about the question on page 3 which is about education yes what type of school was it what level of education read the briefs ever at the end in the birther box it's got for official use only Google the school yeah what are we looking for there so like I think that that so I just want to make sure that the I think that we would only come to this bit and we would only kind of get to that level of detail if this was seriously being considered to be on the show right we just mainly start filling it out but then we'd only get to that detail if we it was going to be a fair answer but this is the this is the questions that are being asked by the the members of the production team on the telephone so presumably they go through all these questions they all isn't well they go through these questions I think they're publicly they did speak to some of the script that hear what some of the story was like would obviously speak to them and find out kind of the reason why they wanted to come on the show we would then speak to the other person and find out why they wanted if they if they would want to come on the show as well and then we'd start going through the checklist so it would be quite early it would be quite early stages that we'd go through the checklist we'd probably get the understanding of both both people wanted to appear on the show particular to be completely there right so there'd be quite a bit of sorting and froing between these videos before you've to anyone we have weekly on through these chairs which we'd so there is some sort sit before the checklist well there'd be a conversation yeah or tsums conversations so so so what are we looking for I mean we look for someone's school so I think I think that would be fit lots of different reasons as somebody said earlier this is why we talked to we talked to two people who were related to the story for one to see if they're telling us the truth that people are lying about their history or anything then that would obviously be red flags I think it's also if we looked up the school and it would be a you know a school for you know potentially special special needs and then that would be which applies to us I mean we know so we're not we're not looking at you know targeting people from different types of schools no no it means that it was very welcome on your program now if it came up and it was the school that of special needs then obviously that would be a red flag and something we'd want to look into here but that wouldn't be an exclusionary something okay and there's also a question on here about where you indicate someone that they should check people with social media history what are you looking for there so that is again to verify the story you know it's very important to us as you know the show was the tabloid show and it was important for us to make sure that everybody who came on the show you know was telling us the truth very occasionally people would try to come on the show and make up a story so one good thing about social media is if we went back you know normally you could you know you could save if they were telling the truth so and are we looking for people with problems when we look on social media well they would they would have already called us with a problem so the problem was pre-existing and then we would go back and verify that okay so when we go through these changes there's there's quite a few references to whether if the answer is yes on violence on drugs on you know various aspects psychology you know counseling social worker any disorders that eating disorders OCD etc yeah and against all these as mazik says refer to the aftercare team yeah now if this is prior to going on being selected to you know participate in the show is he's referring to the aftercare team code for this person should go on the show no I think we made that very clear that you know this is this is the number one reason why we wanted to be so open we can talk about it you know I know that people when they see this show they would sometimes think it was controversial everything else but this the duty care was incredibly important to us I can't stress that enough and we we put these procedures in place and why so many people did not end up on the show because we took we couldn't take over taking this more seriously so there's not a disproportionate number of people who are referred to the aftercare team at this level that at this stage the checklist who I appear on the show I mean very much might disagree I mean I'd say you know over the years because the systems and procedures you know we're tightened and got stronger and stronger there probably wasn't many people or many stories you know at some point did not you know get referred to aftercare and then every single person had a face to face you know before they before before the recording start yeah I'm really just trying to get a is there a disproportionate number of people who at this stage have going through this checklist that I'll refer to aftercare that end up going on the show but it's case by case so this is this this the whole thing is is is it set up for case by case so depending on the reason is why it would then go to aftercare for them to to assess if that person should then appear on the show but it really was case by case right so so if you go through this checklist of no one you know if somebody an individual or coming individual so I'm not referred to aftercare you know but you know you still consider them got to go if they didn't get referred to aftercare and they they got through the whole checklist without any Flags whatsoever then they would be free to travel to come to the show but they would still have a face to face when they got because give us some of the issues that are listed here and autism schizophrenia ADHD yeah and you refer to aftercare yeah it's quite concerning that once you've identified those those needs that you might still consider this person for the sort of program we saw start of this this question session you have to consider then participation it might be a desire for them to be part of a show but if there are certain disclosures and then once you've carried out the assessment there are clear then you clearly need to reduce the level of participation then that's what we would recommend to production so for instance you can reduce level of participation to the point of giving a statement maybe a video statement sitting in a room quietly and having a private interview with the presenter so you can act effectively reduce their limited participation and again at that point I'd like to say that you know if Graham said to us okay you know that person cannot appear on the show but you know what we would be happy for them to provide a statement then that person would appear on the show to be recorded but they you know as long as they agreed they were then you know give us a second but so minute mister say just one more really that last question your professional capacity you've seen comments from mine that are saying that the program should prioritize people's needs over the desire to make the program comfortable I would definitely reduce people's level of participation in most cases to providing a statement : yes I'd like to come to the area of content we used to call the footage in the elevator that there's a wonderful quotation here from the social inequalities Research Center at Legacy University which says the power of editing is unbelievable a sentence constructed of two sentences said 20 minutes apart sounds and looks like it was one sentence they record the programs and you therefore do go through some form of editing do the contributors have any idea or understanding of the power of editing is there to me yeah yeah interesting with the Jeremy Kyle show it was actually a normal ITV hour would be 45 minutes the Jericho show was actually 50 minutes and we almost recorded as live so we for 50 minutes show quite often we would record you know 53 54 55 minutes and then we would take those minutes out but you know other shows other daytime shows you you could obviously as you could be fully aware you know you could record hours and hours and take it down to that amount so to only lose three or four minutes really what you should saw on the show was what happened on the day and the reason that we take those minutes down is just because we had to get it to a certain amount of tactile for television and plus if there was certain things that wasn't appropriate for a morning start like swearing or anything else and we'd be able to take those would you say that you you can sometimes as we know editing is a very powerful tool oh you magical yeah and you can make somebody who's telling the truth look like a liar yeah somebody who's a liar look like there was innocent as an angel but do you ever use that do you ever use camera angles anything like that to do to point up a certain angle that you from the production team way I'd like to me know we I mean the like I said it was it was recorded as almost life with just a few minutes taken out we weren't changing particularly camera angles in the end it or anything else so what people watched at home was what people watching in the studio again I accept that suit surgery um ah the contributors fully aware of how the program will use the content how you inform them yeah have you told me so we would go through you know as part of the informed consent and through all the conversations we had people were aware that the show would obviously be used on the the in the morning obviously but the show would be repeated as well if there was a long period of time after after the first transmission we would then call them back up and ask them if they've reminded it being repeated again if the show was used with it best of episodes we would we would call them up and ask if they minded their participation meet button that and do that do they regularly deny that volition as some would because their their lives had moved on you know the problem that they came on the show potentially a year or two years later have moved on and they they wouldn't want to be included let's say in the best of show and we would read on that so plus if they contacted us and asked you know had a good reason for us to not work carry on repeating the program obviously it would be case by case but we would look at that too so fundamentally they are aware that this content that is shot is there forever potentially and you could use it yeah I mean we obviously the contracts and everything said that and what we're kind of discussing earlier but actually in the kind of real world it was farm what okay as part of the contract the guests receive a special category datanodes which is about ethnicity health business affairs health and safety compiles our care first of all do the contributors understand what that means I mean I'm maybe not the price man but when I read these contracts I find them heavy going is it made clear to your contributors exactly what this this wording means and what it will mean in the future I mean it was I kind of this question came up slightly earlier and it's a difficult to answer obviously we had to put that information in particularly with the rules changing you know that was operated by production it was it was lawyers and business affairs we tried to explain over a period of time instead of just the contract but we would go through the contract with the contributors as well they do sit down in a room with them and take them so yeah we what we would go through the contract with them I in hindsight I've begun through the forms in the last few days I wonder if there is some lessons to be learned and potentially we could soften some of the language going forward that's good dear how long do you keep the data so that's changed again recently so I would need to find obviously you know as you aware with GT PRI but you know everything is everything changed in the last few months so I can't give you an exact at the moment but I can I can supply that to you that was a very thank you very much and finally do you think that contestants or contributors should have greater power over their content yes you anything or well I mean is it is it is it possible or is it something that you would consider doing to allow contributor to see what goes on in the editing suite would you allow them to see an edited finished program I think I think that would be very difficult in the real world I can see why you're asking it but I think you're you're almost offering editorial control to to the contributor and I'm not sure how that would work in the real world setting who do you feel they might say well this program can't go out that may be one of them I just I just think it would it would be very very difficult and I'm not sure if if it would technically be possible but surely the resources could be put there mr. Bellamy good I don't think yes a question of resources for me it's look there's there's certainly question of some practicalities but I think more fundamentally actually I think the system works works well in terms of you know informed consent making sure that people are then ferret fairly and accurately represented in the show I would worry about ensuring that producers you know must always have editorial control to tell a story in a fair and accurate way as they see it but there is there is the issue that they're quite simply you know one doesn't interview then looks at it back afterwards I think my gosh we shouldn't go out like that this is dreadful and you'd like to be able to have some sort of power over how it goes out and as you're dealing with people in in sometimes in quite often in a very delicate stage in their life do you not think that they should have some more control over what you actually find the broadcast no not if they are fully and properly informed about what they're participating in and was then and then we are you know remember you know we are obviously operating in a very tightly regulated industry so in comparison to newspapers in the Internet so on so I I frankly don't personally see the need though you know I I do think as well there are some practical issues of that well thank you thank you thank you joy Stevens question mr. McLennan you just said about how you sit the contributors down to take them through the contract and you go through it with them at any point do you advise them to go and get free for an impartial legal advice on what you are requiring them to sign one final question just something picked up in the language you were using a bookstore going forward and so coupled to the rumors that let's say this could be making a comeback do you have any plans whatsoever to bring the show back in any format with mr. Taylor's presenter there no so just being very direct with you there are absolutely no plans and we will not be bringing back and a show that looks or feels like the Jeremy Kyle show but you don't reload blocking from uh stop tail in the future well the network have been the itv2 be very open and transparent about that we Jeremy Kyle has been involved in all sorts of programs from good morning Britain to the car files and so yes we would be looking to work with him in the future but the thing that remotely resembles what we generally get me correctly he won't be directing another conflict resolution show okay thank you thank you very much that concludes the questions we have for you today and we appreciate your time and we'll move on to the second panel joining us today we appreciate your time and apologize for the lengthy run of the first pals we started slightly later than we have planned we do have one or two members of the committee or rejoining us so but I think we'll make a start now at the interests of time if I could ask Karen called Peter passage and you you head up ITV responsible for ITV were you surprised by some of the things you heard this morning denied by that she lost did you have the chance to watch the first witness panel we had a chance to watch some of it not a bit we've been waiting outside for a little while so I don't think I'm surprised by the responses necessarily III think that they had they tried very hard to outline to you what the processes were what the duty of care was how they dealt with contributors applicants and then contributors and they talked quite a lot I think about the procedures of the show so I think that I think that is what it is that's the show that's what do you suppose question process do you feel that those studies were adequate I think we did an internal review as you know so when we suspended the show on the 12th of May actually and announced it on the 13th we initiated an internal review now that review was really about the episode the one episode which which we actually then canceled the show subsequently after that but the internal review haven't started yet and that was really about the processes that were being used on the show and were they being applied on the show that's what the internal review who was about and the conclusion of that review was that it was that that the processes existed they were detailed processes and they were followed but for example do you think it is adequate that the product production arm of the program don't know how accurate the lie-detector tests are so that was one area that I think what they were conveying is that they made it very very clear that lie detector tests are not a hundred percent accurate as you heard repeatedly our own the two examiner's that we use and I completely concur what what they said the two examiner's we use if you look on their websites they say that the lie detector test in their view has an accuracy in the 90s we have chosen never to put that on the show because of the range the range is always disputed so whether you look at the professor on the program or whether you look at the our own in examiner's that we use to our end it's an independent company there is quite a range of anything from 60% that you mentioned to 95% as they've mentioned and they've put that it's a matter of public record because they have that on their website so I think what the production team were trying to convey is that they didn't use the range they didn't use those statistics because they were in dispute that that there was a complete understanding that lie detector tests are not 100% accurate they tried very very hard I believe to tell every contributor that I think you heard grants Tonya's view of how he would deal with that in very normal language I rather than using statistics he would talk about the fact that you could be telling the truth but the lie detector test will say you are lying that was talking to people on a one-to-one basis to explain they also used to go through with participants the worst consequences of a larger Texas so they would actually talk to participants about what how they would feel what they would think if the lie detector test went against them so from that point of view I think what the team were trying to convey is they didn't want to put a statistic on it because the statistic would be wrong because it is so disputed so their way of dealing with that was to say it is not 100% and then to deal with that face to face with individual participants to explain that but I think the reason we asked so many questions of it I've looked on the website for the company provides it what they say on the website is exactly what the production team say to the people which is it's not 100% that I didn't see a figure in the night it just says it's not 100% and as we talked about earlier I think that statistic is meaningless because 50 percent it's not 100 percent 40 percent it's not hundred percent you know and in the con I my question and my concern here is I can't see how someone can give informed consent to take part in the lie-detector test when they've got no idea of how accurate it is or even what the range of accuracy is for that test so I think crisp come in here as directive compliance both of those examiners would say that their accuracy was in the 90s we never chose to reflect that exact figure because we know that that could be easily that would be disputed by somebody else so I genuinely think that it is possibly disingenuous to say to people either that this was going to be accurate in the 90s or 70% or 80% because we don't none of us know there's there are many different opinions what I can say to you is that they went through processes to try and explain the lie detector test and why it wasn't a hundred percent accurate and indeed we've now cancelled the show as you know and I will say that we will not commissioner's show in the future in this way in this format it's using larger textured sets for the very reason you've just highlighted which is the range is is that the range is it depends on who you talk to but I find you answer it slightly puzzling actually because in 100 saying they've done nothing wrong well the other hand you're saying we're never going to do that again well I'm saying that they haven't done anything wrong because they have explained that lie detector tests are not a hundred percent accurate you may have a strong view that that should not be used they wanna go and may have a view that they should be not not be used in is instruments strong view I have is that we didn't want facts you've really vulnerable people in in a setting they're not used to being told that this practice processes is accurate it's being presented in the program as accurate Jamie Carr gives no ambiguity in the way it presents the results no one has ever given the chance to have a retest that was not not offered to them they don't have the right to stop the broadcast of the footage of the test if they don't if they're uncomfortable with the result they have no rights to do that at all and I'm not sure in that if our and the test is not even done particular in the controlled environment it's done in a room and media city by people that don't particularly medical publications the test is done in a hotel room adjacent to the studios so the holy probably in medicine is that right though I think you might actually be right it's it's a quiet it's a quiet place to conduct to conduct the test and done on the morning of the show so they say someone's doing a lot of success probably feeling it's not something they probably done before I feel a bit under pressure they've had a night away in somewhere that's not their home they you know they take them to room to do this test they'll get the results shortly or be on television probably not been on television before that's probably quite a nerve-wracking experience even as the best environment to take a lot of tests and it it was generally done either the new either the day before or on the morning yeah that's true all I would say is that the the actual polygraph examiner's themselves would take each guest through quite a detailed explanation of the test so an explanation of just how it worked in terms of you know the physical physiological changes that it was looking to capture and and and how they then ascertained the results whether or not somebody was being truthful or deceptive but he says no I'm not even anything's really convincing otherwise it did and most doctors or nurses who take blood blood pressure readings would say you don't base it on one reading your based on several because it is some some person may not see a doctor regularly might feel a bit nervous about it might give a high reading in another day it's fine I would imagine someone taking a lie-detector test is in the same position and what this test this test this machine is not reading whether you're telling the truth using special powers it's reading your heart rate it's reading your perspiration levels and I think someone in a pressurized environment it may not give an accurate reading and eat and the the readings that were given about 60% accuracy or and so we're actually based on it being done in a controlled medical environment not being done in a hotel room at the employer in media city the date the day you go on telly and and I think this is so important because the whole lot the premise that show wrestles the reason we are in this room is because of the writing test test and that's why I think is so important and so what I would simply say to that is they did work hard to explain the lie detector test to anybody that would go on to show they did use to examiner's there was not always only one test sometimes both examiner's would do a lie detector test on the same person and and and actually everyone who appeared on the show did watch the show and did understand that in many many episodes the Jeremy Kyle show as you as you rightly say the lie detector test was used well I I didn't I don't think what they were told about the lie detector test fairly reflects the nature of the test and the accuracy of it and I think it's interesting that no one no one had the right have a retest no one has the right to stop the results of the test people walk past I think if someone asked for I think Tom did say this which is if someone asked for something not to be broadcast we would take that on a case-by-case basis oh no medical advice yes not if someone wasn't showing to find out that bill or medical grounds we still don't know how many times that happens they could not that question but we'll come back to you that would be that also but only on medical grounds not on someone know if someone said look I feel this test is a lie or I know it's a lie I don't feel like I really knew about the the accuracy the test for I did it I'm not happy with it I don't like going on air the arts will be sorry you know you've signed away your rights yeah and you got no right to a retest either and I'm not sure that is that that has a position to put vulnerable people in I understand the point you're making chair and all I would say is I think most people who apply to take part in the show and specifically asked for a lie detector you know believe they wanted it because they wanted an answer to uncertainty in their relationship or or in some family dispute actually just on the purpose of the show which I know has been a matter of some discussion in the previous panel the intention with the lie detector from the producers of the show was for people to be honest with each other so that it generated honesty and an outcome and the aim of the show was to have some kind of positive outcome some kind of reconciliation now that didn't always happen it did happen in many cases but I think one of the reasons why people were asked to we're asked about their knowledge of the show and during me co-star because Jeremy Castile had a big impact is is I think he was even I think some of the members of the first panel even called it the conflict part of the show which every call is being deliberately confrontational he's engaging people in conflict and I thought what was very interesting as well was when we were told that though people were advised if they were uncomfortable they could walk off the set they carried the film and carried on they couldn't they weren't stopping filming they were just being filmed in the corridor rather than on on the set itself yes well I mean whether you like the show or not and I think many people like the show that was the format of the show and I think the audience understood that and actually the participants were often in the audience and did understand the format of the show I suppose I think I can say this even with people who watch the show they may not really understood what they were getting themselves into until they were in it and was this responsible and was this show an accident waiting to happen and chairs one of the first questions you asked was about informed consent I do think it is relevant that people were asked whether they'd seen the show everybody sees you know shows very well known they knew was evolved they knew the direct style of the presenter they knew how he deploys the results of the lie detector tests and they'd seen the effect on the people taking part and they'd see some time it resolved conflict sometimes it didn't they they knew all that so I think that does contribute to informed consent Karen call he said when there was a an email you sent to ITV starve them was published by BuzzFeed I think I after you sent it which was and you said this email at a time when the show had been suspended yet counsel doesn't even think about a 24 hour or so period between those two decisions being made but in that you say that the decision to suspend the show was and I quote not in any way a reflection on the show but the best way we think we can protect the show and the production team from the reaction we expected to this death what did you mean by that so that was an internal email and it was directed at the production staff closely involved with the Jeremy Kyle show and the wider production staff and I would say that everybody at ITV was extremely sorry to have heard that someone who had appeared on the show had died quite in quite close proximity to appearing on the show so what I was saying to them is suspending the show created shockwaves in the production team it had never happened before it was unprecedented and I was trying to say to them we are going to go through this calmly and in a measured way we are doing an internal investigation but that is the way in doing an investigation internally is the way to protect you all as individuals that's what I meant by that so did you not think it was a bit it's like they preempted the internal review to say that the decision to suspend was not in any way a reflection on the show I think what I was saying is that we could we couldn't say that I what the internal investigation was doing was we were looking at one episode of the show we weren't looking at the whole Jeremy Kyle show over 14 and a half years and that's what I meant by that because you can't say to a production team that it's a reflection of everything you do every day and that you've been doing for 14 years so it was an internal email sent to specific individuals who are working at the sharp end on production I mean they were harassed by the media I mean many many many of them were phone doorstepped talk to it was a very it has been a very difficult time for people who worked on that show so so the decision to counsel to say yes there was taking about 24 hours or so after this he rose since yesterday was that reflection on the show I think a number of factors on that episode made it untenable for the show to continue it was a collection the decision to council is a reflection was certainly a reflection on that episode yes so on the ship a lot but but I have to say given that you're saying that you're not going to bring the format back no I'm not gonna have programs with our details testing anymore I said in it we won't use it in that way colorful not know he won't commissioners showed at that what do you have to say that's a reflection on the shows that for me it's about we've taken a decisive action we've been very decisive about it there were a number of factors involved which was specific to the episode it included actually some letters which have appeared in the media the report which had appeared in media the proximity obviously been very serious to the show and we believe that was the right decision and and that's what we've done and we have done an internal review and as I said the processes have been followed but we will learn from this and we will improve everything we do as a result of learning but I think given what you said I think the decision to cancel the show yes not really not bring back that type of show again for Jericho presenting it should only be seen as a reflection on the character of the show if it's just about one episode then you could learn the lessons from what went wrong about 1s episode or maybe look at the team making producing the show and say maybe we need to do this and different people making this happen but you wouldn't just cancel the whole thing unless you your your concern was there was a problem with this show and that problem wasn't going to go away as I said it was not about the show in general we took a decision based on one episode of the show that's what we looked at and that's why we counsel at the show and it was a number of factors that gave us the we believe it was the right decision because we we looked at what we had things became clearer over 48 hours and there wasn't there was no black and white there I mean it was a very difficult decision to cancel the show mid production but it we believe it was the right decision do you women didn't actually intend to work with Jeremy Carlo on any future programs so Jericho does work by TV and has worked via TV on other programs and what we've said is that we will continue to work with Jeremy car but not in this format not as a talk show and confirm what that would be so not the kind of way should it not going to do a conflict not a show not a short talk show of this ilk in any way okay just to clarify because I'm disbelief that that this entire shows was canceled just because of because of one episode so I mean for instance let's go back to the issue of lie detectors was the efficacy of lie detectors ever discussed that executive level did you ever really consider you know whether it was appropriate to continue to use such as effective testing system so as part of our risk assessment of all our shows we would obviously assess that the shows on on on what was being used in the show but I could say the lie detector set test specifically was not discussed at an executive level and were you aware of any concerns being raised about lie detector tests was that ever brought to your attention that the impact that these tests were having on people and you know suspects suspicions about the accuracy of them what the proven the inaccuracy of them does that and that was never ever raised with you so no that wasn't raised I think the thing about lie detection test as we've discussed is everybody I think knew that they were not 100% accurate and the range of accuracy is debatable so we knew we all knew that and we believed that we covered that because of the process before at screening and you know face to face conversations of participants and indeed at the front of the show we make it very clear and actually when the lie detector test is being used we make it very clear that it's not 100% accurate so we haven't actually had many participants complaining about that the use of Ludden that we haven't had volumes of participants doing that because if they did actually many of them would have written to Ofcom and they didn't about the lie detector test so no I think you know just worth bearing in mind a lot of people on this show had issues some may have been bothered but many of them had real-life issues about relationships or problems with alcohol whatever it might have been and many of them wanted to do the lie-detector test and so what we had to make sure we did was go through our duty of care for that so no not volumes of complaints about that specific issue which is why it wouldn't come out up as an executive level so you satisfied yourselves because I mean at the end of the day that you know the decision to go ahead with this show when it was being made is your decision so you satisfied yourselves that even though these people wanted to take the lie-detector test that they were sufficiently warned about the inaccuracy of those lie-detector tests that you were happy with the to be continued to be used in those programs well I think as we've all said that we do believe the production team the medical staff groan stallion himself all worked very hard to explain in what informed consent meant and explained what the lie detector test would entail and it's and the fact that it wasn't accurate I do believe the production team worked hard to do that use the lie detector test companies had advertised that the accuracy of their tests was about 95 percent I said in the ninth in the nineties when did you become aware of that because you've just said to my colleagues that you never discussed the lie detector tests at your level so Chris I start at home so I've been aware of that for some time so when were you aware of it I was aware of that a few weeks ago a few weeks ago and you were aware of it mr. Whitson from when well I mean the show has been running for 14 years the particular examiner's that the show is used actually is the same the same team of examiner's have been used for most of that time and so I I was where I can't tell you at what point I became aware but I was aware that the examiners themselves would say that the show that the the tests were accurate into the nineties and those examiner's I should say are qualified and trained they have American qualifications and certainly in the USA lie detectors lie detectors are more widely used than they are in the UK it's fair to say and so you've used the same company he said through the 14 years history of the program and were you aware at any point during that period of evidence from other companies and academics that you know the the accuracy of lie-detector tests it's not as good as 95 percent no I what I was aware of was that there is a debate to genuine debate about the level of accuracy and obviously some people in the industry would say it's 95 and some might say it's less did you ever is the risk mitigation issue think about going back and looking into that more or asking the companies that you use to verify I discussed okay and earlier in your evidence you mentioned that the practitioners who administer the tests to the member of the public they did it in that hotel room in the holiday and I think that was did they tell the contributors and members of the public as they're administering the test but it was 95 percent accurate know for a fact that they didn't tell contestants that it was 95 percent accurate now I'm sure they did not know that well obviously I was not present for everything every time at the thousands of times that a live so now I can't say they have told me that they have told me that they were always very clear with every guess that they made clear to the guests that it was not a hundred percent accurate it's fair to say that they they would represent that it had a high level of accuracy but that it was not foot in other words that it was not foolproof it was not hundred percent the producers of the show if I may just add to that the producers were very clear that they didn't use the figure of in the 90s as you saw from the previous panel because they would have mentioned it if they had they use the figure it is not 100% accurate and that was what the show did and when those tests are actually carried out in that hotel room was there a member of ITV staff present in the room when those tests took place no so you don't know what those people said to the contestants in those hotel rooms on any occasion to you they the tests were recorded so it would be possible to ascertain exactly what was said and the reason and the reason it was recorded was actually primarily so that if a guest later was to query the way that the test had been administered or for example to say that well that's not right I wasn't asked that question it would be possible to have a record to to to reassure them that actually I don't recall it ever did know I'm not I'm not aware the minute yes and that but that was recorded by the company themselves if you like for their if you like for their own protection if you like because they didn't want anyone to later say I will it didn't it didn't go that way okay so I'm clear so you were aware of the 95 percent claim but you cannot say whether or not the practitioners who carry out the test made that claim to the members of the public who took the test in any of the tests carried out over that 14-year period I think I think the examiners would always have been very careful to make it clear that it was not a hundred oh no you can't you can't say that I have not reviewed thousands of tests that were undertaken thank you prevention of that on the court was too big just one just one what Jo Jo Jo's in it so given that you had that information about them but was legal advice about how to deal with the use of provider Tector test for instance and the terminology used on the owner disclaimer that was on the screen and was that ever discussed by the executives because ultimately you're responsible I believe that was discussed by the production team it was I mean like everything else that goes into the show it's a it's an editorial decision what we will be saying on the screen if I might say that we need to make sure that we're talking about the the right processes in a in ITV's so the production executive would have definitely discussed the use of various tools and techniques in the show the management board or the PLC board would not have done that unless there was an alert and there was not an alert for all the reasons we've mentioned the use of lie detection tests are within the broadcasting code we have not broken any regulations there were no complaints to Ofcom about lie detection tests and the participants we believe we went through processes that ensured we had informed consent so if any of those things were not in place that's when it would have come up to the executive board but the production would have discussed what was going on in the show it's a daily show it goes out it was going out every day for five days a week production cycle would have definitely discussed it thank you I think making the honesty other that for all that the nuance and all the spending audit for nothing for all the references to the small planet and fight the light detector was presented as truth on the show on the day to the people involved and to the viewing public it was presented as truth and you had a presenter who was an active participant he was a belligerent and this and therefore anything that you see known is trying to remodel what the facts of the case well and as I see you can hide behind there the small print and the nuance of it but that's the fact don't you agree mr. hora I really we would not spin anything ever we're trying to be extremely open and transparent with you and as helpful as we can be I think that we genuinely believe that we made it clear to participants and indeed on the TV screen in the forms that were signed that people understood that this test was not 100 percent accurate we did what is required we did we probably went beyond what is required to ensure that the participants of the show and indeed the viewers of the show knew that this was not for Jeremy Kyle he had he believed I think more in this but he also knew they weren't a hundred percent accurate and you're right to say that on occasion he would say this test says you are lying he would he would use that but that was his style and everybody who watched the show and people who went on the show knew what his style was it was very direct and it would frequently do that now you might not like that style it makes people feel uncomfortable no question but we we would not spin something like this do you honestly think that at all times that both to your viewer viewers and to your contributors participants that they were given absolute you knew and understood the absolute truth that this lie detector the result of much work as we saw that gonna be thrust in the face and said you're lying VR you I honestly think that the team did whatever they could to explain that there will be some individuals that would not listen I think probably that's just human nature but I think the production team would have done everything they could to ensure people understood what they were getting into on that show partly because they had watched the show as a viewer partly because they knew Jeremy Karl's style in fact many of them wanted to be on the Jeremy Kyle show for that precise reason so I think they will have done what they could to ensure that people understood that the lie detector test was not 100 percent accurate so do you think then that sure in itself was a public service care orientated show Ottawa's our ratings Devon you know sensationalist shortage was it so I think you can have both in actual fact I think this show had been going on for a long time we are commercial public service broadcaster as you know we do a huge range of programs yeah sure but this show I would say at its core was trying very much to resolve people's issues that's why they looked for people with issues and therefore that was what the show was about it did have some positive intentions it didn't always work out like that that is clear so from day one it's driving force was conflict resolution and to bring people together not to sensationally see what people are or to lay people the most innermost feelings it feels an audience was a half million people I didn't work out i TV 14 years ago but when i have looked back on the purpose of the show from its inception it was a radio show first Kaymer became a TV show from its inception it was about trying to resolve issues for people with normal lives in in in the real world that is what mr. ha I mean you might have taken evidence of being given evidence from me but there are a large number of people in that period of time who did find that show helpful who did find that it referred resolved their conflicts or help them with personal problems like addiction that is on the record there are a large number people who did get beneficial that benefit from it okay can I ask you oh just one one final question at the moment and up until it was cancelled in May 2019 where you as an ITV board proud of the Jeremy Kyle show and did it reflect the values that you wanted ITV to deflate well perhaps I could answer when I look at the number of people who viewed it and enjoyed it when I look at the number of people who wanted to get on the show because they thought it had some value when I look at the number of people as I just mentioned who got some benefit from it it was something to be proud of yes look I'm proud of what ITV does I think I to be is a you know does a whole room I'm very proud of my way to be so my lasting superstar I know what I would I would say is that and you know it may not be to your taste the Jeremy can't show or anybody around this table but it was watched by million people a day we did not make a commercial decision around this show right the decision to stop the show had we didn't even discuss commercial I think things but but I think that what the court the purpose of the show had a good intention so you're answering lots of questions and it doesn't ask so let me ask once more dead the Jeremy came through before it was cancelled reflect the values of ITV it reflected the values of wanting to help people of wanting to have people on a show that were from the public where they genuinely wanted to seek help whether it was counselling therapy rehabilitation family mediation child mediation it did all of those things and it did help a lot of people and I know it not a popular thing to say here but canceling the show is not as straightforward I mean I have emails every day there's a 50,000 petition asking for the show to be coming back they're not going to bring back the Jeremy Kyle show but it does show that there are a lot of people out there the emails say this show helped me with my issues because they brought them into the light so I'm just reflecting a different perspective to you where other other people saw value in this show thank you thank you thank you and I just want to follow up a few things that you said mr. Wilson you said that these lie-detector tests were recorded did the contestants who were going through that process know they were being recorded yes now we've heard from the chair already that actually you know being under stress being caught these are people who won't used to being recorded in any situation it's not like us sitting around here where cameras are honest 24 hours a day for in this place surely that in itself will negate some of the results of a lie-detector test well I don't claim to be an expert or a polygraph examiner myself but the polygraph examiner would explain to them but they it was natural to be nervous and that and that that would not influence the outcome and that the test itself had if you like test controls built into it to take account of that and so what they would do would be to ask a series of if you like control questions before they got to the particular questions which had been agreed with with the guests so I'm perhaps I'm not explaining well and I think I think what they would be told was that there was no need to there was no need to worry about nervousness because that ultimately would be taken into account when the examiners assess the physiological reactions which they were recording unbelievable to me it really doesn't sound doesn't stack up at all on any level at door but the experience of being recorded I think it's fair to say that in the era of the smartphone actually everybody is used to being videoed in some cases virtually all the time some people record their lives so I think I think the just on that particular point you made about being recorded so video documentation says it talks about people being nervous being nervy when they're going to be filmed so you're dropped that situation no that's a reference to the whole program the experience of going on program you were just talking about the experience of taking the lie detector test and being videoed and I just wanted to add that point okay well I don't agree with you but there we are and I also want to come back to something you said : about they work that your team worked very hard to explain that I detect at a distance now we've sat here with your team for more than two hours I think I don't feel it explained to us at all satisfactorily their merits of the lie-detector test the way it works or even that they actually knew totally how it did work or the parameters around it you've come in quoting percentages no it seemed to know far more about it than they did and yet you've also said that it's their job to know that and they didn't so I find the statement quite alarming when you said they did work hard to explain the lie detector test because if they can't come in here where they knew they were going to be getting asked quite you know searching questions on the whole issue because it's a very serious issue yeah they certainly haven't unsatisfied me and I can't speak for my colleagues but I would be very surprised if they have on the answers to those questions I find it quite alarming as you as the head of the organization can say that they work very hard to explain to contestants or participants or whatever you want to call people and to look to explain that I detector test I'm sorry you feel that I feel that they might have also been a little bit nervous coming in front of the Select Committee some we've done that before I think that on a day to day basis the production team were loyal and dedicated to this show and would have really really wanted to explain fully what participants were getting into they're called guests they are looked after you heard what groans Tanya's role was which was also to explain but in a different context the consequences of a large detect test if it didn't go their way so I do believe on a day-to-day basis that the team took was seriously they took the whole show seriously well I mean tom is the executive producer of the show he has been involved in the show for a very long time he does run a lot of other shows as well there is a producer on the show day-to-day who is not Tom and Gram stain yet is and his team of medical nurses are on the show all the time so you have some of the right people to answer your questions yes so moving on to one of the other things I was particularly exercised this issue of informed consent yes and you've mentioned that and I just want to ask very very simply do you feel participants guests who are in a position to give informed consent I would ask every one of you that just straight oh yes I do and I did hear the bit about literacy and literacy skills and so on and I feel that what I can say to that is that on that show people would they filled in forms with somebody and they also had verbal dialogue with with with somebody so not only Graham's team but also the production team so if there were literacy issues I think they would be picked up in the course of those conversations so they would have been taken into account so III think that informed consent is an incredibly important part of what we do is I think it's a pillar in duty of care for participants particularly with members of the public so it is an incredibly important thing and I do you think that we had processes in place that didn't sure that things were explained sufficiently so that people could take informed consent you say if you wanted to ask each I would I think reiterate what I said to the chair and earlier the people who went on the show with people apply the really wanted to appear on show in fact most people didn't go on the show but a minority got on to it they applied to the show because they knew on the show involved they wanted to be on it they'd seen it every day they were fans of it I assume or thought that they could bring them benefit so they started with a very high level of knowledge of not only the show the way the show is produced the way it was presented the effect on the people taking part so that's part 1 and part 2 for informed consent is what Carolyn just said which is very very careful explanation of different parts of the show how they might go how it might be for you if they go this way or go that way and I believe that took place I mean informed consent obviously is a kind of cornerstone of television it's important in every program that anyone takes part in not just in the Jeremy Kyle show so it is a pretty basic requirement for all programs and informed consent essentially is about in this context did they did the guest understand the nature of the show did they understand what they were letting themselves in for did they understand what their role in the show was going to be that they understand the likely questioning that they were going to be given by by the presenter and I think fundamentally the answer to that question is yes I think and I'm sure that Tom said it on more than one occasion the people who applied to go on the show tended to be the people who watch the show regularly and therefore I would say they they really did understand what they were you know what they were getting into and and also that they wanted they they if you like they wanted many of the things which I can understand absolutely understand why other people watching the show would say you know I won't why on earth would you submit yourself to that yeah I would say that they willingly submitted themselves to it and they and and and they didn't know quite what they were doing I totally accept that it has tended to be people who are fans of the show which isn't me who would want to go on the show I totally accept that point but I am concerned again Gamelin that what you have explained there is very different than what Tom explained to the previous session because I pushed him very hard on this issue about literacy and understanding because there's a lot of legal documents you've sent us and thank you for doing that but you really do need to know what you're signing and he said if basically if someone said yes they could read might and didn't have dyslexia there would be no further pursuance of that you know I think I was dyslexia it would have gone through to great but but if it was if if they had said yes on literacy I am saying and I think Tom would say that it would have been picked up in the verbal conversations of which there were many afterwards it's not what he said so I I would if you can compare what you know it's actually the factual representation to do that very much so I want to move on to something completely different I could say light relief but I don't think it quickly and look Island and body image is what I want to move on to so um a commerce survey and recently revealed that more than half of 18 to 34 year olds feel that reality TV in social media have been negative on how they view their own body image do you think ITV Studios have a responsibility to show different types of body image among contributors and I'm particularly thinking in full of violent types of shows okay so I think on we do a range of shows as you'll know we do I'm a celebrity Saturday night takeaway Fremont will do for us Britain's Got Talent's x-factor love and of course we produce they are very different shows and they show the diversity of Britain completely including body image so all of those shows have people with all a range of shapes and sizes love Island I think the most important thing on that is that the people on love Island tend to be young they tend to be health they are healthy so we do do a B on my test they are all within the healthy range of BMI or above and actually if you look at the series now that's ongoing they're not all the same shape neither the men nor the women they are different they are there are variations of shapes although I absolutely take your point which is they are all fit healthy young individuals because it is a dating show it's not I'm a celebrity which is a range of celebrities of all different shapes and sizes who go on that show and actually you've seen autism on I'm a celebrity with Anne Haggerty that was warmly welcomed you see lots of Oscar voice guy on Britain's Got Talent who has cerebral palsy you know people were extremely pleased to see that on ITV so I think it depends on the show so on live Island and I was going to say oh do people conform to a particular body type but you're saying they don't but what you were saying is they're young fit and healthy they're healthy right they are within the BMI range or healthy or above and casting directors of that show are they given instructions about physical appearance when searching for contributors and all so what are the guidelines on who they so there's a very very rigorous application and casting process we get about 98,000 applications for love island they then take that down to about ninety to a hundred as soon as they get a call back at that stage they go through medical questionnaire and psychological questionnaires assessments that then goes down to about thirty to forty who get selected to appear on love island it's a very rigorous process of of screening that goes on before they actually get on to love island i think on love islands if i may just say we it's it's been it's four years old now this iteration of love island we got dr. paul Litchfield's who's the chief medical who was a former chief medical officer to come in i mean i've been there a few months and i felt it was important to get him in to actually review what we do on love ireland and to actually give us some feedback on what he would do to improve our processes and our application screenings etc and he has been very helpful helpful he now helps oversee the duty care processes on love ireland so actually we have changed some of the things that we do as a as a result of that and and actually less people get through to the ninety call back as a result of that unlike last year you care to take in great to you about that okay I didn't hear last year you can to date we wrote to you about their concerns about the promotion of unrealistic body images over half of the men on the show that's Christ I honest I do not I did not receive that that time I first I saw of that was in a newspaper so I'm from I reply to all my letters and I did like I don't recall that this is you know I have checked and you not aware of it whether you I know through the newspapers that they have definitely made this do they made a person directly but do you know whether you can to doping of racist with anyone else I TV I actually checked into that and I don't think we have seen anything on that person you aware in in response to the obviously you can't believe they did in response to that newspaper article though which certain that they didn't didn't get a response have you contacted you care to ask if they'd like to come in and discuss it we would certainly do that and I have actually asked somebody to make contact with them and I think they have had a conversation so I would come back to your mat but one of the things I would stress on love Ireland is that they all go through testing they're tested for drugs they're tested for steroids they're tested for everything so we don't have we have no tolerance for the use of any type of drug any performance-enhancing okay but yeah I think you make that very clear to the content anyone participating in the show well I'm sure you cannot be you could have contacted me during the session asking if I would race it with you which to me even suggests they're not particularly aware they've been approached to contact otherwise they wouldn't bothered there be times if they haven't been contacted but I will pick that up okay well you can't believe that you kind of store watch and then a they may give us a further update before we finished about that but I would hope they do because obviously I think if they are a national body more than happy to talk to them yeah for the last if there was a an article analyzing be members of Rhode Island selected for the previous series half of the people who that'd had actually been approached about going on the show they hadn't applied they were approached and recruited less than working at the model agencies do you know if the current show what that proportion would be of people that have been approached to go on the show rather than apply so I think we make it very clear in our process that the team the production team continuously look for people who would be rightful of Ireland in terms of being able to be in the villa the personality that they're required to have and we we say very clearly that they go to festivals they go to model agencies they go to a whole range of different places to see whether people are interested in but they would still go through the screening process that I've just subscribed I'm sure they look but the reason I raised it we don't think it might be in my vision is that in this hospitals of the Guardian I think looking back on the previous series you also people talking about turning it down and say they're all largely on the books are the same run the model ages they all know each other they go into the villa knowing each other some joke about whether they or their friend will get approached next year about it and that would suggest that you're the people making the show they're going for a very certain type of person they're fishing from a very small pond for the people they want to be on it I don't think they just look in that pond I think they keep it quite open so there are some people that go on love Island that have never achieved any type of contract or agents or anything that in fact we're very careful to advise them to get an agent as soon as they go on Long Island we actually encourage that because we think that gives them much more information about what it will be like afterwards so there are people that come from a very different pool to that do you see that some people might be concerned that actually what is presented on one level as a reality TV show but cut with casting knows to divide street casting members of the public yeah to be on it yeah is in in fact it's like the augmented reality isn't it in a way because you've got a sort of you've got a really quite narrow cast people that are on it and half the people who are on it are actually approached by the production company rather than just applying and getting through auditions or whatever I don't know the proportion that is directly approached and those that are not and we can come back to you on that because we all know that for this year what I would say is actually it's a very diverse group of people so if you look at the show there's about a chemist on there I think she is by a scientist there's a model there's a yeah there's a yeah there's a whole there's diversity in terms of background there's diversity in terms of bein that there it is a it is quite a diverse pool in actual fact are you happy with the be AME diversity on the program i am i think we over-index actually on on that and we work very hard to make sure it is as representative as possible of britain are you concerned about the report some people have that who from be AME backgrounds tend to be last picked first excluded seem to get a less less than a fair ride on the show do you know III don't see the evidence for that genuinely and if there was we would take that very seriously I mean if you look at the current show and you look at you Andy and Danny and Arabella you ant and Danny had an enormous amount of airtime in the last two or three episodes as a result of what was going on with them so I think and actually one of the most popular couples at the moment on Michael and amber who are both from a big background can I just say Cheryl on that I welcome your question and I do actually think that giving rise to a debate about representation and relationship between people of different ethnicity is a really healthy thing and I I really welcome the debate around the program and I think it's a sort of debate that had broadcaster like ITV should give rise to okay thank you does one thing wait for my call from the producers of love I enjoy it just to get a couple of questions popped up during the recent evidence of giving you I mean you said that the Jeremy Kyle sketch show came from a radio show and then became the talk show and so forth it seems like it's sort of a natural progression from the world of Margery proofs onwards the agony aunts and moving on so it and it became this combative series has it sort of grown and grown and outstripped you the producers in a sense in as much as it has gone to places that you weren't expecting it to go you know I I can't really answer that what I would say is I think the format has remained very true to the original format I think that it has always been this kind of show I think the style of the show is a tabloid style direct show and Jeremy's Kyle's style has not really changed over the years he is opinionated his hard-hitting his straight to all think that's what he does so I don't actually think it's changed into something else I do think however that society is evolved quite a lot and I think that mental health issues are you know everyone is far far more aware and sensitive about that and they would have been 14 years ago to be truthful and I think that's why all shows have to evolve with the time right would you would you think it'd be fair to say that that the people's desire for their 15 minutes of fame might overcome any reservations they might have might have about privacy and exposure to ridicule look I I think people came on that show for a variety of reasons and some of it was nothing to do with Fame in actual fact I think many many people came on that show because they wanted to sort their own problems out that is the evidence of the show that people who asked repeatedly to be on the show were people who had some serious issues and we've had alcoholics on the show who've been into rehab had drug addicts on the show who had helped as a result of the show and numerous relationship issues where they're trying to prove one to the other that's making resigned to 9% we were told in the last panel actually apply having seen the show so therefore they are after some sort of exposure and and I know I wonder because of the often we're dealing with very valuable people here I wonder if they're fully aware of the of the repercussions of this potential exposures are really good I would say that as this show has progressed I think social media has probably intensified this I think at the beginning of the show and for many many years this would not have been as much of an issue at all I think that Greece in the recent past certainly the clips you might see on YouTube or the user-generated content around the show the kind of echo chamber of social media that can make it very different for a participant on that show who was actually perhaps coming on the show to resolve a problem I could give them other problems do you see what it means our participants told about that because it we know from other inquires that we've held that there is bullying that goes on on social media platforms such as Twitter and so forth and suddenly you get a group of people suddenly it's like a pack of hounds hunting down on the Fox and are they told of this possibility are they they are and and they are on all our shows especially in the last few years we have bit social media as an important part of what we discussed with participants on love Ireland we actually give them social media training so that they are equipped to deal with what makeup yes because no one knows what no one knows how that's gonna go so they need to be equipped they need to be trained because some of them will be famous some of them won't be famous some of them will be ignored that can be as bad as being famous so actually the most important thing is to equip them with the knowledge and the training to deal with social media and to get an agent because an agent can be very protective against you no you are fulfilling the care of duty as far as it's important think social media has become a very important part of informing people as to the implications of big thank you Sepideh just to turn to you I mean you sort of the father of British reality television with an amazing that is not an official position well I just I just missed Oded upon you but I remember that the I think it was Big Brother one of yours I think it's a format I imported into the country your imported into the country well I remember the first series and fascinating it was - and I sat down to watch it as a social experiment and since then it then reinvented itself and reinvented itself always pushing the boundaries always expanding always moving on and and it seems to me that you know the way we're going is with as far as reality television is concerned is that if we're moving inexorably towards a sort of a version of The Hunger Games opening its we're entering dangerous territory but have we reached a watershed as far as reality TV is concerned now we thought we had when the knurl Edmond Show was suddenly showed you might remember some many years ago now when there was an unfortunate incident on that show and things changed have we reached another watershed now with the acting of the Jeremy Kyle show well so I wasn't responsible for Big Brother after 2007 actually I would regard love island is a much more benign version of Big Brother because it really has it's all about relationships and romance and it's a much more benign version so I don't think it's it's a more extreme version of the earlier reality shows if anything it's a more benign one of course this word reality is a difficult one to define because some people I apply the word to quiz shows some people apply the word to fix camera shows some people to apply the word to um talent shows even cookery shows or The Apprentice is like a business skills program so it's not easy one to tie down as regards Jeremy Kyle it's a very very different show - there's other ones I've just mentioned yeah it's a relationship show it's it takes place in a studio people go and visit and they're there for a short period of time they're not there for seven or eight weeks so Carolyn's decision to end the show means it won't be coming back there is I don't think as a similar show like it on television I wouldn't call it a watershed because I think other reality shows will go on and are hugely enjoyed so you feel the producers in future may learn a lesson from this because this is it well one of the undertakings Carolyn's made to you today is it whatever learnings there are and that includes your own conclusions which we will read very carefully we welcome your inquiry we expect as a public service broadcaster to be held to the highest standards so we're pleased you're holding this inquiry we'll look forward to your your findings we will learn from this and Carolyn has undertaken in front of you today to apply any lessons from it if they're appropriate to other shows because she has undertaken publicly and to you and to the itv board to continually improve our duty of care and her appointment Paul Litchfield she mentioned earlier last year as an example of that I could give you others but that is what she is about actually most importantly I think this is important for the industry for the whole broadcast industry and we have reached out already to Pat producers association so that we can work on best practice for all the industry on all our shows that involve the public like the record obviously that the air inquiries that we have to TV a genre we will be questioning other television companies and fashion companies in just the same way we have done with you today yeah but we'll look at your conclusions very carefully and we'll the I've no doubt well learn from them and we'll attempt to apply them last question student to mr. Wilson if I may and it's about the contract when consistent saw the contestant signed a contract now I'm used to that's what I've done in my life and I'm used to seeing equity standard contracts etc etc etc a lot of people don't know about this they and in fact the general public I would imagine don't often so I conduct where do they do this do they do that at home or do they sign that they get sent the condo at home or or is it in a casting audition that the contract is he talking about love island I'm talking about yes I'll be honest with you I don't I don't know exactly what point they signed the the contract and obviously it's before they they take part in the show yeah are they are they guided through the process yes I think they are I think they are quite carefully guided through the process and I think again it goes - it goes to this point about informed consent I think important informed consent is not just signing on the dotted line it's very much having the nature of the show explained to you and indeed increasingly now and in particular for love Island having explained to you not only what you can expect on the show and what will be expected of you on the show but also what you can expect afterwards in other words the downsides as well as the potential upsides of suddenly becoming more famous than you were before and you're satisfied that these twenty seven pages or so of legalese is is adequately explained and cloak can I just build on on that the 98,000 will have an application form but once they've been however they've come to that to love Island to wanting to be on the show the ninety to a hundred that get a call back will definitely be talked through the forms will definitely be once one will understand the implications of appearing on love Island will understand why you know they will go through with them what happens if you leave the villa early what happens if you are not selected how will you feel what are the work what's the worst you will feel don't forget to on love Island the families are involved so we actually involve parents of participants if they want that we reach out to a much broader group very comprehensive you're confident that their processes your processes ensure that they understand yes I am I I do feel confident about islands but there's something I touched on earlier and the conditions are asked to sign away the possibility of getting an injunction to prevent I to be showing any footage you choose would you agree that that results in the significant imbalance of power shifting towards ITV and away from the contestant I think we do that I mean Chris is a lawyer by background I think we do that because it's a standard clause that we put into every single contract because if someone turned around and said I don't want you to film that I don't want you film that I don't they would be editing the show so that is why we need to have the freedom as editors to make the show it is something I touched on in the earlier notice when I was dominating and the power of editing they understand what you can do to get well actually they are a generation who edits video themselves their level of media literacy is wholly different to the people who took part in the early years of Big Brother just on that point informed consent which is a an issue you quite properly have raised as a committee with us and our colleagues but you know informed is one important word consent is the other important word and we need to get genuine consent from them so if everybody who took part in the show got together afterwards and wanted legally or otherwise to stop various parts of the show being shown it wouldn't be practical so that's the reason for that clause it's a practical reason for that clause but it's only fair and meaningful if they have informed consent and we do believe they do have informed consent thank you thank you thank you just use can I just pick up on what we've just been discussing so the contract like you for sending it to us you know is very substantial much greater than a actors contract I'm told by Giles at any point for the people who have to sign this contract do you advise them to get impartial legal advice on the terms of the contract I can check with I can check with the producer I'm pretty sure given that we advise that they get an agent we would say to them get an agent early some some some minority but some I think actually have an agent before they before they saw those do the show we you can't say that they get impartial legal advice on this contract because actually this contract requires them to hand over all of their rights in perpetuity for a huge range of things copyright performers rights royalties their name photographs representations and the contract covers a period beyond the actual filming of the program and if they wanted to get out of the contract at any point they have to pay a release feed ITV and that is decided upon by ITV so so you know people are signing themselves up to very very restrictive terms in this so I'm quite surprised that it's not a requirement or that you're very clear that you do advise people to get impartial legal advice on it I'd be surprised if they didn't I mean I think advising them to have an agent is partly because the agent without contract could cherry will leave will verify that yesterday and there's a couple of things I just wanted to ask you about in the contract or maybe mr. Whiston is the best person to answer but I'll leave it to the three of you to decide and you've been very clear in your evidence and your colleagues previously about the what you consider to be the proper professional medical provision on the program so leave Jeremy Karl aside for the moment but on love Island you mentioned the chief medical officer I think that you'd have review all the procedures and and in the contract it actually says here that you know we will give you during the lockdown period such medical assistance as you need as your medical providers that you have there at determine as necessary in their absolute discretion so you have medical support qualified us to make a decision in their complete discretion about treatment or any medical assistance but then further in the contract it says that you will not be liable for any damage or loss arising from medical treatment or misdiagnosis provided by our medical team during the program so if I'm a contestant on love Island and one of your medical people wrongly diagnoses me with a sexually transmitted disease for example and I get kicked off the program as a result with all the public humiliation that that involves you don't accept any liability why is that clause in that contract can I say something about that I think that would be a standard cause in any contract about liability or maybe not in contracts that I've written but I I find forms for my children at school which absolves the school of medical treatment for a child because they won't be liable for whatever treatment they give a child so I think that is a standard you our standard contract for that you provide Medicare assistance yes then you don't accept any liability for the medical assistance or diagnosis that you provide I honestly think that is a pretty that is a standard contract when you're filming on location so that there's no medical practitioner that we would get on that show that would not have that clause in there because it is the medical practitioners on your show have professional indemnity insurance so if they do something wrong that the insurers will pay out I should think so so why do they have the medical it don't many doctors do that I mean genuinely doctors do that yeah I'm really looking at can I just say so we do have done that medical practitioners on the show but we also have a psychologist Sandra Scott's she also has two psychologists on the show two psychotherapists on the show and on the staff so it's a it's it's a there's there's a lot of resource on the show okay so I want to move on to something completely different now which is about the legal status of the contributors so having looked at all the documents that you've provided I've seen the expenses that are paid to contributors and I've seen the period of time during which this contract applies and when they have to devote their entire time every minute of every day to to the work if you applied the national minimum wage to this work and I appreciate that you don't accept that their employees it looks like love island contestants would earn about to pound 80 an hour for doing what they do do you do you think that's appropriate have you included the the the care of the whole team in you and your colleagues they're happy about what they aren't given as a consideration which is the payment whenever the public appears on any show they're not paid to appear on the show and they are given well they give an expenses and that has made very very clear every participant on the show they go in there knowing absolutely that we will pay their expenses and they will get a lot of but those expenses aren't reimbursement for outlay I think so it's a subsistence so actively at once or more something yes so members of the public are not paid to appear on yes no I heard you say so so so that's what I'm saying so yeah that's so trying to look to divide the expenses up on no no but that's equivalent of about two pound a dress so but they don't accept that because they're not they come on willingly and I'm not expecting to be paid for their appearance on the show they're expecting their expenses to be paid and by giving up all of the things that you require to them them to give up in signing this twenty seven page contract there's a there is as Charles says I think a very big power imbalance between ITV and the person who's coming on the program so in France there's a there's been a recent court case where participants in a very similar show to live Island you're given the status of employees and why don't you do the same because that's French law so we operate in France and I've experienced in France and French law says everybody is an employee I think actually the benefits of being on the show like live Ireland and what we provide to those participants probably exceeds anything that's legislation would require what like say usually would exceed 22 hours it don't exceed Time Directive well I don't have the benefit I said the benefits of the show so we comply with all regulations and and we would say that that that's not the way it works here and we would be happy to discuss further the French way I don't know in detail what that Willem will mean we're very happy to discuss that yeah going to it just as a point of principle as an idea yeah would you have an objection to people who go onto the show being employees for the period of time what they're on the show I think I don't have to do it I'm just asking good I could I hope I ain't carrying said she'd be happy happy to look at that I think the truth is these people are very very well looked after not only while they're on the show but after they leave the show and the reason it's suggested to them they get agents is because being on the show offers and the opportunity of actually earning very well after the show and some of them do earn very well so if you take it in the round I think it's quite beneficial okay and actually I'll leave it there any more questions if you're gonna come back to us no discussion on the employee status mm okay friends everyone thank you you meet you may have heard I've seen the exchange I had with mr. Stinney and mr. Clement around professional qualifications of the people that you employ and I think you'll agree that if ITV and and others are going to make these contributes our best reality shows and watch then as we say innermost feelings and thoughts are going to be laid bare and they could end up being dreadfully hot by the experience that suitably qualified persons have to be in place and on hand to you to provide help and support so given that fires the minimum qualification required by ITV to act and that elite contributor Cairo not including having to be registered with the health and care professional Council are you know back to the German car show yes yeah but I think generally everything they said I'm looking for the minimum threshold then that you would do it does depend on the show in terms of duty okay so duty of care as a overriding principle of all shows where the public appear I think it depends on the show what what you would do in terms of resort what you would put on that show so I've just explained to the Stephens what the the what resources we put for aftercare and indeed during filming and pre-act pre-screening on love Islands which is psychologists psychotherapists see a former CMO that and that's because it's eight weeks of filming some people could be on it for the whole eight week some people will be on it for one week but that's you know that's a different kind of show to being on the Jeremy Kyle show for maybe five minutes six minutes but now we on on the Jeremy Kyle show as I think they explained grains Tania a range of qualifications including understanding psychology but he's a psychotherapist he also used three registered medical health nurses who had extensive experience in the NHS and that was seen as appropriate for the Jeremy Kyle show so you don't have a minimum standard for all of these shores yes they're so different so it's each individual said very clear to Jeremy Keller are you even with hindsight are you comfortable that there was no one who was suitably qualified in psychology on that show so when dr. Paul Litchfield's came in to review all of our processes on love Island we also asked him to look at our other shows and ironically he was actually on the Jeremy Kyle show the day we suspended the show and then cancelled it so he was going to do a review of the processes on the Jeremy Kyle show and I I don't know what his advice on that would have been because it didn't get completed because we canceled the show well do your thing given the circumstances that may be a useful lesson for ITV to actually get that person that you mentioned to complete that review just to see if your processes were sufficiently robust and perhaps there be a blanket I'm very happy I mean we we're working within he's an independent practitioner and he is both psychology he's a lot of he's very well-qualified I think to do that and we will be working with him on a range of different shows and will that be including looking back on what happened over the 40 years of Jeremy Gehl just to see if the processes that you had in place was sufficiently robust I think because of the changes on that show already I'm very happy that he looks at the Jeremy Kyle show in the current processes on that show and what we could have improved I'm very happy that he does that doesn't make sense there will be a retrospective look at what does shock I mean could I had I think it's fair to say the industry as a whole is now going to have a you know conversation and of course we are going to have shortly going to have a consultation with Ofcom and I think one of the aspects of that conversation will certainly be what are the appropriate qualifications for the if you like the psychological experts that programs use what expertise should they should they employ for a whole range of different types of programs and there is there's a genuine I think again if there's a you know there are genuine differences of opinion about as to water that what are the correct actually use or qualifications and across the industry you know there are I mean that you know there are a range of disciplines so there are psychotherapists there are psychologists then they there are psychiatrists you know there's a there's a range of different qualifications among the experts who currently advise different programs so what do you put in your mouth but would it be fair to say then that ITV we'd be looking at a written brand review of the rule of this psychologists that said yes I developers you call it what you will but I think that professional qualification I think if someone said quite recently that the public are quite confused about the different roles nevermind people who actually work in the industry so I think we would welcome looking at what we do on all of our shows and I think the industry would welcome that so that actually we are clear as to when a certain profession would be very helpful on that particular format so I think we'd welcome that thank you very much that concludes our questions this afternoon thank you very much for your evidence thank you the proceeding has ended the proceeding has ended the proceeding has ended the proceeding has ended the proceeding has ended the proceeding has ended the proceeding has ended

Channel: ITV News

Views: 3,326,703

Rating: 4.1940598 out of 5

Keywords: House of Commons, politics, conservatives, Boris Johnson, Jeremy Hunt, Conservative Party

Id: mIHM5e5Yo8E

Length: 204min 53sec (12293 seconds)

Published: Tue Jun 25 2019