Official Report 227KB pdf
Item 12 is a report on a submission from Shelter about the use of video evidence. We expected that someone from Shelter would be here to speak to that submission, but that seems not to be the case—I am having a frantic look round the audience.
Has Shelter sent a video?
No, although given the legal opinion in paragraph 6 of our paper, it might have been entitled to do so. We are invited to come to a decision about whether, or in what circumstances, non-interactive videos might be accepted as evidence. The legal opinion in paragraph 6 is that a video is, in effect, a document for our purposes, and that it is admissible.
I note the legal position, and I feel that video evidence would be acceptable, but there are a couple of points that we must consider. We have discussed video-conferencing at length, and that might be an option to suggest to people who consider submitting video evidence. I would be concerned about loss of interaction, because there would be no capacity for the committee to question the people who were giving evidence. In addition, if people would rather submit a video than attend a committee in person because of confidentiality issues, there is always the option of taking the evidence in private session.
I agree with much of what Janis said. Video evidence should be used sparingly. With some individuals, there is no chance that they would walk through the door to give evidence to the committee; we have all had experience of such individuals. Video evidence would give those individuals an opportunity to take part, just as does writing a letter, and I would accept video evidence in that context. However, if someone writes a letter but is capable of coming here—not necessarily here, but to a forum such as this—I get a bit worried.
Janis Hughes raised some important points. The paper suggests that a written transcript should be produced, which is fair enough—where that would be possible. Perhaps we could go without a transcript if producing one would cause problems for the people who submit videos. We could deal with authentication if Shelter, or whichever organisation was involved, were to produce a written transcript and say, "We guarantee that the people who have spoken to you are three old-age pensioners from the outer isles who could not get to Edinburgh. Their names are X, Y and Z."
There is no difference between a video and a written document. Written evidence is acceptable and there is no reason why video, audio or even computer disk evidence should not be acceptable, but for the difficulty that people will have in accessing that information. If someone wanted to see Shelter's evidence, they could read it in the Official Report or in the committee's report, because evidence is published. However, if evidence is given by video, it will not be published and therefore people will not necessarily be able to see, or check, the evidence that was given.
We have a fair amount of agreement. Videos are allowable, and it is desirable that people should be steered towards interactive video rather than pre-recorded, non-interactive video. Wherever possible, it would be appropriate for a video to be accompanied by a transcript. Where a video is sponsored or procured by an agency such as Shelter, which wants to present video evidence, that agency should authenticate the people who appear in the video. When individuals submit videos, all we want is a name and address, as that is what we would accept from someone who has written a letter. We want to be able to satisfy ourselves that the person is genuine and has genuine problems and points of view.