1. Mr Campbell asked for a meeting following receipt of the Commissioner's full report and my covering letter.

2. There were three matters which concerned him: an attempt by the Commissioner's office to contact him through his party Whips, despite a request that all contact be through his personal address as he wished to ensure the confidentiality of the investigation; the reference in the report to the possibility of using the rectification procedure, which he did not recall being put to him by the Commissioner in the course of his inquiry; and the arrangements for declaring interests in Select Committee. It was for these three reasons that he had asked to give oral evidence to the Standards and Privileges Committee.

3. On the first point, he explained that when he had raised the matter with the Commissioner's office, he had been advised to raise it with the Commissioner, which he thought odd, or with the Committee, as the body overseeing the Commissioner's work. As it appeared to me that there may have been an element of misunderstanding in the matter, I said that I would be happy to raise it with the Commissioner personally, to establish what had happened, rather than the point be put to the Committee in oral evidence. Mr Campbell agreed to this.

4. On the second point, Mr Campbell commented that he had approached the Commissioner's inquiry on the basis that, as the principal element of the complaint was palpably wrong, it was bound to fail, as it would in judicial proceedings. I responded that it had been the practice of successive Commissioners, endorsed by the Committee, that where potential breaches of the Code emerged in the course of the Commissioner's investigation of a complaint, to report on those even if the complaint had not been substantiated, in whole or in part. Mr Campbell responded that he had not appreciated this, nor had he been aware, before he saw the Commissioner's report, of the existence of the rectification procedure. Had he been, he would have wanted to explore with the Commissioner its potential as a way forward in dealing with the complaint.

5. I undertook to discuss the point with the Commissioner.

6. On the question of the delay, both in 2001 and 2005 in registering his interests both as a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and as a member of the city council of Londonderry, he accepted that on both occasions he had been late in doing so, and apologised. His nil return in 2005 had been an inadvertent mistake; there was no intention on his part to mislead as, at the material time, his membership of the council was public knowledge through the Northern Ireland Assembly Register of Interests, as he would be happy to demonstrate to the Committee.

7. On his failure to declare his membership of the city council at the evidence session on 29 November 2005, Mr Campbell questioned both whether there had been an opportunity and whether the interest was of sufficient relevance, given the very general nature of the evidence session. The Chairman had not called for any declaration of interests; the Review of Public Administration went much further than simply proposing changes to local government; and given that the proposals had only just been published, and were controversial, there was no prospect of the evidence session having a direct bearing on their implementation.

8. I commented that the expectation was that Members took the initiative in select committee evidence sessions in declaring relevant financial interests; it was not for the Chair to prompt this. Mr Campbell had asked four questions of the witnesses and the normal practice was to preface the first question with any relevant declaration. Mr Campbell said that he had not been aware that this was the proper practice.

9. On the relevance of the interest, I commented that it was clear that the RPA proposals on local government, if implemented, would have an impact on the council of which he was a member. As a present member he received allowances, and any reorganisation might impact on his continued membership. He therefore had a financial interest in the matter, and I expected that the Committee would agree with the Commissioner on this point.

10. Mr Campbell accepted that, given what I had said to him, he should have declared the interest and was willing to offer an apology to the Committee for his failure to do so.

11. As to the 7 December meeting, Mr Campbell accepted that he had been present for at least some of the meeting but was not certain he had been present when the Review had been discussed. I said that the Committee would indeed recognise that inclusion on the attendance list was not conclusive evidence of whether a member had been present for a particular item. I had therefore asked the Clerk if his unpublished records shed any light on this point, one way or the other; they did not.

12. Mr Campbell commented that, had he been present, he would have been unlikely to have declared the interest, for the same reasons as he had not done so on 29 November.

13. It was agreed that Mr Campbell would write to me drawing my attention to his concerns on the first two points set out in paragraph 2. He would write to the Chairman apologising for his failure to register, and to declare his interest at the 29 November evidence session.

14. In the light of the letters he was sending, Mr Campbell thought that he probably no longer needed to ask to appear personally. I noted this, and invited him to reflect overnight before giving me a firm decision.