Question: What is your assessment of the street crime initiative which the government says has cut crime by 17 per cent in 10 areas?

Simon Hughes: The lesson from the inspector's report is that good ideas need thinking through, need carrying through and successes shouldn't be over-hyped. The idea came pretty well off the back of an envelope. It was a pretty short-term reaction to a very severe issue like street robbery. I understand that and I don't dissent from the something must be done argument.

The inspector's report confirmed what some of us saw which was the danger that it would not think through how you would deal with it effectively. Like people not being tracked through if they reappeared. That was a weakness in the system.

Question: Isn't the idea of an initiative like this to highlight weaknesses in the system?

Simon Hughes: I accept that and you've got to make a judgement. Clearly the moral of the story is that you've got to sustain these things because if you don't then the other flaws that appear become serious. It may look successful for six months but if the people who do the robberies are on drugs and they don't actually get the treatment within 24 hours of being registered for treatment, they are likely to show up in courts again.

Question: The Conservatives have highlighted the lack of drug treatment services. What's the Liberal Democrat's view?

Simon Hughes: Two things. You need the places to be treated and you need to be treated urgently. I'll give you two examples. I was at a Turning Point event - it's a well-known national drugs charity and they have big demand. Their message to me was that there's got to be much more co-ordination of treatment across the country. It's got to be available when people need it not two or three months later.

I went to a prisoners event the other day and the message was exactly the same: it's no good come out from jail who can't get support immediately. If you leave them long enough they get back into the cycle of re-offending and away you go again. That was the lesson from this report.

Question: Drug addicts needing immediate help is pretty obvious. Why do you think officials haven't tackled this issue sooner?

Simon Hughes: I thought we'd have learnt that lesson by now. It's party been that until recently people weren't brave enough to realise that the really serious drug users like heroin addicts need treatment as a priority within the NHS.

It's got to be seen as an NHS priority not for marginalised, useless, scum on the edge of society. You've got to deal with them as victims as well as addicts.

It's one of those issues that crosses departments. Although it manifests itself in crime it's actually a health responsibility. So the cost is carried by the Home Office in the crime budget. For that reason it hasn't been given the priority it needed.

If a child presents itself at a London school whether they are six generation Londoners or refugees, they aren't told 'you've got to sit in the playground for six months while we find somewhere to put you'. It's as much will as resources though we do need the resources and it will cost.

Question: The Tony Martin case has put burglary and sentencing is back on the agenda. What's your view?

Simon Hughes: In broad terms criminal offences split between those which are offences of violence to the person which are always serious and you should expect jail, and property crime or DSS fraud where you should be able to deal with people without sending them to jail.

Burglary is one of the few cases that falls between the two in the public mind. It is sufficiently person interference in your liberties, it's an emotive crime and a violation. It's a lesser form of rape; an intrusion into your personal space - particularly if you're elderly.

I think the law has to allow people to be a bit over the top - to overreact beyond the minimum necessary. People will react naturally. What is not acceptable is their reaction being classed as non-criminal when it's completely over the top - like turning a pump action shot gun on someone.

It's probably the most difficult area in the criminal justice system because everybody will resent being burgled. We have to be clear and the best way to do that is to change the law which is now on the agenda. The government have been talking about this for ages but haven't done much about it.

You cannot be allowed to claim compensation fro something when you have been the criminal triggering the event.

Question: What's your view on Tony Martin, a convicted criminal, selling his story to a national newspaper?

Simon Hughes: I think however much Tony Martin has become one of those strange popular heroes for a lot of people, it is unacceptable that someone who is actually still serving a sentence on licence can sell their story. Or Jeffrey Archer while still inside.

It should not be possible while serving your sentence to make money from your crime. No matter whether Jeffrey Archer, Tony Martin or whoever. It should be written into the words the judges use when they sentence someone you will not profit financially profit from your crime until you have served your sentence.

If they want to sell their story that's fine if the money goes to charity or to the chancellor. If they want to wait and want to gain an income from the book then that's up to the offender. By then it must be sensible to say a) we can't control it b) it may be a way for that person to rehabilitate themselves.

Question: There's nothing to stop a newspaper dating the cheque for five years' time?

Simon Hughes: Absolutely. I know you can say 'that's technical' but whilst someone is serving their sentence they should not profit. Even Tony Martin's case doesn't justify this.

Question: The case of John Leslie raises the issue of the media identifying suspects in police investigations?

Simon Hughes: There's been a long-running weakness in the criminal justice system in recent years where basically we're getting more and more trials by media. The criminal justice system has been hijacked by the media.

I raised with ministers the fact that from the moment somebody famous is suspected or someone becomes a suspect in a well-publicised crime, the danger is the press decide that they're guilty. I'm talking about the recent case of US marine arrested in Germany and Soham.

Question: Do you think that marine could argue at his extradition case that he is unlikely to get a fair hearing?

Simon Hughes: That's an argument his lawyers are bound to run. We need a collective review of all these things and the law needs to be clear.

It's no secret that in the past police officers have tipped newspapers off and made money out of it. It should be made clear that it's a disciplinary offence and if you do it you are out. Career over.

Question: The papers have argued that the Press Complaints Commission can deal with these issues. Do you think the PCC is not strong enough?

Simon Hughes: It certainly isn't strong enough. We would all like to believe that self-regulation works. I read the Lord Chancellor is coming round to my view that self-regulation of solicitors may have to be ended. Self regulation of the press has not worked adequately.

Question: There's a divide though between the local press and the national press, isn't there?

Simon Hughes: The local press can't afford not to abide by the PCC code. It's true. If we're going to keep a free press then it's got to be one where the little boys and girls have the same chance to do the job as the big boys and girls. Or it will all end up being dominated by the very rich elements in the media.

Question: Do you think it's become a game for the nationals to see how far they can go?

Simon Hughes: I think it has. I know as a fact it has. But we need to roll the whole thing back. Right now people are picked up and questioned and before they are charged there should not be any prejudicial reporting.

Should we identify people from time of charge to time of trial? That's a debate we need to have coherently. Is it fair that the only people whose names we don't report are complainants in rape cases or sexual cases generally or fraud cases in the City.

My view is that from arrest to charge there should be no reporting. From charge onwards you should be able to identify someone unless the court directs otherwise and there should be the option of applying for the law to be overruled by the courts in exceptional cases.

Question: The attorney general is again negotiating with the US over the Britons held at Guantanamo Bay. Is announcing they won't face the death penalty the best we can hope for?

Simon Hughes: I've been trying to get the UK government to say what they believe is the appropriate jurisdiction for these men and they have refused to say. They must have had advice about that. They can't not have had advice about that.

The first ting they must have been told is that there can't be anywhere on earth where you are not under someone's jurisdiction. These people are supposed to be not within the general US responsibility. They're clearly not anyone else's and that's unacceptable. The government should be much clearer.

I can see from an American view that to give in to the argument that every foreign national should be returned to their country is a difficult argument. Some would not even be put on trial.

The realistic political option would be to argue that they should be either tried in the States under an international tribunal or they should be tried in a civilian court in the US. If they are not willing after a certain point to charge them then they should release them.

I think the British government has been weak about this and I understand the difficulties but this is all the more wrong because we have been so supportive of the US government.

Question: Do you still back the congestion charge, given the firm running it is going to be bailed out?

Simon Hughes: I supported the idea. I wouldn't have introduced exactly the same scheme. My final judgement will be made in February when we're a year on. Clearly it's had a bigger impact than expected.

It adds to the set of questions which the current mayor has ducked; the transport budgets aren't balanced.

There's the inherited problems of London Underground but the biggest problem appears to be the buses budget. The increased supply of buses is great but the revenue hasn't followed it. You can't go on like that; the two ends have to meet.

Question: If you win the mayoral race, aren't you going to face the same problem as Ken - you're an opponent of Labour?

Simon Hughes: I don't think so. I know the key players in government and have worked with them, opposing them constructively and fairly. I've never done the dirty on the party in the way the current mayor has so they have no reason to think I will not be not a person of my word. I think they would rather deal with someone they can do business with and trust and if they can't get the official Labour candidate they want someone they can work with.

I have every reason to believe that the job I could do would be to get a better deal for London with the government. That means having serious discussions on a regular basis about the financial settlement in a way that gives us a better deal. Half of the mayor's job is influence not power.

My feeling is that the present mayor has used very little of the potential influence of the position because he's had no influence in government.

Question: Are you expecting to fight him as the Labour candidate?

Simon Hughes: It would be odd if the Labour Party, having accused Ken of breaking his word, then broke their word by letting him back having said 'you're expelled for five years'. It shows a sign of nervousness in both camps Labour and Ken - in fact I know there is.

It's not inevitable that Ken is going to sail to victory this time. He's not the folk hero that he was four years ago. He's a recently tried and tested politician.

Question: What are some of the things you are going to be fighting your campaign on?

Simon Hughes: Well, London should do its major events well and in an inclusive way. Some have not bee done at all well, like New Years Eve. There should be no doubt that this year there should be a party that gives London some credibility in the eyes of the world.

We've funded an event for St Patrick's Day but done nothing for the other three quarters of the United Kingdom. There should be a St George's Day event and if I'm in office I'll offer equal funding for St Patrick's, St David's and St Andrews. The four home country's should surely have a stake in the calendar of the capital city.

Question: What else is on the agenda?

Simon Hughes: We should be able to run our Tube and our trains later on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. If you live in outside central London you should be able to come into town for a late show or whatever. If we're going to change the licensing laws then we have to become a modern city.

We can't become an all night city but we can find some extra hours. It would increase the sense of public transport being there for the people not the other way round.

Question: Will you give up being an MP if you win?

Simon Hughes: That's a question for the day after the election rather than nine months before as it's hypothetical. It's an option. there are two precedents; Ken Livingstone and then people like David Trimble and people in the EU. And the prime minister who is also a constituency MP.

Question: What's your analysis of the media stories on Charles Kennedy's leadership? Is it an issue generated by the media?

Simon Hughes: The problem is that the media have had their own agenda about that. We are doing well as a party. Doing well is not what they would like as a political development given we are persistently higher in the opinion polls since the party was formed in 1988. We are becoming a threat. It's been media-led, rather than party colleagues-led. The leader is clear, I'm clear and colleagues are clear we all have to make sure there is no occasion for the media to get distracted.

We all have to be focused on the objectives, that we perform well, that we come up with lots of good ideas and don't allow space for that kind of speculation. If there's a vacuum then it gets filled.

Charles is a very good leader indeed. His strategy is very clear. The public like him - he's popular out there among people who don't like their politicians to be packaged. We want to support him and there's no reason to think that we can't do well at the next election. I hope the slightly unhappy couple of months are over. I've noticed Charles is firing on all cylinders and appearing on all outlets. That's good news all round.