Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
MR TONY
HERBERT, MS
SUSAN MARKS
AND MS
SHARI VAHL
28 NOVEMBER 2006
Chairman: Good morning. This is a special
session, a one-off hearing of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee
to examine the question of call TV quiz channels. We are holding
this inquiry as a result of widespread public concern about the
way in which these channels operate. We will be looking at whether
or not the measures to protect the consumer are sufficient. In
the first part of today's session we have with us Tony Herbert
and Susan Marks from the Citizens' Advice Bureau, and Shari Vahl
from the You and Yours programme who has done a lot of
research into it. Graham Meacham was due to join us but is unable
to be present. May I invite Rosemary McKenna to begin.
Q1 Rosemary McKenna: Good morning. As
the Chairman has said, there are growing concerns and it has been
over the last year or so that these have been getting greater.
What actual evidence is there to suggest that this is causing
vulnerable people to spend more than they actually can afford;
and that once they have started they get hooked on it and they
cannot give up?
Mr Herbert: I would not say that
we are getting huge amounts of evidence. We are not getting people
flooding through the doors of our Citizens' Advice Bureaux complaining
about this. In the scheme of things, it is way below issues like
debt and credit and such like, as you might expect; but the cases
which we do feature in our submission I think are at the extreme
end of what you might call the detriment being caused. I wonder
whether or not people might actually come to the Citizens' Advice
Bureau if they had only felt as if they had lost £5 or £10;
is that really worth a visit to the Bureau when there is perhaps
a queue to wait to be seen by someone? Our figures suggest that
it is a problem. It's in the margins where it is really impacting
quite strongly on some of the most vulnerable; but I am afraid
we do not have a real sense for exact numbers.
Ms Vahl: We do not have a real
sense of exact numbers either, but we deal with a vast range of
different people who ring us up to say, "I've been ripped
off. I ring this channel because they invite me to do so".
This is a sparkling glitzy programme with a good-looking presenter
saying, "Win. Win. You can win this money—just answer
this question". I was watching the other night and the presenter
said, "That's got to be worth a 75p call, hasn't it?"
The consumers ring us because they are irritated. They do not
know how many 75p calls they have got to make; how much it is
going to cost them to buy this bit of entertainment; or what,
indeed, they are entering; and how much it costs them to enter
the competition.
Q2 Rosemary McKenna: I got a letter
from an individual who said that they did not want to go into
the public domain but they had got into huge debt and they were
personally embarrassed that they had got hooked on this and they
did not realise until the telephone bill came in just how much.
Do you think that is common?
Ms Vahl: Yes, I think that is
very common. They get a surprise at the end of the month when
they receive a £150 phone bill if they normally would only
spend £20 or £30 a month. Many people say these people
are stupid to play these channels but they are very attractive;
it is very exciting; some of them are very well produced indeed.
A lot of people say, "Just because they're stupid doesn't
mean they don't need protection", and it is the protection
element. They do not know what they are buying. It is not said
plainly enough how much they are going to spend to actually get
involved in the competition—not just ring up and speak to
a cash collecting message machine, but actually get involved in
the competition.
Ms Marks: The CAB clients that
have come in that the Bureaux have reported to us—we have
a system for them to report cases where things are not working
for their clients—in those cases the people coming in are
shocked at the bill they are receiving. Our concern is, although
there are warnings there, are those warnings actually getting
through to everyone? As my colleagues here are saying, is that
enough for people to understand the total amount they might get
billed for in the final analysis?
Q3 Paul Farrelly: Do many people
who come to you, who are clearly embarrassed at having been legged-over
by these game shows, actually admit to having been drunk at the
time?
Ms Marks: I think the CAB clients
we know of are shocked at the bill and think it must be wrong.
They do not think the bill is correct.
Q4 Paul Farrelly: You have got no
feel for how many people are entering while under the influence,
who therefore also need protecting?
Ms Marks: Yes.
Ms Vahl: Do you mean having come
back from the pub at 11 o'clock at night?
Q5 Paul Farrelly: Yes.
Ms Vahl: Generally the people
we speak to are not those but they are the ones during the day.
They are the people at home who may not be employed and see this
as entertainment and the chance of winning some money and perhaps
improving their circumstances, and might be spending in order
to gain but they have no idea of what the probability of gaining
is.
Q6 Chairman: Have you come across
any evidence of addiction?
Ms Marks: We have not got any
firm evidence of that so I cannot say; but we are concerned that
it may lead to addiction because it is such a hyped atmosphere.
We see a lot of elements in there that are quite similar to a
pressure-selling type of environment, where people are gathered
along and flowing along, and although the warnings come over the
phone there is every encouragement. At the same time as saying,
"Sorry, you haven't got through this time. Why don't you
try again?" there is also the hype on the screen at the same
time. Together people are on a roll and it is quite hard to get
out either way.
Q7 Rosemary McKenna: There is a lot
of concern about the fact that people are not getting through
but yet the charge has been registered against them. Have you
any recommendations that we could put forward to improve the situation
and to make it clearer to people just exactly what is happening?
They are not really quiz shows, are they, they are lotteries?
Mr Herbert: Exactly. We have thought
about this a little bit and we would like to see clearer warnings.
I think ICSTIS has made some improvements recently in the warnings
that have to be displayed on screen; I think more could be done
around that. What we would also perhaps like you to think about
is we have been doing a lot of work with charging cash machine
operators—when you use one of these machines it says, "This
will charge £1.50. Are you sure you want to proceed? Click
this button to say yes". Even in those circumstances some
people claim they do not understand they are being charged, however
it does take out a huge swathe of people, giving them much better
information that they will be charged. We are wondering, could
this not be done so that when you call instead of when your call
gets through being are told, "Actually you've already been
charged", which is a bit harsh, I think, why are you not
asked, "This is going to cost you 75p. Press one if you are
happy to accept. Press two to disconnect".
Q8 Helen Southworth: When I have
been watching these programmes one of the things I was quite surprised
by was the soft pressure that was quite consistent and persistent.
I was listening to one and there was a background voice, a woman's
voice saying, "Try again. Try again. Try again"; and
the producer was saying, "You could win a thousand pounds.
That would sort Christmas out for you". Then you go back
and it is, "Try again. Try again". Have you done any
research, has anybody done any analysis, about what kind of level
that represents, in terms of the time that is on the screen as
against the 75p and you will be charged whether or not you are
connected? I have heard very little charging information, and
yet an awful lot of verbal "Try again. Try again. Try again".
Ms Vahl: On some of the channels,
and I have watched a broad range of them, the presenters do every
now and then say, "Don't forget this call will cost you 75p
from a BT landline and others may vary on mobiles", but it
is this insistence and constant attraction and it is a selling
technique; but what you do not know is how many times you are
going to have to try. What Tony was saying about warnings, "Do
you really want to spend 75p", it would be good for the consumers
to know how much it is going to cost them to enter the competition
so, "Expect to spend £5 before you have a chance of
entering". I have asked all the channels, "How much
is it going to cost me? What is the probability of getting through?"
Let me ask you: how many phone answerers are there on these channels?
One. We did a piece about Big Game television (which unfortunately
is not here today) and the phone answerer came to us and said,
"This is terrific. All these people ring up. I have a box
in front of me with two lights. I press one of the lights. 200
people a minute ring; 80% of those go into the cash collecting
machine which tells them, "I'm terribly sorry you haven't
got through". It costs you 75p. "Please try again".
The presenter on the screen is saying, "Call. Call. Please
call", and at the crucial moment the phone answerer is told
by the producers, "Don't answer that phone. Leave it for
half an hour". So all the calls, 100% of the calls, go through
the cash collecting answer phone and take the money, but nobody
has a chance of getting through and you do not know that.
Q9 Paul Farrelly: Just following
up on that point. I was very interested when the Committee decided
to pursue this inquiry because I think it is trash television
that debases television standards. If you go abroad to Germany
you can see how bad it can get. I have not been to Italy yet to
see whether there really are the full range of stripping presenters
that you see elsewhere. Given your last comment, one of the things
that struck me from the evidence I have been reading and the complaints
I have been reading which have come in is that this is more than
trash television. What I have seen is tantamount to fraud and,
in certain cases, theft. I wonder, how many of the people who
come to you do you advise not just to go to the regulators but
to go to the police?
Ms Marks: I do not think there
is evidence of Bureaux suggesting people go to the police. Bureaux
are trying to help people sort out the actual phone bill.
Mr Herbert: It is an interesting
suggestion. When people come to the Bureau they are usually in
some pretty dire straits—they have got hundreds and hundreds
of pounds owing—so the primary objective of the advisor
in those circumstances will be to try and reach some sort of arrangement.
In these circumstances it is quite difficult I think. You have
been charged through the nose for calling these shows, who do
you call to complain about this? You are probably quite worried
about calling the show itself, in case you are charged again maybe.
There are the regulators, but it is quite difficult I think from
the consumer perspective to understand who has got jurisdiction
here. You have got ICSTIS; you have got Ofcom; and you have got
the Gambling Commission. While it might be clear to policy wonks
like me, to the man in the street it makes no sense I think.
Q10 Paul Farrelly: Could I respectfully
suggest that in future, given the example Shari has just mentioned
one of many examples, you look at that in the plain light of day
and you say, "Actually it is for the police to investigate
whether that is fraud or theft", and you should do it as
a matter of course.
Ms Vahl: There is a difference,
because if the channel is operating as it says it is operating,
there still can be one chap answering the phone, pushing that
little lighted button and getting the call into the studio, that
is not fraud because you do have a chance—a very slim chance
if 200 people a minute a calling—to answer the question,
to enter the competition; but if they are not answering the phone
at all then certainly, to us, allegations of fraud have been made
and the City of London Police Fraud Squad are investigating that,
and that investigation is ongoing and there is a difference. The
question is, if you enter that competition and you pay your 75p,
what is the prize? The prize is not answering the question on
the television and talking to the sexy presenter; the prize is
getting the telephone folk to answer the phone, and that is the
lottery part of this. That is the thing we are concerned about.
Q11 Chairman: Bob Winsor, whom you
were referring to who came and revealed the inside information
about what happened, he gave evidence to us and said he was once
told to ignore calls for over two and a half hours while a picture
of a fish with the word "fingers" was on the screen.
You are not suggesting that is common practice across all the
channels? Is that a specific incident, which obviously is now
the subject of investigation, or do you think actually this is
widespread?
Ms Vahl: Anecdotally, and without
physical evidence to back it up, it appeared at the time when
we did the investigation back in May that it was across the board
that there would be delays in answering the calls. "We'll
just hold off the calls for 20 minutes or so, and just let the
call volume build up". In the very specific investigation
we did involving Bob Winsor we had three sources who all confirmed
that for up to two and a half hours the single call answerer was
told by the producers to ignore the phones completely. The callers
at home who have twigged to an easy question are thinking "I
know the answer to this" and are dialling frantically, getting
the message, "I'm sorry, you haven't got through this time.
Please try again"; 75p; told they are ringing; 75p; and the
presenter is standing on screen saying, "Where is everybody.
Why is nobody ringing me? Come on, this is really easy. This is
really easy". So you are frantically dialling at home. 250
calls a minute.
Q12 Philip Davies: I am sure we can
all agree, chatting here, you should not want to play on these
things and ring them up. I am certainly not disputing that. What
I am trying to get to the bottom of is how widespread a problem
is it in terms of people being misled about the costs of calls,
and about the number of people who get addicted to these things
in terms of where there is a problem. I might not choose to spend
£40 on a night ringing up these programmes; I might not choose
to spend £40 going to watch a premiership football match.
You have just said, they are very attractive programmes; it is
exciting; and if people want to spend their money on this rather
than going to watch a football match, as far as I am concerned,
that is up to them; but it is trying to get to the end of how
widespread is there a problem in terms of people being misled
and people being addicted?
Ms Vahl: If you were addicted
to slot machines would you admit it?
Q13 Philip Davies: I do not know.
I am not!
Ms Vahl: If you ring people up
and say, "Are you addicted?" they say, "Oh, no,
I can control it. I'm completely in charge of it". I spoke
to a woman the other day who spends £1,500 a month on her
phone bill. "Are you addicted?" "No, I'm perfectly
in control". It is a very, very difficult decision for people
to come out and say, "Actually I've got a problem".
Q14 Philip Davies: Sure, but people
are addicted to all forms of gambling: horseracing; slot machines;
casinos; whatever. What is the evidence that this is more misleading,
more dangerous or worse than any other form of gambling?
Ms Vahl: It claims it is not gambling.
Q15 Philip Davies: As far as I am
concerned it is gambling. You are spending 75p to win £400;
that is gambling to me. What I am trying to get to the bottom
of is: why does this area justify more intervention than any other
form of gambling? I am sure you get people coming in with all
sorts of problems with gambling. Why is this one worse—that
is what I am trying to get at?
Mr Herbert: Leaving aside the
question of whether or not it is gambling, I think the problem
we see is that you are not making a decision from an informed
perspective. You are not quite sure what you are participating
in and what you are spending the money on. That is why we think
it is particularly invidious, I guess.
Q16 Mr Evans: If I went to a bookie
and I gave him 75p to put on a horse and he turned round to me
and said, "Sorry, didn't put your 75p on. Just couldn't get
it on, but I'm keeping it", that would be wrong, would it
not?
Mr Herbert: Yes.
Q17 Mr Evans: I was watching ITV
last night at quarter to one, I am that sad, and it seemed to
me looking at it to be a scam. Would you describe some of these
programmes as "scams"?
Ms Vahl: If you are misled into
how much you need to spend to get through the door then that could
be described as a scam, because the people involved, the people
ringing up, "Call me. Call me. I'm lovely. This is terrific.
These special guests sitting on this sofa are here to entertain
you. Call me", if you are misled, or you do not know how
much it is going to cost you, which you do not, and no amount
of information on the screen will ever tell you how much it is
going to cost you—
Q18 Mr Evans: Do you think they should
be duty-bound to say, "Listen, phone this number. You may
not get through but we are still going to charge you 75p. That
is a bit of a lottery, a bit of a gamble, but the chances are
200 to one that you won't get through"? People know exactly
at the beginning, you are going to phone this number and only
one out of 200 of you are going to get through. Clearly where
nobody gets through for half an hour, and on your programme you
have had one allegation, that clearly is fraud; but it is a scam
if people do not know. If they are told, "Phone this number.
Phone this number now", and they have got no chance of getting
through, or a one in 200 chance of getting through and they do
not know that, that to me sounds like a scam.
Ms Vahl: It is what you do not
know that is the scam. If they showed pictures of Bob answering
the phone saying, "Come on, try and ring Bob. See if you
can get through to him", then there would be a bit more knowledge
that the consumer would know. If they said, "There are 200
of you ringing now", or they had little charts or bars showing
how many people are ringing at the moment, that would be a bit
more information; but there is no information on how many people
are trying.
Q19 Mr Evans: You have mentioned
that some of them have guest presenters. Last night ITV1 had Nick
Owen who is a newsreader. I cannot even think of anybody more
reputable to have as a front-man saying, "Please, phone this
number". Do you think even that should be controlled, as
to who they have, apart from the information that they give but
the sort of guests they have to lure people to phone the numbers?
Ms Vahl: No idea. It is up to
them.
| 
