questions of Mr Finegold, but, even if they could, they did not and could not reasonably have been regarded as being uttered in his official capacity. This was what is popularly known as doorstepping and any observations made in such circumstances are made outside official capacity. It would have been different if, for example, the appellant had been holding a press conference. I have no doubt that the Tribunal was correct and Mr Morshead has not sought to argue the contrary. Thus the failure to comply with Paragraph 2(b), which was alleged by the ESO, could not be made out. 21. Mr Maurici submitted that the effect of s.52 of the Act was to prevent a Code of Conduct from covering activities which were carried out in a member’s private life. This submission was not in his notice of appeal and so he needed leave to amend. Mr Morshead did not object to the point being taken since it depended upon the correct construction of s.52 and so amounted to a pure point of law. However, he did raise a slight reservation in that he suggested that, if I was persuaded by Mr Maurici’s argument, I should consider remitting the case to the Tribunal to decide whether the activities, while not in the appellant’s official capacity, could nonetheless be regarded as falling within the words ‘in performing his functions’, which are the important words in s.52. He did not pursue this reservation with any enthusiasm and, as will become apparent, I do not regard it as necessary or desirable to take that course. 22. Mr Maurici’s submission depends on the words ‘in performing his functions’. Their inclusion in s.52 shows, he submits, that Parliament recognised the need to limit the scope of Codes of Conduct and that it was not intended that they should affect what a member of a council did in his private life. There is, following the Tenth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm.6407, January 2005), consideration of amending the model code by removing the phrase ‘in any other circumstance’ from Paragraphs 4 and 5(a). The Tenth report contained a recommendation to that effect. In Paragraph 3.88 of the Report, this is said:“The relationship between standards of conduct by public office-holders acting in their official capacity, and conduct in their private lives has been a difficult and contentious issue over the years. The Committee in its First Report drew a significant difference between, for example, sexual misconduct and financial misbehaviour. We indicated that while rules could be usefully drawn up for the latter, they could not for the former. This has remained the case in all of its subsequent reports and recommendations. The Committee has concentrated on standards of conduct in respect of public, rather than private life except where private interests, financial or otherwise could give rise to a potential conflict of interest with an office-holders’ public role. The public attitudes research published by the Committee indicated that the public place a lower priority on public office-holders setting a good standard in their private lives than they do in respect of public conduct.” In Scotland, the rules of conduct apply to members only when they are acting as councillors including representing the council on official business. The reasons for this are explained by the Chief Investigating Officer of the Standards Commission for Scotland:“In Scotland the view has been taken that the misconduct must relate in some way to the activity of the person as a councillor. If there is a link, then you can apply the terms of the Code. If the misconduct relates purely to the