Dear Naz Shah,
I’m sure you’ve been asked about Hansard, often people wonder if Hansard which is said to be the unedited true account of everything said in parliament should be edited.
A reports have shown, Hansard is said to be the ‘edited verbatim’ which means that the fillers, and elisions have been edited out, this have caused two arguments; where some believe that it is right for the Hansard to be edited, because removing fillers and elisions makes reading the Hansard easy and less confusing, in case of future reference.
Also, some people believe that the rephrasing the Hansard is acceptable, because we generally speak and write differently. If the Hansard should be left unedited, others factors will have to considered, like accents, pronunciation, and speech pattern. Which in turn would make it more difficult to comprehend when reading, therefore it’s appropriate that the Hansard should be edited.
However, some people believe that the Hansard should not be edited, they believe that whatever is said in parliament should only be the unedited truth, so we the citizens know exactly what been said, fillers and elision also should be included so the claim that its unedited is not rather ironic.
Furthermore, people believe that it’s our basic rights to be told the truth, because we voted these MP’s into parliament, if what we are told is edited then its makes it a white lie, causing mistrust among the government and its citizen, which could lead to protest or riots although editing the Hansard might seem innocent but it might lead to many difficulties for the country.
In conclusion, I believe that the Hansard should be edited to make it easier to read and easy to find for future reference, the glitches, fillers and elision should be removed, and edited verbatim should be allowed, the Hansard should continue therefore to inform the citizen of edited verbatim.