Electoral Administration Bill

I can clarify that absolutely; they would become part of the normal process. I can see what the noble Lord was seeking to achieve, which his amendment has done with a clarification. In terms of evidence, we have deliberately sought to do this, as noble Lords can imagine, through affirmative order because we want to ensure that we have the opportunity to scrutinise the type of evidence which can be prescribed both in your Lordships’ House and the other place. We are in consultation with a number of different stakeholders; groups such as Refuge, Women’s Aid—and the Welsh and Scottish equivalents—and the Network for Surviving Stalking, as well as electoral administrators, to give us practical and helpful suggestions on how the scheme would work. Obviously, the police would also be involved. The evidence we have so far—and, therefore, the evidence we are likely to bring forward—will include a signed statement from a police officer, an injunction granted under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, or a non-molestation order granted under the Family Law Act 1996. We are also interested in talking to, for example, women’s refuge organisations about signatures from refuge managers. In other words, we are looking for concrete evidence—which I hope will address the point of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—that people have a genuine, sustained fear. It would be independent verification of that kind which is brought forward when we bring this to your Lordships’ House. As I say, however, we are still in consultation, because we need to make sure that we get this right. I hope that deals with the points that the noble Lord raised; both that of ensuring that people did not fall off the register, and the type of evidence we would use.