Summarising a debate is technically straightforward and institutionally fraught. A parliamentary record is not content. It is the authoritative account of what was said, by whom, in what order, and it is relied on by courts, journalists and citizens decades later.
A summary that drops a qualifier or merges two interventions has not saved anyone time; it has introduced a second, unofficial version of the record with no provenance attached.
Record governance comes first: immutable source text, a versioned relationship between summary and source, and a clear statement of which artefact is authoritative. Once that exists, summarisation is genuinely useful — and safely reversible.