Question: Five years after the death of Diana and new Labour's coming to power is Britain a more compassionate place?

Shaun Woodward: I think that certainly in the last five years we have seen a greater degree of tolerance and understanding towards a whole range of issues.

And I think people are more comfortable with being themselves, in that sense I think it is easier now for people to be compassionate about a whole range of issues.

For example the whole area surrounding children's issues is one in which we are now much more comfortable to be thinking about.

There's still a lot to do on these issues, in policy terms we've made huge advances, with things like the Human Rights Act (HRA) which are part and parcel of being able to be a practicing compassionate society.

But in England we still do not have a children's commissioner.

In Scotland the devolved parliament is looking at creating one, there is one in Northern Ireland - which this Labour government created, the Welsh assembly has created one but at the moment the government's policy is to say 'well we're going to see how things pan out in Wales and depending on that we will see whether we are going to have one in England.

I think it is nonsense and patently there is a need for an independent figure who represents children in this country, just as there is everywhere else in the UK, delaying that is a mistake, and the government should act.

It should also consider, after having done that, whether or not indeed there is a role for a minister for children.

I think the appallingly tragic circumstances which have surrounded the deaths of Holly and Jessica recently have once again demonstrated how the media come forward with lots of proposals of what we should now do but there isn't an independent figure who as it were marshals all of that.

Yes, we have the Home Office, yes we have a minister with responsibility for children and young people, but he has other responsibilities too, and that is not the same as a minister for children.

I would say that Britain is a more compassionate place in the last five years, it is more tolerant, a more understanding place but there is a lot further to go and in particular I would highlight the area of children's issues and the very urgent need to have an independent commissioner for children in England.

Question: Would having a children's commissioner help in maybe putting the brake on unhelpful media proposals or a climate that can damage in the interests of children in the long term?

Shaun Woodward: There are two components here. The first is that an independent commissioner for children is, if you like, the body, the individual that looks at these issues in the same way that a commissioner for the disabled or racial equality would.

There is somebody there who says "look at this situation that is going on at the moment", whether its an acute situation like the vents in Soham, or whether its an ongoing situation like the general problem of child abuse - which is a huge problem in the UK - who says that the government needs to look at this, who says "we think this is the most urgent issue facing children at the moment".

Now that is very different from a minister for children. A minister is at the end of the day a part of the government and that is part of a political agenda.

Children's issues may become part of a political agenda but they need to be independent from politics as well, and if they are not independent from politics we can have problems with that.

Ministers tend to do what government's want them to do, if they don't they tend to lose their jobs.

There may be times on children's issues when it's necessary to say things that government wouldn't agree with but they need to be said and policies need to be created to meet those needs.

That's why we need to realise that the first staging post here is an independent commissioner for children in England and we need to look at whether, as a consequence of that, whether or not what we need is a minister for children as well.

I really think the events of the last few weeks, these terrible, tragic events, once again highlight this need.

To be fair to the government, it has gone a lot further than the previous administration ever went but this now is an opportunity and it would be a missed opportunity if we get through to the end of this year and still the government says "we're going to go on reviewing what's happening in Wales".

We don't to need review what's happening in Wales, it is already making a difference. Every one of the children's charities support the idea of an independent commissioner for children in England - well resourced, properly budgeted, with investigatory powers, we need one, we need one now.

This individual you would see make comments about, for example, the News of the World's campaign on Sarah's Law.

I understand what is underneath the News of the World's argument. A lot of people in this country feel very strongly that something must done. But we need someone who, as it were, can stand back, who has the experience and expertise, and the ability to call on evidence who can actually say "yes this is appropriate" or "it's a good idea but its not appropriate in that way, we could do it slightly differently and it would be better".

We need this figure and we need it soon.

Question: You have identified yourself with victims rights - is there ever a contradiction between, say, justice for victims, Sarah Payne's family, and human rights?

Shaun Woodward: The answer has to be of course that human rights apply to everybody. There are acts that individuals can commit which mean that we have to, through the courts, remove their liberty because it is dangerous for them to be in the community.

If we take the issue of paedophiles, these are individuals, who as individuals have human rights, but their particular pattern of behaviour, and in some cases their offences, mean they are dangerous to be at liberty in the community, and so its necessary for us to protect the community.

For how long and whether it is indefinite in some cases, that must be a matter decided, again, not by politicians but by the judiciary.

Politicians must give the framework, and that whole framework must be one that reflects how the public feel they want their country to be.

At the end of the day the balance we have to strike is on the side of protecting innocent people, because what was the greatest human right that was infringed on September 11?

It was the loss of life of over three thousand people, by the acts of terrorism of a handful of people. Now very clearly individuals who wish to terrorise thousands of people can not be allowed to enjoy the liberties that non-terrorists enjoy.

Question: Does tough talk on crime, asylum or sex offenders endanger a human rights culture? What about the violent scenes outside Cambridge courts, the witchhunt atmosphere that can sometimes be engendered?

Shaun Woodward: I am glad I live in a country where there is freedom of expression.

And very understandably very large numbers of people feel extremely angry, and desperate about the events that have happened in Soham. Now what we saw outside of the court was a demonstration of a mob and when large groups of people gather together they can behave in that way.

I have to say that I think we are better being in a country where people can express themselves like that, even if some people find it offensive, because many of the people there, I believe, were there for reasons which probably every parent in the country can understand, they may not wish to protest like that but there is so much anger and hurt and desperation around the deaths of these little girls, that I understand why people were there and I understand why they were shouting and jeering.

I think we have to say that we do live in a country where there is freedom of expression and that is something we should accept.

If those individuals then break the law, or far worse, take the law into their own hands they must suffer the consequences of the law. But I think the freedom of expression to shout and say what they feel is a liberty we should prize.

Question: Labour introduced the HRA but ministerial instincts sometimes seem to put the government on the wrong side - especially on home affairs - is there a political problem here or is it individual ministers?

Shaun Woodward: Basically the incorporation of human rights legislation into British law was a very, very important step in our evolution as a civilised democratic country. It was a step that was far more important and significant than I certainly perceived at the time when I was in the Tory party, the Tory party voted against incorporation on a three line whip.

What we have seen is the beginnings of a culture, it would be a mistake to believe that because we incorporated the HRA that somehow we now have everything we need in place, we don't. It's a start, it's a step, in the course of that movement forward there will be moments of arrest, as it were, in the course of that journey which will force us to consider certain consequences.

And the obvious example I'm thinking of is the derogation we had to make to introduce the emergency powers surrounding the events of September 11.

Now clearly in doing so, I sit on the joint select committee for human rights, we had to look whether or not it was right to do that but this was an emergency situation, and again one goes back to saying, the greatest right we all enjoy is the right to life, if you don't have the right to life, and you lose your life you're not going to enjoy any other rights.

If we have groups of people who are prepared to commit acts of terror that can result in the deaths of tens, hundreds, thousands perhaps with weapons of mass destruction, tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people, then we are going to have review certain positions in relation to human rights legislation. However, I do not think that any of those reviews should ever be allowed to be permanent.

We may have to introduce derogations to the HRA to cover certain situations but we must be ever mindful that those situations, they will get better, they may get worse, but when they get better we must move the culture of human rights forward again.

Question: Martin Luther King is one of your heroes - you have a picture of him on your office wall - where does that leave David Blunkett and his move to educate the children of refugees separately?

Shaun Woodward: Martin Luther King's fantastic contribution to Western society was to advance the rights of those who were very far left behind, segregated, subjugated by the white majority of the time. He pushed those barriers, pulled them down, he was someone who saw a vision of the future who dreamt of a society in which people were equal.

I think that David Blunkett believes in an equal society but there are things that we have to deal with along the way, for example, we have very large numbers of people coming to this country seeking asylum.

I believe that most of these people are absolutely honest, decent people fleeing persecution and genuinely seeking a safer life. I think in country as wonderful as Britain, with the fourth richest economy in the world, then we have room here to share.

And indeed if you look at the net benefits of the people who come to our country, immigrants coming to the UK actually benefit our economy.

However, there is a question of managing that flow and if we get huge influxes of people coming in at any one time, then we have to manage that as best we can.

The huge fuss that surrounded the asylum bill that has just gone through parliament, particularly in relation to separate education of children within these pilot centres has to be put in context.

We have 100,000-odd people a year coming and seeking asylum, these centres are only actually providing accommodation for a few thousand people.

We have to see if they work or not, it may be more appropriate to educate these children within the centres, it may be inappropriate, my instinct is that we have to try every possible solution because clearly the current system isn't good enough.

I don't see that it for one moment remotely puts David Blunkett into some grouping that doesn't recognise the things that someone Martin Luther King was trying to do.

It just recognises the problems of a home secretary in the UK in the year 2002 when asylum is a very difficult issue and when, of course, it is easily exploited as William Hague did when he was leader of the Conservative Party and when it is still exploited by certain quarters of the media. This issue has to be handled and it is our responsibility to handle it well for everybody.

Question: Ministers are considering civil recognition for same sex partnerships, where do you stand on that?

Shaun Woodward: We have to move forward towards equality and that means we have to recognise that everyone is entitled to the same protections and same freedoms. And we have across the whole spectrum of our culture areas where civil rights, human rights still have to make huge strides forward, for everyone to genuinely feel that they are equal and that obviously applies to same sex relationships.

The position in which, for example, somebody isn't able to enjoy the pension rights of their partner or isn't entitled to access records of their partner because they're a same-sex partner rather than someone of the opposite sex seems to be extremely unfair.

If we want to create a fair society, a genuinely meritocratic, open society in which people's real potential can be realised then we have to recognise that equality, and the basis of equality in society has to be matched with actions and deeds as well as words.

Question: Section 28 was a big reason you made the move to Labour but after five years it remains in law, is this some kind of institutional homophobia, or is it pragmatism or political cowardice?

Shaun Woodward: Section 28 and the row over it was why the Conservatives sacked me from the frontbench three years ago.

Because I wasn't prepared to join in a three-line whip to ensure that the pernicious piece of legislation we call Section 28 was held in place.

Three weeks after that I made the decision that it was for me the straw that broke the camel's back and that the combination of the Conservatives stance on Europe, human rights generally, Hague's policies on the NHS, education, all these things came together and that why I left.

Now the government does want to repeal Section 28, and I believe in good faith that it is still the intention to do that. Of course I would like to see it gone.

But I don't believe we have a government that is not committed to doing that, it's a question of finding the time to do it. And when the time comes I will be very pleased to see it gone.

It is interesting to see that in the last year inside even the Conservative Party there's very clearly been a shift on this issue and its perfectly clear that there is a division within the shadow cabinet, with several members of the shadow cabinet, who actually, I think tomorrow would not join a Conservative three-line whip that was there to keep Section 28.

It will be a very interesting moment when the government brings forward this amending legislation because I think we will see even inside the Conservative Party a recognition that this was an issue used as a political football to hurt people.

It was not of course ever going to hurt children.

Repealing Section 28 is simply getting rid of a nasty piece of legislation which caused and justified a great deal of homophobia and bullying in our schools and the sooner it goes the better.

Question: After Alan Duncan have the Tories moved on?

Shaun Woodward: I think all theses issues are matters for the individual when you come to say "after Alan Duncan", everyone is entitled to a private life, everybody to pursue their own personal life even in politics. Yes you sacrifice some of your private life in politics, but I believe an individual's orientation is private, it of course deserves the protection of the law and of course they should be treated equally.

But because an particular individual in the Conservative Party wishes to announce they have a particular orientation - I think on the one hand it's brave but I think on the other hand it's rather sad that we still live in a society where people feel the need to come out and make those sort of statements.

No one comes out and says "I'm straight". But the fact some one has to come out and announce their sexuality because they are not straight seems to be a reflection really on the distance we still have to go.

Although I think it is worthy of note within the Conservative Party which has been intolerant of homosexuality in some ways but nonetheless tolerant if people didn't actually in any way allow anyone to know about it. It's interesting that they now feel that it is appropriate to do that.

But you have to allow theses things to be private, I think, everyone is entitled to a private life and it isn't anybody's business except their own.

Question: Do you get annoyed with insinuations that because you have put your neck on the line on these issues it is somehow related to your own sexuality - is there a whispering campaign played out through diary columns?

Shaun Woodward: One of the unfortunate dimensions of being in politics is the relentless number of times you find yourself subject to all kinds of diary stories.

I think that is unfortunate, I don't think that improves politics. It may be good tittle tattle for some but at the end of the day I don't think improves the esteem of politicians and indeed of journalists that we spend so much time on these things.

I think everyone is entitled to privacy and I think everyone is entitled to a private life even politicians.

I think it is a sign of our disrespect for individuals and how we aren't actually comfortable with ourselves as a society in some ways that we feel this need to dwell on individual's private lives.

Everyone is entitled to a private life and I think it was Hilary Clinton who said back in 1992, there is a real danger when we no longer feel we have to respect the private lives of individuals, even politicians.

Question: Many believe that Labour faces an uphill struggle to keep the support of its "heartlands" - as a hardworking constituency MP, and the nature of your constituency, what needs to be done to keep your party's loyal supporters galvanised?

Shaun Woodward: I think one of the most important things that people who voted Labour have to feel confident about is that actually the government it put place is doing what it said it would do.

Now one of the biggest problems that the government faces, and of course it is a problem for any government in some measure, is the distortions that takes place in some sections of the media to prevent that delivery being recognised.

Now of course the government has also a part to play in this, and its over obsession with spin and the mechanisms of public relations and the individuals involved in public relations have not helped.

And it has taken longer than it should of done for the government to realise that.

But as a point of fact you have got to look at the fact if you are a Labour supporter through and through and always have been it is a real irony, is it not, that the Labour movement which is now more than 100 years old, has talked about a minimum wage from the moment that movement began, it took the Tony Blair's government to do it and for those critics who say that isn't this a right wing government really, it seems very ironic that what might be identified by some as left-wing Labour governments never managed to introduce a minimum wage.

It was under Tony Blair's government that the HRA was incorporated into British legislation, it has been under this Labour government that we have seen the biggest ever increase in spending on the NHS.

It is a sad truth, but one always has to remember this, that it was the 74 to 79 Labour government that has the distinction of being the only government in the last 40 years which, didn't freeze, but actually cut public spending on the health service and education.

That's a pretty dismal record, albeit that some might in some quarters want to say "Oh well the Labour Party today surely it's gone too right of centre".

It's a question of what you really achieve, and this government has achieved on the economy is something that no previous Labour government has ever managed, which is not only to run it and run it well, but actually run it better than any Conservative administration has ever run the British economy.

We are enjoying levels of inflation which are at there lowest in 40 odd years.

We are looking at unemployment rates that other European nations dream of. We are looking an the economy, where even if growth is lower than we might like, in comparison to European countries and even the US they are coming here and saying "how do you do it, and how can we do it?".

This is not something the '64 Wilson government found itself enjoying.

People didn't come here and say "how can we engineer a financial collapse like the one you've got?". They didn't come here during the '74 to '79 government when poor old Dennis Healey had to turn around on his way to the airport.

This is a very different Labour government that is delivering on the economy, that is creating the money to fund public services, that has a very strong record in a number of areas and what we have to do is make sure that people who voted Labour are able to recognise that because there is a great deal that the media do to prevent them recognising that.

There is also a great deal that the government has mistakenly done to prevent that message getting through as well.

We just have to let people see the biggest-ever hospital building programme, we have to let people see that kids are doing better at school because the resources are going into schools for the teachers to be able to help the kids do it.

These are remarkable achievements and I think as time goes on people will recognise the achievements that the government is making, that will be as true in a heartland seat as in a seat which Labour doesn't even hold.

Question: What will the "vision thing" be, assuming public service delivery can be turned around? Is Labour still a radical party or has it become a managerial "natural party of government"?

Shaun Woodward: The idea of a party being radical as an end in itself is as fruitless as being conservative as an end in itself. The question is what are you in government for?

And what I would say is that this is a progressive, reforming government. What that means is we are not living a state of perpetual revolution, what we are living in is a period in which we have a government that is committed to fundamentally creating a fairer society, and by fairer that means everybody in the country, whatever their age, whatever their gender, whatever their skin colour, has the ability to succeed on their merits.

That happens across a broad range of issues it doesn't happen overnight.

It's culture which we have to engender in huge areas of the establishment, for example, where that ideal struggles to even be recognised.

We have to make sure across the country, not only is the culture of recognition of minority rights one that is felt well in the south east but felt strongly in the north west and the north east too.

The government has to go on being constantly progressive, constantly willing to reform to achieve that progressive direction.

From time to time it has to be radical, devolution was radical, reform of the House of Lords was radical, these are necessary steps if you want to create a fair, decent 21st century society.

What we have to be is ever watchful of those areas of the establishment, or wherever else it might be, that require that radicalism.

Radicalism isn't the only tool for progressive reforming government. Of course in some areas in would be right for the government to withdraw.

The government does not always do things better, for example, on children's issues many NGO are much better placed to represent children's issues than government departments.

Questions: On the streets of St Helens what the one thing that people say you should do more of this?

Shaun Woodward: The most important issue in St Helens is bringing jobs and quality careers for young people. We've seen in St Helens over the last few years dramatic changes as a consequence of the extra money that has come into the area under this Labour government.

Long before I was there of course, the constituency had been through very difficult times with the collapse of the mining industry, the collapse of the glass industry, now the town has done extremely well in those years of the '80s and early '90s to bring in new kinds of jobs, and a lot of those jobs are in retail and distribution, and of course every job is a welcome job.

But we need more balance in the local economy in St Helens and indeed in Merseyside and the North West.

We've seen large numbers of manufacturing jobs go and yes other jobs have taken their place but we need that vibrancy of good career jobs in the service sector, we need well-paid jobs and careers.

There are a lot of very talented people in the north west and we not only need to keep them but we need to be able to attract people - that isn't only true of St Helens that's true right the way across the region.

And it's why I'm a very strong believer in effective regional government, we've got proposals for regional government, we need to go further, we need to be very careful about offering people an idea that they can, as it were, take control of their region to be a more prosperous, economically vibrant, regenerated region but actually not giving them the resources to achieve that.

Yes the government's gone in the right direction but there is a lot further to go. We need regional bodies which can really help plan for future.

The people who best know the talents and skills in the north west are the people who live and work there.

And what we need to do is to tap into that expertise and that knowledge so we create the infrastructure, the economic infrastructure, the communications, the transport infrastructure that are going to allow the north west to be in the 21st century as successful economically as the north west was, say, during the last part of the 18th century and the industrial revolution.

And that's building on the expertise and tapping into the expertise of the people who create the wealth and who are the labour market of that region.

Any proposals by government for regional assemblies must recognise that, it mustn't just be a body we create that doesn't have the power and resources, it needs the resources to effectively deliver what people think will come.

Question: Where do you fit in, what's your role? Do you envisage a government job?

Shaun Woodward: The most important job is to be an effective member of parliament for St Helens south. There's lot of work to do in St Helens south.

There's a lot of work to do in the region and I'm enjoying playing my part in that. Obviously as a member of the Labour Party anything else that the party want me to do, so long as it allows me to put St Helens south first, I will do. But my first and my last loyalty in politics has to be to my constituents, and it always will be.

Questions: Will it ever be time to bring Peter Mandelson's talents back into the government?

Shaun Woodward: I think Peter Mandelson is one of the most gifted and original thinkers in contemporary British politics. He is extraordinarily able and it must be possible to find a way for the government to use those talents.

Question: With all the hostility you have faced, what keeps you going? Why didn't you just pack it in somewhere along the line?

Shaun Woodward: The hostility is there if you read the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph but if you actually work in my constituency and you're able to help thousands of people - which we've done, it doesn't feel like that at all, in fact the opposite.

After I became MP we had no major constituency office, we opened one, we didn't have a caseworker, we've got one, we've go a fully staffed office now. We've processed over a thousand cases in the first year and got good results for nearly every single one of those people.

We've got ongoing cases with the Ravenhead workers, 300 people who lost their jobs in appalling circumstances, we're fighting for them.

We've just got a quarter of a billion pounds for a new hospital in St Helens to replace the old one which used to be a workhouse.

When you get those sorts of results, when you get six million quid to help build a school for kids with special needs in your constituency, that's why you're in politics.

The truth is the Mail and Telegraph serve a political purpose in our national polity they represent the Conservative Party's interest, they're pretty angry that somebody who was, in their eyes, going to be a significant figure in the Conservative Party said actually I don't want to be in this party, because it's an unfair party, it's misguided and wrong, it doesn't represent Britain's interests and I want to be in the Labour Party.

They are very angry about that and they remain very angry about that and you have to understand that.

What you don't have to be is obsessed by it, they may be obsessed by me but I don't have to be obsessed by them.

I'm just going to get on with doing my job of being the most effective MP for my constituents, do the best job I can and at the end of the day on the back of that deliver for people.

That's how I think one will be judged.