personal life of the councillor, then on the face of it there is a presumption that there is not necessarily a breach of the code.” In Paragraph 3.92 the Report noted that the Adjudication Panel for England made it clear that it operated a higher threshold in relation to ‘any other circumstance’ than might be implied by the Code. It believed that the circumstances should be sufficiently proximate to, or reasonably capable of being linked to or have a bearing on, the official capacity. 23. The government has responded by indicating that councillors should ‘set an example of leadership to their communities’ and that misconduct in private lives should only be within the code if it was unlawful. The Standards Board itself has broadly agreed with this response, but has suggested that, in addition to an unlawful act which has been dealt with by a conviction or the imposition of criminal sanctions (for example, I suppose, an anti-social behaviour order), it should include ‘an activity which may be seen as unlawful although no case has been brought’. It is not necessary to go into details any further for the purposes of this judgment. 24. Mr Maurici also draws attention to the undertaking entered into by the appellant on accepting office. This included the following:“I undertake that in performing the functions of that office I will observe the Greater London Authority’s Code of Conduct for the time being under Section 51 of the Local Government Act 2000.” This follows the wording of s.52 of the Act. The precise wording of any undertaking is immaterial since the Code can go no further in what it regulates than the Act permits. 25. Mr Morshead submits that Mr Maurici’s argument means that Paragraphs 4 and 5(a) of the Model Code are ultra vires in so far as they cover conduct beyond official capacity. While this does not mean that he is necessarily wrong, it is a point of considerable importance and some cases, including at least two which have gone on appeal to this court, may have been wrongly decided. The point has not hitherto been taken and did not seem to occur to Mr Maurici or those advising the appellant until a very late stage in the proceedings. 26. While it is true that there are no words of limitation in ss.49 to 51, the words in s.52 must have been intended to have some effect. I do not accept Mr Morshead’s submission that it means only that the member’s undertaking to abide by the Code is to last for so long as he has relevant functions to perform. If that is what Parliament had intended, it could easily have made it clear by using some such wording as ‘so long as he remains a member’. The expression ‘in performing his functions’ cannot in my view sensibly bear the construction suggested by Mr Morshead. There has always been concern about the extent to which a councillor should be subject to a code of conduct in his private life and it is not in the least surprising that some limitation should have been included in the Act. The approach in Scotland applies a limitation which is not the case in England. Although the Standards Board may apply a higher threshold, it is important that councillors should know what they can and cannot do and where the line is to be drawn. 27. Conduct which is regarded as improper and meriting some possible sanction will often be constituted by misuse of a councillor’s position. He may be purporting to perform his functions if, for example, he seeks to obtain an advantage by misusing his position as a councillor. Such misuse may not amount to corruption; it may nonetheless be seen not