Fix the date for Televised Leaders’ Debate - 10 Feb, 2005

A matter of public interest, not a private prime ministerial decision

In a statement issued today at a seminar held in Parliament entitled Televised Leaders' Debates : Who Should Decide? Lord Holme, Chairman of the independent Hansard Society, will call for the possibility of a TV Debate between the party leaders at the election to be treated as a matter of the public interest, rather than as a private decision by the Prime Minister, and suggested the broadcasters, acting together, should fix dates and issue invitations to participate.

Lord Holme commented:

"It is a democratically dubious proposition that the decision whether to fall in line with other democracies and have a TV Debate during the election between the Party Leaders is somehow at the private decision of the incumbent Prime Minister.

"That cannot be right. First of all most incumbents, except in very exceptional circumstances, will avoid this sort of competition if they can since they are reluctant to accept the implied parity with their challengers.

"Second, on grounds of principle, it amounts to one of the players unilaterally deciding the rules of the game.

"What makes the present situation even less acceptable is that although Mr Howard and Mr Kennedy have said they would welcome a debate, no-one has heard directly from the Prime Minister. It has been left to nudges and winks, hints and briefings, from his aides and campaign managers to imply that Mr Blair doesn't want one but we haven't heard from the Prime Minister himself.

"Yet the UK, like most mature democracies, is now ready for a TV Leaders' Debate. The broadcasters are more than willing to cooperate on the arrangements. Leaders' debates are held in Scotland, for instance, and throughout the election Ministers, from the Chancellor downwards, will be debating directly with their Shadow opposite numbers. The Bush/Kerry debates in the US Election are fresh in peoples' minds.

"Most importantly, the voting public have demonstrated in repeated opinion polls that they want such a debate which allows them to compare the personalities and policies of the contenders directly in their own homes.

"So why don't we get on with it? The broadcasters, as an important demonstration of their public service obligations, should make the decision to go ahead and, as soon as the election is called, fix the dates. An independent third-party body such as the Hansard Society, or even more desirably the Electoral Commission, could work out the ground rules so that they were fair to the participants and informative to the public. Then it would be up to each party leader to accept or refuse. If the Prime Minister's reported position is true and he does not want to take part, he would then be obliged to say why publicly.

"The broadcasters would then have the option of cancelling the event for obvious and well-understood reasons; or going ahead with an empty chair.

"Either way would be preferable to the present ‘hidden veto'."

Further information: Virginia Gibbons on 020 7395 4010 or 07812 765 552

Editors' Notes

• The Hansard Society is an independent educational charity which has 60 years' experience promoting effective parliamentary democracy and strengthening the links between parliament and citizens.