(2). Only paragraphs 2 and 8 of the Schedule to this Order shall have effect in relation to the activities of a member that are undertaken other than in an official capacity.” Paragraphs 2 and 8 of the Schedule provide:“2. Honesty and Integrity. Members should not place themselves in situations where their honesty and integrity may be questioned, should not behave improperly and should on all occasions avoid the appearance of such behaviour. 8. Duty to Uphold the Law Members should uphold the law and, on all occasions, act in accordance with the trust that the public is entitled to place in them.” 19. This Order was followed some six months later by the Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct)(England) Order 2001 (2001 No.3575). This Order applies to the Greater London Authority (GLA) (Paragraph 1(21)(d)) and provides that all the provisions of the Model Code set out in Schedule 1 to the Order are mandatory (Paragraph 2(2)). Schedule 1 applies to authorities operating executive arrangements and so to the GLA. Paragraph 1(2) provides:“An authority’s code of conduct shall not, apart from paragraphs 4 and 5(a) below, have effect in relation to the activities of a member undertaken other than in an official capacity.” The Tribunal decided that when he made the remarks the appellant was not acting in his official capacity. However, the ESO thought that he had been so acting. Accordingly, he faced allegations that he had contravened paragraphs 2(b) and 4 of the Code. These provided:“2. A member must … (b) treat others with respect. 4. A member must not in his official capacity, or any other circumstance, conduct himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrespect.” I should also set out paragraph 5(a), which provides:“A member must not in his official capacity or any other circumstance, use his position as a member improperly to confer on or secure for himself or any other person, an advantage or disadvantage.” 20. The ESO’s opinion was that ‘when responding to the questions of Mr Finegold’ the appellant was, albeit he was leaving the building after the reception, acting in his official capacity. The Tribunal did not agree since in its view official capacity meant that a member was conducting the business of the authority or the office to which he had been elected or acting as a representative of the authority. It is highly doubtful that the observations made by the appellant could properly be regarded as responses to the