Question: Tony Blair has appointed you to lead a debate about our national identity. The Daily Telegraph dubs you the 'Patriotism Envoy', with regard to this specific role, do you have a job description?

Michael Wills: Not one like that, I think that it is slightly misleading in one respect, what the Prime Minister has asked me to do is to help generate a proper discussion about what being British means in 2001, and that technically is not really about patriotism, I think patriotism ought to be a given for all politicians, it's almost axiomatic for anyone who enters public service, but what is more contentious to some people, is where precisely our national identity resides and that is really what the discussion should be about. All countries have to do that. If you go to France or Germany or the United States, they actually often have quite a clear conception of where their national identity resides, what it means, how it informs public policy. For various historical reasons it has been a slightly bumpier ride for us obviously. We had a very clear identity for a very long time and with the end of empire, successive administrations have found it quite difficult to grapple with this particular issue and this is the start of our endeavour in this area.

Question: Why does this government need somebody to co-ordinate it's British identity when other governments haven't felt it necessary to do it so formally?

Michael Wills: It is not particularly formal. I think the dubbing of me as the 'patriotism envoy' gives it a greater formality than perhaps is merited. All governments engage in this, it is not particularly this government, I think John Major famously made a speech about being British, I seem to recall he identified it among other things as warm beer. Margaret Thatcher regularly returned to this subject. Harold Macmillan famously tried to find a new role for Britain post empire, and tried to identify us as Greece, to America as Rome, rather patronisingly he saw Britain as the repository of the civilised values while America supplied the brute force. So there is nothing new about this at all.

Question: So would you like to see ministers giving formal consideration to our national identity before they draft legislation?

Michael Wills: No I don't think it needs anything as formal and mechanistic as that, but I think we need to be clear where it resides. When I say we, I think as a nation there needs to be a debate. I think we have to recognise that we have a very particular form of the nation state in this country in the United Kingdom which I personally believe has evolved into something rather precious and worth preserving. Now other people in this country don't believe that. Scottish nationalists don't believe that. I think the Conservative Party is actually quite ambivalent about the union now, although they will claim still to be a unionist party, there is a very strong strand now of Conservative opinion which I think would see themselves increasingly as an English party. So there is a debate to be had there and it is not surprising when you think of the great changes that there are in the world around us. 19th century was the great era of the nation state, we've been through huge changes in the 20th century, globalisation, people have a much more inward locus of identity now, self fulfilment is very much more important to people than it was a 100 years ago. These are all important great secular changes which inevitably call into question exactly how we view the nation state and constitutionally what it means.

Question: So what do you think are the unique qualities of the British identity?

Michael Wills: Well, I think inevitably a lot of our identity flows from our history, our geography and all those influences, which have swept across these islands, but I think one of the most precious things is actually embodied in the Union itself. I think there is something very distinctive and unique about that, that gives rise to precious characteristics. By that I mean we are a union of nations. And we are a union not a federation. And that Union demands a tolerance of each other, we have learnt to live together as a union, not as a great centralised state, we have always recognised differences between us, that is why we are a union of nations, that is why it is the United Kingdom, and I think quintessentially it has accustomed us to plural identities. In this country, unlike anywhere else everybody has several identities, we are Scottish and British, or English and British or Geordie and British, or Cornish and British, or Pakistani and British. These plural identities are quintessentially British and I think it gives rise to certain qualities that are also precious and British, tolerance, fair play. If you ask people what are the qualities they most regard as most essentially British, fair play always comes up at the top or very near the top. I think that is part of the essence of the union. When you are in a union you have to treat each other fairly, otherwise unions don't survive, that was one of the reasons we had to modernise the constitution as we did with measures of devolution.

Question: If Britain is a modern, forward looking country and it is evolving, then moving in to the 21st century, over the coming years, what will be the big identity issues facing us as a nation?

Michael Wills: It is impossible to predict too precisely. Clearly Europe is a great dividing line between the two main political parties in Westminster at the moment. And that does call into very precise question what our national identity is and where it resides. The Conservative Party increasingly want nothing to do not only with the euro but with the European Union at all. And increasing numbers of Conservative MPs and members of the Conservative Party want out of the European Union. Now we don't believe that, we are committed to the European Union, we are committed to an engagement with continental Europe, and we believe that is fundamentally in line with British history. For us, the channel has been a bridge, for the Conservative Party I think it has been a moat. It is something that excludes us and divides us from Europe, and for us it is something that connects us. That is a profound difference. We believe that British history is on our side.

Question: So we can retain a strong national identity, we can remain patriotic whilst supporting greater economic and political links with the rest of the EU?

Michael Wills: We have to, it is in our interest. And it has always been a characteristic of this country that we have actively promoted pragmatically our national interest. And being engaged with Europe is about that.

Question: And so the British will accept a single currency do you think?

Michael Wills: We have made it clear that entry into the single currency will depend on whether it is in our national economic interest. There are no objections in principal to it and that is why we have said if we think it is in our national interest to do so, we will hold a referendum on it. It is a very important decision, that is why we would hold a referendum.

Question: How has devolution strengthened the Union?

Michael Wills: Well, I think we have to accept that there were growing strains on the union, under the previous administration. The Conservative Party campaigned on saving the Union as they put it with no constitutional change at all. Now, I think you can tell the extent of the strains by the fact that the party that campaigned for no change ended up with no seats in Scotland and no seats in Wales. Scots felt particularly that they were being abandoned by a very English minded administration. I don't think a single Scot will ever forget or forgive being used as a laboratory for the poll tax and this is very damning. It is important to remember that England is by far the dominant majority nation in the union. Over 80% of members of parliament in Westminster are English MPs .

Question: So stronger devolution, such as say greater use of tax raising powers, could under your vision of a national identity mean an even stronger union?

Michael Wills: No, I don't think that follows at all. What was necessary was the devolution of powers away from London to give the Scots and Welsh a greater control over their affairs, we are also devolving power within England, we have an elected Mayor in London, we have regional development agencies, very important engines of economic growth in the English regions, and we would want to see a greater use of elected mayors, we think that would be a valuable strengthening of democracy. So devolution of powers yes, but not necessarily tax raising powers.

Question: Do you think that in a possible second term, the West Lothian question needs to be addressed?

Michael Wills: My own view about the West Lothian question is that it is based on a misconception about the union. It is predicated on the argument that you have to have a symmetrical constitution in a symmetrical union. Now we have never had a symmetrical union because of the dominance of England within it. 80 per cent of MPs come from England. Therefore, there is no reason why the rights that you need to give to minority nations to protect their distinctive cultures and identities need to apply in the same way for a majority nation.

Question: And so you don't think there is any need say for instance, for less Scottish MPs?

Michael Wills: Well we have said we will reduce the number of Scottish MPs, we are committed to that, devolution does mean that there doesn't need to be quite the same number of Scottish MPs in Westminster and we are committed to that.

Question: And a greater form of English devolution in terms of city mayors, regional administrations?

Michael Willis: Yes, we are committed to that as well, we have already said that we have already got an elected mayor in London, we have already got the regional development agencies and we would like to see further use of city mayors, they are a powerful instrument of democracy.

Question: One issue that unites Britain in a sense is voter apathy, what do you think causes voter apathy?

Michael Wills: That is a very big question. I think there are a number of reasons, there are very big long term historical reasons, which is that we have got used to having the vote, that if you think less than a hundred years ago people were killing themselves in this country to get the vote. I think that there has been a decline in the belief in the power of the centralised state government to achieve things. People lose faith in what their vote achieves, they have got used to it. We have to contrast our apathy with the scenes in South Africa, where you had queues in the dust and heat when people are allowed to vote for the first time, you don't get that in this country. So I think there are a number of long term changes and I think that politicians can lose touch with people very quickly and easily. I think the constant scrutiny among the media, renders our inadequacies more transparent, and that is a clarion call for all politicians to do better. We have to do better, but the responsibility doesn't devolve to us alone. We must do better, but so too must the media. I have to say, and there is a joint agenda here, for a more informed and properly balanced debate in the media and that goes for all sides.

Question: In looking at national identity, will one of the things you will be doing be to look at the way the public is slightly disengaged with politics?

Michael Wills: Not directly, I think that is something that all politicians have to do. I think we all bear the responsibility of this and, politicians bear the primary responsibility, we have got to do better and this has got to be an absolute priority. There are many failings with democracy, but it is still precious. As Winston Churchill said, 'democracy is the worst government that has ever been invented, apart from all the alternatives'. The most precious thing that a citizen has is the vote, and the ability to throw out the government, to get rid of us. That is the most precious power that any citizen has. If they feel that power is not effective or they can't be bothered to use it, there is something not right with our democracy, and all of us involved should put it right, politicians above all else have to be very very sensitive to what is going wrong and make sure that we tackle it.

Question: Finally, in looking at national identity, in the context of a fast changing evolving nation, does the monarchy need to look at itself as well?

Michael Wills: I think that the monarchy is looking at itself. Personally I think that the Queen has served us extremely well, and it has been one of the most effective parts of our constitution.