Member

I turn now to a number of points raised during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised concerns that the guidance might be seen as vague. While I understand that he may believe this guidance is too broad, in our view, it should not be overly prescriptive. Significant influence or control are not binary concepts. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, outlined, better than I can, why an element of judgment might be required. Were the guidance to include numerous exhaustive examples, in our view it would fetter the regulator’s discretion. This is why we provide broad concepts of significant influence or control alongside football-specific examples, mirroring the approach taken in the Companies Act guidance. It would be impossible to capture every single scenario, which is why it has been drafted in this way.