Question: What must the Conservative Party do over the next few years to regain a wider electoral appeal?

Andrew Lansley: I think there are a range of things that are important to be done. Probably the first thing to say is that some of them are clearly underway - for example, we need to ensure that those whom we put forward as our candidates for election in the future have a broader base of experience; a different gender balance than has previously been the case; certainly with more ethnic minority candidates; so that women, those from ethnic minorities, people from all communities feel the Conservative Party is genuinely representative of those whom we want to serve.

The second thing we need to do, I think, is we need to change the geographical basis of the Conservative Party. We are not, have not been in the past, simply a country or an agrarian party. The risks are that the party is progressively going to strengthen in places where we have existing organisation but weaken in places where we don't have such an organisation; it's absolutely vital at this stage in the early stages of this parliament that we recreate effective campaigning organisation and political representation in cities, because it is in urban areas that the Conservative Party was transparently too weak at the last general election, and we need to change that.

The third thing I think we need to do is that we need the public to feel confident that when they reject Labour on grounds of Labour's failure to deliver, that the Conservative Party has answers that are workable, practical and feel very much in tune with people's priorities and attitudes today. That work is going to take some time. Clearly the Conservative Party - the leadership since the election - has very wisely resolved upon not rushing into a wide range of policy prescriptions. The sort of priorities that are being put forward in assessing the long term needs and prescriptions for the public services - we have to complete that work with care because people will be looking to the Conservative Party to have those answers on public services if Labour have failed to deliver, and to be able to do so in the context of a more difficult economic situation.

Question: For years now the Conservatives have talked about the need to attract more women and people from ethnic minorities but nothing seems to happen. Why is this?

Andrew Lansley: Well there were a number of things at the last election that we wished might have been different. One of them that is clearly the case is that although there were individual Conservative candidates in many cases who had lots of merit, the aggregate picture of the Conservative Party in terms of its candidates was severely unbalanced, and especially so in terms of those seats we were most likely to win.

Question: Do you think the leadership is addressing this adequately?

Andrew Lansley: I have absolutely no doubt that they're determined to do something about it and I think actually the appointment of Gillian Shepherd as the vice chairman of the party with responsibility for candidates was very important in that respect.

Theresa May and I put forward proposals in the summer of last year as to how that might be accomplished and in a way which would mean substantial, positive action by the Conservative Party and especially in relation to the 150 or so seats that we are most likely to win, which would, if implemented, have meant broadly a male/female balance and a representative number of candidates from ethnic minorities in that top 150 seats; and it would have done, if it is applied effectively inside the Party and by individual associations in a way that continues to give each individual association a continuing freedom to choose from a range of suitably qualified candidates.

Question: And you think that option is still in consideration at the moment?

Andrew Lansley: I think that option is still under consideration. I don't pretend we'd necessarily thought of all the issues that have to be considered but I hope that it might have formed a basis on which the Party is now going to implement the new arrangements for candidates, yes.

Question: You talked about the Conservative Party suffering from latent racism, do you.

Andrew Lansley: Actually, I was even more harsh than that, I said 'endemic' racism.

Question: Are you confident that this endemic racism is being tackled?

Andrew Lansley: I'm confident that the incidences of racism that rear their ugly head inside the Conservative Party are going to be dealt with toughly, I've no doubt about that. I'm sure Iain, as Leader, is determined that that will be the case and leadership from the top in the Conservative Party will be of the right kind in that respect.

The point I would make is that I wasn't singling out the Conservative Party uniquely in British society. Racism is an ugly fact of life for those people from ethnic minorities: one only has to actually take the trouble to ask, to find that racism appears in far too many organisations including in organisations whose rules, and whose procedures and whose training appears, on the face of it, to be exemplary.

Question: Like who?

Andrew Lansley: Well, for example, the argument about the Metropolitan Police is a very good one. The Metropolitan Police have some exemplary rules and training designed to eradicate racism but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Question: Because it's a cultural problem?

Andrew Lansley: Absolutely, of course it is a cultural problem, and we have to change the culture, we have to embrace a new culture, which recognises ethnic, cultural and other differences in society and doesn't try to pretend that they don't exist, or believe that we can eradicate them.

What we should be thinking about is a society in which, like in the American context, people continue to have their cultural identity, but it isn't seen as a threat to other people; because everybody in America comes from some ethnic background of some kind or another and there is no, as it were, indigenous culture which has a pre-eminent place in America. Now we, in this country, should be thinking about that, and saying, well, we may have an indigenous culture, we may have a predominant ethnic background, but even if there is racism in America at least they look at people coming from another ethnic backgrounds and they say, the fact that you hold onto your cultural identity in your own communities doesn't mean you can't participate fully in the idea of what it is to be an American; and the same should be true in this country.

Question: But isn't that the case over here?

Andrew Lansley: No. I don't think it is. We're actually having a very curious debate in this country about the way in which people somehow have to give up their cultural identity in order to embrace Britishness yet the two can be embraced together and we have to celebrate that fact; and it does mean, for example, where public services are concerned that we should be, as it were, colour-blind or ethnicity-blind. It doesn't mean we should treat everybody the same. It means, instead, we have to be prepared to understand differences, to acknowledge those differences and take those differences into account. It does mean, for example, in the selection of candidates, we've got to understand that you can't necessarily apply the same test to people and ask the same questions and expect the same kind of answers from people.

Question: So there should be quotas?

Andrew Lansley: No it doesn't mean quotas; it's the difference between positive action and positive discrimination. It means positive action and I think actually the best way to describe what I'm talking about is this: some people say 'as long as I don't overtly discriminate, as long as I am not racist, as long as I am not discriminating between people on grounds of their background, then that's fine'. That may be true, and the world is full of people who are not discriminating in that sense, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the net result in society is that people in ethnic minorities are given access to services, to opportunities, to senior positions in different occupations, to the extent that is commensurate with their abilities.

We have - and this is what institutional racism I think properly means - a kind of institutional bias against people from ethnic minorities at the moment, regardless of the individual responses in terms of a lack of discrimination; and we have, therefore, to think in terms of positive action because if we don't, if we aren't aware of cultural differences, if we aren't adjusting for those in order to bring people in from ethnic minorities, then not only do we continue to have that institutional bias against ethnic minorities but we're fools to ourselves because there are large numbers of people in ethnic minorities who have talents and abilities that we aren't exploiting and which would be very valuable to society.

Question: So what type of positive actions would you suggest?

Andrew Lansley: Well, we've been talking about those things in relation to the Conservative Party and I think it does mean not only becoming, good at understanding the cultural background of people from ethnic minorities, it means participating in those cultures as well so that we know who people are, we know what their abilities are, we can judge their backgrounds well and their ability to come forward and occupy elected positions. For us in the Conservative Party it means not simply having the idea that if people put themselves forward from ethnic minorities then we will be prepared to consider them, but going out and making sure that we are head-hunting for people who have the right attitudes, who have respect and command authority inside ethnic minorities so that we can bring them forward into elected positions.

Question: You talked about cities. What does the Conservative Party need to do to create an urban appeal?

Andrew Lansley: Well actually I set great store generally, and in this particular respect, by what the Conservatives should be doing in local government. It's already the case that we are moving strongly to a position where, within a year or two, we may able to be the leading party of local government and that would not simply be on the basis of rural areas, it would include many urban areas, particularly in Counties where there are many towns and smaller cities that are embraced within the Counties; which means we've got an opportunity there for Conservatives to exercise powers and responsibilities including, particularly, the running of public services in urban areas and in cities. The same may well be true if we make a sufficiently determined effort in many of the outlying urban areas of the major cities. So if we can do that, if we can begin that process - inevitably it will take time, inevitably we will have to prepare ourselves in one area, win in one area and then move to neighbouring areas and progressively extend our local government reach in city areas - but I think cities are terrifically important.

I am a great fan of Conservatives in local government, but all councillors are relatively conservative with a small 'C' and there is considerable antipathy to the idea of elected mayors, but I think in some areas - and this is particularly true for unitary authorities in cities - there is a good argument in my view for us to embrace the concept of elected mayors; and in the process, I think we, the Conservative Party, may well be able to bring forward people from amongst our ranks or those who are Conservative-inclined but haven't previously identified themselves as Conservatives, to take on some of those responsibilities. One of the difficulties for Conservatives is many people say 'we would be willing to get involved and we are Conservatives but we want only to get involved when we think we can really make a difference' and too often in the past, people have felt in local government that they exercise responsibilities but they have too little power, because too much of what they do is governed for them by rules from central government departments. City mayors may well enable the Conservative Party to change the perception, the image of the Conservative Party in some of those cities, radically and quickly, because by their very nature, mayors could become the flag holders for Conservatives in those cities.

Question: Talking about local government, local campaigning - do you think the Conservatives have got a lot to learn from the Lib-Dem's campaigning methods and campaigning techniques?

Andrew Lansley: Well in some places the Conservative Party have adopted campaigning techniques which have seen the Liberal Democrats off. I mean you only have to go to somewhere like Chelmsford, for example, and the work which Simon Burns and his association and his local government colleagues have done over many years and see the Conservative Party is perfectly capable of campaigning and representing people locally in a way that, over time, removes the Liberal-Democrats as a threat. We do it in too few places: we have to do it in a lot more.

Unfortunately in the latter stages of the 18 years of Conservative government after 1979 there was a very large soft under belly of Conservatives which the Liberal-Democrats preyed on. We have to reverse that but I don't think it's a case of the Liberal-Democrats have created some mystical campaigning method which wasn't available to the Conservative Party: we've definitely done it in the past, we know what it ought to consist of - it consists of systematic relationships with voters; of reporting back and anticipating the needs of voters and investigating the needs of voters more systematically; of small numbers of activists who work on a political basis in particular areas over the long term; of candidates who are prepared to stand and stand and stand again; and of using a strength in one place to go over the border into the next place so that you sort of build your electoral advantage by stages. We know all that, we can do all that, we just have to be aware that this is not going to fall into our lap and I think in the eighties and nineties too often, we began to think that electoral results were simply the product of some pendulum or some cycle occurring on a national level whereas, in fact, a great deal can be done that can influence election results - particularly in local government - quite out with the national electoral cycle altogether.

Question: What have you made of Iain Duncan Smith's first 100 days in charge?

Andrew Lansley: Well the first thing, of course, is that he's had to become leader under some very unusual circumstances - the events of September 11 immediately prior to his taking over has meant that for most of his first three months he has been in a situation where there was relatively little partisan conflict.Question: So do you think people will be closely watching his performance in the first 100 days of 2002?

Andrew Lansley: I've always thought that, in large measure, in what happened prior to Christmas, it would be more important to him not to make mistakes. I think that's true: he hasn't made mistakes prior to Christmas. After the new year, it is more important to make headway and to achieve things, and I think some of the things we've been talking about are beginning to go in the right direction: things like where policy has to be unveiled - and there are relatively few instances where that has to be the case, but we need to make sure that every effort is being put in to present policies which to respond to the public's needs and moods and which are well thought through - that's going to be important; to be seen to be making progress on organisation and candidates and so on, well I hope that that's happening - we haven't actually seen that yet but I hope it'll be coming through soon; and to be seen to be out there, responding to the public's idea of what the priorities are - that's obviously putting public services and the ability to deliver on public services right at the forefront.

Question: What should be his first priority in all that?

Andrew Lansley: Oh I think what the public should see as his first priority and, therefore, what he should give his time to, is the presentation of the Conservative Party's critique of Government on its failure to deliver on public services, and that we are rapidly constructing a credible alternative to that.

I personally think that the key to this is that the Labour Party are going to fail to deliver, essentially because they are wholly reliant upon state spending and state regulation. We therefore have to be showing how centralised control both of resources and of mechanisms inside the public services is doomed to failure. What we have to be increasingly creating is an alternative which will bring more resources to bear because we free up individuals and the private sector to supplement the increasing public sector resources in to public services, but at the same time creating a system which itself is more responsive to consumers and to their choices than it is to the demands of ministers sitting behind desks in Whitehall.

Question: Tony Blair re-branded Labour to be New Labour and Iain Duncan Smith recently said he doesn't like the name Tories. Do you think he needs to re-brand the party, give it a new name?

Andrew Lansley: The Conservative Party clearly needs to be understood by the public to have changed. That doesn't necessarily mean we have to have a change of name. The public - not least because of the way in which Labour have behaved in the last seven or eight years - are deeply cynical about such things.

Question: But it needs to be a similar kind of re-branding exercise in the way that Blair re-branded Labour?

Andrew Lansley: What is more important is for the public to have a clear understanding of who the Conservative Party is and what we stand for, and how that is different from Labour.

Now 'who the Conservative Party is' we've talked about in some detail: geographically we have to be different, in gender terms we have to be different, community backgrounds have to be different, the kind of people we are and the language we talk, the age we are - all of those things have to change.

But also 'what we stand for' has to be very clear and I'm perfectly clear that the Conservative Party is the party of freedom, and freedom in that context is a broad concept: it's not just about free enterprise, it's about freedom of choice in public services, it's about freedom from poverty, it's about freedom from fear where health and public safety are concerned. It's a very broad concept. But then it's also, by implication, also freedom as the antithesis of Labour's approach because socialists are about control and they are about regulation and planning and tax and bureaucracy; and the Conservatives' concept of freedom is, by definition, interested in setting people free, breaking down barriers, giving people greater choice, so it is not only a concept of what we want to achieve, what our objectives are - a freer society - but also the way in which we do things.

Now it is terribly important that you have to be understood in the early stages of a parliament to have a driving concept of who we are and what we want to achieve, in order for the things we have to say about policy, subsequently, to be able to be understood by people as linked together, and therefore a real programme for government.

Question: So this identity really needs to be set up quite quickly?

Andrew Lansley: That identity needs to be set up in the next year or two because then it will be much easier to undertake the process of policy review, because if you can assess policies against a relatively clear philosophical background then it's much easier to say 'we do agree with this', 'we don't agree with that'.

One of the problems before the last election was that at the same time we were heard to be saying 'we want to be a tolerant party' and 'we want zero tolerance'; and if you remember the party conference prior to the election, the public got very confused because they thought we were both tolerant and intolerant at the same time. Well, if we are a party of freedom then by definition, we are going to be looking at some of those policies and saying we've got to give people a degree of freedom; but freedom from fear of crime is also part of what that freedom implies. That's why we will have policies which will set clear boundaries, which will defend the rule of law, but within the rule of law will give very substantial freedom to people to make their own decisions.

Question: Would you ever consider a return to the front bench?

Andrew Lansley: Oh, at some point. I'm in no tearing hurry because I had a very good opportunity in the last parliament to get involved at a senior level. The way things work in life and in politics, you take certain opportunities at the expense of others and I, like some of my colleagues, only entered parliament in 1997; we've been on the front bench for the greater part of that time, and actually there's a lot you can do in parliament from the backbenches, especially when you're in opposition, in developing issues that are important individually to us and to our constituents, to develop those and be able to have quite an impact on parliament and beyond, and I hope to do some of that.