Talk:Hansard

="Substantially Verbatim Report"=

Untitled
Yes, by all means edit out repetitions and redundancies, but 'obvious errors'? How 'obvious' does an error have to be before it is excised and lost from the record? Who makes that decision, and who knows about it? In 1907, the Select Committee on Parliamentary Debates recommended that shorthandwriters be employed as permanent staff at Westminster for the express purpose of providing a 'full report which, though not strictly verbatim, is substantially the verbatim report'. The committee had made similar recommendations in 1883 but these had been largely ignored by the reporting contractors. The committee, in recommending a 'full report', rejected both the third-person 'condensed report' then in use and the 'strictly verbatim' or phonographically word-for-word report. But, accepting the editing-out of repetitions and redundancies, what is in Hansard? Is it 'substantially the verbatim report'? What part does poetic license play in the production of the parliamentary record? What kinds of obvious errors, or massive blunders, are edited out, or not even recorded? Most researchers would like to read what was really said, especially in question time. Surely a 'full report which...is substantially the verbatim report', though not always as pretty as a more polished and edited version, would satisfy that need?

SubstantiallyVerbatim? 05:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC) -

The following is from a General Committee debate from Monday 26 February 2007:

"We deliberated over the issues surrounding mental health units for a considerable amount of time. However, I felt that it was right to come down on the side of moving the mental health sector away from an exemption as soon as possible. I am heartened by the fact that many units are already smoke free. When I visited a medium-secure mental health unit which treats women and young people, I was pleased to find that it had already gone smoke free."

The Minister, Caroline Flint, actually said "...on the side of moving the mental health sector toward an exemption as soon as possible", which, given the context, as defined by her other remarks, makes no sense at all. She said that she wanted an exemption for mental health institutions, when she meant that she wanted no such thing. So that was an 'obvious mistake'--you'd be surprised how often that kind of thing happens. Who decides? The Reporter, and the editor.Ratner&#39;s Star 14:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a clear example of a mistake--obvious to the reporter who heard it and perhaps to the editor, who may not have--that has been neatly and expertly remedied by the substitution of one word for another. The published text, with that correction, records what it is believed the Minister intended to say, not what she actually said. Your example reassures, and certainly the Minister would have corrected her mistake on the spot had she been aware of it. But that raises more questions: Was the Minister aware of her mistake? If she did not correct her mistake at the time, would the committee members listening to her evidence have known that what she said was a mistake and that she intended the opposite? Was the committee informed of the mistake and the correction? Was the Minister, or her advisers, informed of the mistake and the correction? Was the Minister a sworn witness? If she was not a sworn witness, was she not bound by her oath sworn on appointment as a Minister to give her evidence as a sworn witness? Are committee proceedings, especially the evidence of sworn witnesses, reported 'substantially verbatim', rather than verbatim as is evidence before a court? Are there other levels of scrutiny, beyond the reporter and editor, where other corrections are made? Finally, do we really need to be protected from reading an accurate record, mistakes and all?

SubstantiallyVerbatim? 00:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC) -

Erskine May, the authoritative source on parliamentary procedure, says that the Official Report “leaves out nothing that adds to the meaning of the speech or illustrates the argument”, which is the fall-back justification for changing words as per the example. No one was told about the correction, but someone in the Minister’s office would have read the report and—presumably—they were satisfied that her argument had been faithfully represented. What probably happened in the Committee is that everyone was following the general gist of what she was saying and did not pick up on the fact that what she actually said contradicted it. Who knows? Who cares…

I don’t know anything about the oath or even if there is one. The Official Report of Public Bill Committees and General Bill Committee proceedings can be used in court to challenge a law or a regulation on the grounds that its application is different from the intent behind it. That follows a little-known case (Pepper V Hart) from late last century (I think). The case informs quite a lot of what happens in Bill Committees. I don’t know that anyone is a sworn witness in any Committee, or held to such a burden. In Bill Committees, Ministers do not give evidence, they argue the Government’s case for this law or that. Witnesses now give evidence to Bill Committees, but it is up to Committee members to decide what value to give that evidence, as usual.

Technically, witnesses get the same parliamentary privileges as Members when they go before Committees. Recently, Cairn Ross (spelling?), who was a UK diplomat at the UN in the run up to the Iraq war, was told by the Foreign Affairs Committee not to talk about his views about the presentation of pre-war intelligence, even though he was not subject to the Official Secrets Act when giving evidence to the Committee—he had parliamentary privilege. Most Select Committees are not covered by Hansard in any case, and since they do not have any real legal status, no one really cares about them or what they say. As far as I know, Committee proceedings are not corrected until they are published whole, if at all.

Do we need to be protected from the actual record? I think so, because, if anything, an edited verbatim report is more like the truth than a transcription. It is also infinitely more readable. Orators are responsible for making speeches listenable, Hansard is responsible for making them readable. In any case, if you’ve got the time and if you’re really paranoid about the doctoring of the record and what have you, you can listen to proceedings in the House and follow the Official Report simultaneously the day after. The whole operation has nothing to do with protecting people. Hansard might make Members look like Winston Churchill, but it’s better than producing a record that is open to interpretation and which leaves ambiguities.

Ratner&#39;s Star 18:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The paramount point is confidence in the report. Members and the public have to trust it, without having to check it against the tape. That is the task of those who produce it. Professional journalistic pride, and possibly the potential of being ridiculed by colleagues, might induce a reporter or a subeditor to edit more than was ever intended by the Select Committee on Parliamentary Debates in its recommendation of a 'full report which, though not strictly verbatim, is substantially the verbatim report', later quoted by Erskine May. Reporters, and subeditors, rather than cutting to the chase to expose the nub of an answer or speech, or to make the report more readable, should be encouraged occasionally to ‘let the hare sit’.

An example of this can be seen in the answer by the Prime Minister to a question from Mr Hague on 6 May 1998 [Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711]. The answer, a politely circumloquitous single sentence that was easily readable and understood, was cut from 73 words to 44, split into two sentences, and a verb added. The reported answer gave the nub of the answer but largely eliminated the PrimeMinisterspeak that had conveyed it. The Speaker, following points of order by protesting members on 18 June, ruled on 22 June that ‘the Official Report is an entirely accurate account of the substance of the Prime Minister's remarks, and that nothing that added to the meaning was omitted’. Had the hare been allowed to sit, that kerfuffle would have been avoided.

Ambiguity can be the very means of political survival. A finding in Pepper v Hart (House of Lords 1992) was that parliamentary material may be used to assist in the interpretation of legislation in cases where such legislation is ambiguous or obscure. A minister, when introducing and speaking to a bill, might unwittingly reflect an ambiguity in the legislation. Would litigants be able to offer the court a tape of the minister’s speech, with the ambiguity in it, rather than the report of that speech, from which all ambiguity has been omitted?

If Winston Churchill had delivered his “We shall fight” speech off-the-cuff in the House, rather than as a prepared ministerial statement, would the report have omitted his incantatory repetition of “We shall fight” and left history with: “…we shall fight in France, on the seas and oceans, in the air, on the beaches, landing grounds, fields, streets, and hills”?

SubstantiallyVerbatim? 16:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully...that speech was a real dud. Whose that 'we' anyway? Not bloody Churchill and his lot, with their 'reserved occupations' and what have you...

--Ratner&#39;s Star 15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite the hopes of the appeasers, Churchill's "We shall fight" speech was not a dud. On 4 June 1940, when Churchill made that speech, Britain’s future was uncertain. On 18 June France surrendered; the Battle of Britain began three weeks later. Churchill had been appointed Prime Minister precisely because his uncompromising steadfastness reflected the mood of the nation, yet his leadership was being undermined by those within his cabinet who favoured peace negotiations. Both his country home and his workplace would be bombed and he knew he was a primary target. Parliamentary reporters and subeditors, who would come under fire in the same besieged workplace, steadfastly continued their work of preparing substantially the verbatim report, in a reserved occupation. They probably put the finishing touches on the speech, and Churchill probably thanked them for it. DaysofYore 12:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Had I been the Reporter, I would have been more than tempted to change the "we" for "they", so as not to omit something that added to the meaning.

Ratner&#39;s Star 12:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * While the above conversation has not been active for some 18 months, readers may like to see the Hansard account of Churchill's speech at . Please note that there may have been some slight differences between the radio address and the speech he delivered to Parliament, but the report should still put the conversation in context. Hansard's editorial remit extends to prepared speeches as well as open debate, but few changes were needed in this particular case - replacing "we" with "they", or omitting it altogether, would be a significant error and would doubtlessly lead to serious questions being asked of the reporter. Rje (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

= Dodgy Hansard =

Here are a couple of interesting stories about controversies over Hansard:

McCartney accuses Blair of altering records
Mr Hague asked if Mr Blair agreed that "prisoners should not be released early until the organisations to which they belong have substantially decommissioned their weapons?"

Mr Blair replied: "The answer to your question is Yes" and went on to say: "The only organisations that can qualify to take seats in the government of Northern Ireland and can expect the early release of prisoners are those that have given up violence for good."

In the Hansard version, the first part of the response - "The answer to your question is Yes" - was not included. The DUP deputy leader, Mr Peter Robinson said yesterday: "Clearly, someone acting for, or on behalf of the Prime Minister has tampered with the record." The Irish Times, 20 June, 1998 (not free) Also Blair cleared of doctoring `Hansard'

Record altered over who gave paratroops orders
The crucial question whether British government ministers took specific decisions on the arrest operation launched by paratroopers on Bloody Sunday arose at the inquiry yesterday, when it heard of an alteration made in 1972 to a passage in Hansard, the official record of proceedings in the Houses of Parliament. The Irish Times, 28 June 2000

Ian Cheese (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Transcript disappears minister's 'hack-proof' ID register claim
At the end of February Home Office minister Meg Hillier explained the UK ID scheme security system to the Home Affairs Committee. "The National Identity Register, essentially," she said, "will be a secure database; ...hack-proof, not connected to the Internet... not be accessible online; any links with any other agency will be down encrypted links."

Except she didn't, apparently, because by the time the Committee session transcript was published, here, Hillier words had become: "The National Identity Register, essentially, will be a secure database; it will not be accessible online; any links with any other agency will be down encrypted links." The Register, 9 April 2008

Ian Cheese (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

= Incorporated into Hansard = I am in Australia and I noticed the times that I watched and listened to parliamentary proceedings that parliamentarians have stated that they would like to have their remarks incorporated into Hansard. Since everything being said in Parliament is recorded into Hansard I like to ask why would parliamentarians asked for the incorporatation of their remarks?--Matthew See (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

= Pepper v Hart =

I suggest that, for its sheer constitutional value alone, a brief mention of Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart, along the lines of this decision made it possible to use Hansard in court to help interpret statutes in case of ambiguity wouldn't be a bad idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.50.17 (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

=File:Ontario Hansard 1953.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion==

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130301/debtext/130301-0001.htm

= Hansard not a reliable secondary source =

Over on the David Kelly talk page it says Hansard isn't a reliable Wikipedian source. I am quite frankly puzzled by the reasons given. eg. An editor removed the Hansard quotes as the MP was confused and his (the MPs) opinions don't count, even if he (the MP) is Father of the House - A clear case of opinionating if there ever were one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Kelly_%28weapons_expert%29

Dgharmon (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

= Dec 2013: addition of content =

Some content has recently been added here and then reverted. This included new sections and seems (at a glance) to be adequately sourced. In advance of further investigation, I wondered whether the editors concerned would mind shedding a little light on events. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 15:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I too am baffled by this reversion of a substantial contribution of well-sourced information - I see a few minor technical problems with references showing up correctly, but it seems requesting clean-up or fixing the errors would be more appropriate than a wholesale revert. If the contributor is a first-time contributor (possible given the formatting error and the IP address rather than the user name), I imagine they would perceive that as a very exclusionary action. Msmit (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

=Discussion at  Template talk:Cite Hansard#Citation_format= You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Cite Hansard. regarding the format of CS1-style Hansard citations in Wikipedia articles. Thanks. Evad37 &#91;talk] 07:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

= Longest word =

The longest word recorded in Hansard is "antiecclesiasticaldisestablishmentarianism".

The second longest is "floccinaucinihilipilification", spoken by Jacob Rees-Mogg on 21 February 2012. This is the longest word uttered on the floor of the House of Commons.

"Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis", spoken on the Parliamentary estate by schoolboy Michael Bryan, is not recorded in Hansard.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hansard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090817171411/http://www.hansard-westminster.co.uk/story.asp to http://www.hansard-westminster.co.uk/story.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131130164509/http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/records_parliament.html to http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/records_parliament.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Missing volume
Ser. 1, v. 32 (Feb. 1-Mar. 6, 1816) is missing from the official website but is available here. Alekksandr (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

List of assemblies using the system
What "system"? Are we to take it that assemblies not listed don't release a record of what's said, or just that they don't name it "Hansard"? Do major European countries like France and Germany have any similar records of proceedings and speeches? We are not told! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.84.41 (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)