Question: You are in charge of terrorism and police matters at the Home Office - a huge burden of responsibility?

McNulty: It is, but there a whole host of very good people doing really focused work to make sure some of that burden is lifted.

Myself and the home secretary are keenly aware of how serious it is but what both an honour and a burden it is to be looking after matters that are so hugely important to the country.

To be fair, at the time of the split with the creation of the Ministry of Justice, many people were really quite sceptical and were bemoaning John Reid's decision to go down that route.

But having been in the Home Office for three years I think what John was suggesting and what we have done since has been absolutely right.

I feel very comfortable that we are doing all that we can on counter-terror across government including the anti-terrorism bill but including a whole host of other organisational changes we have made in the Prevent Agenda which should prevent people being attracted to, let alone getting involved with, violent extremism.

There has also been a lot of good work done not just across government departments, but also with local police forces looking at things in a much more focused way.

On the terrorism side and the interface between police and terrorism, we are doing all we can.

We are also in an exciting place in terms of more general policing - we have just had the Flanagan Review that has prompted answers to some of the questions that were posed.

Very soon we will have the green paper on policing that will show the way on police reform.

So it is a hugely busy but very rewarding and life in the Home Office is never dull as Jacqui found out when she became home secretary and we had the London and Glasgow incidents straight away.

You have to deal with those challenges whilst at the same time, doing all the routine stuff and much of the routine stuff can go the wrong shape at any given time because of the nature of many of the people you have to work with.

That does make it quite scary but all the time hugely, hugely scary - never dull.

McNulty on pre-charge detention 

Question: Is it still the government's intention to push to increase the period of pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects to 42 days?

McNulty: It is, but not as starkly put as that. I would turn it round entirely and say that it is our intention to work on the premise of 14 days pre-charge detention being the norm, with 14 to 28 days as the exception and 42 even more unusual.

That is why we are not making the 28 day provision permanent and the government's answer to the question: 'Is there a need to go permanently beyond 28 days?' Is a profound 'no'. 

But the answer to the question: 'Are there circumstances in which it may well be the case that you need, on a temporary basis, to go beyond 28 days?' The answer is 'yes' and all that affords is to give the police the ability to go to a judge and prove there is sufficient and growing evidence against an individual to take it a further seven days and then a further seven days.

That sounds like sophistry but it isn't - that is the reality of what we intend, not as the shorthand would have it that we are just going from 28 to 42.

Question: Given that the government has gone from wanting 90 days to 28 and considered other options, isn't 42 just an arbitrary number?

McNulty: I would accept that if all we were doing was going for how it is characterised as going from 28 days to 42 days and there being permanent provision under law for 42 days.

We have very deliberately crafted it so it is only ever temporary and then dies as a provision after it has been used.

That needs to be seen in the context of saying yes to the use, if practicable, of intercept evidence and saying yes to post-charge questioning and yes to making acts preparatory to terrorism and offence and yes to a range of other things like the threshold test.

Putting all that to one side do we still think there might be the remotest possibility given all the evidence and experience we have of a need to go beyond 28 days in specific circumstances? And the answer is 'yes'.

I think it is much safer for the country if we legislate for that reserve power now rather than in the middle of an incident or a series of incidents.

Questions: You believe that you can convince enough of your backbenchers to support the move despite polls suggesting a significant rebellion?

McNulty: Yes, because with the best will in the world the surveys are asking very simplistic questions like: 'Do you fancy 42 days?'

When this is not that simple and it really is quite complex because we are not saying: 'Right we have thought of another number now instead of 90 and it is 42.' And I know the gags about the secrets of the universe in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy being 42.

This legislation has been over a year in the planning - long before John Reid even said there would this bill, we were talking about this and it is very reflective and informed and this far and no further in terms of a temporary reserve power.

In the meetings and discussions I have had on this I have found that when you do set it out properly there is a greater responsiveness to it as opposed to simply saying 'let's go to 42 days permanently.'

McNulty on police pay

Question: Given what happened with the police pay negotiations will you be approaching that process differently in future?

McNulty: I hope so and the home secretary has made it clear that if we can move to three-year deals with no staging roughly around the new public sector pay index that the arbitration panel agreed to as well as saying give everyone 2.5 per cent then we can get to a stage where we ensure there is fairness in the pay process and some certainty in terms of having a three-year deal.

I get the sense that there is and appetite on all sides for that kind of arrangement.

McNulty on Labour renewal

Question: Are you convinced that the Labour Party is renewing in government and it can win a fourth term?

McNulty: I think I am. People have said we lost our way a bit and now we are in a renewal phase and actually there is lots and lots of policy rather than too little.

What we need do now is to get the narrative right about all that we are doing and what we can offer the country over the next three to five years as we have done rather adeptly over the last 10.

I think the signs are starting to show that and certainly there is no appetite to have the other lot in and I think it is very much still all to play for.

I would be quietly confident that we can get on with the job, show our credentials in terms of vision and deliver for the country with a fourth term, whenever the election comes.

McNulty on the London elections

Question: And as a greater London MP, is the mayoral election a key stepping stone towards that?

McNulty: It is hugely important as the office of mayor is hugely important.

It is a shame that the Conservatives could not find someone who had a remote profile in London matters rather than national matters to be the candidate.

The Tory candidate will probably be a stronger challenge than candidates in the past but I am convinced Ken is on schedule for a third successive term and that will be a very useful springboard to the general election whenever that happens.

Locally, I think the Greater London Authority member who is a Conservative for Brent and Harrow has been a ghost for the last four years and with all due respect to him, the sooner we get rid of him the better.