European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Order 2009

I do not have the detailed wording in front of me. No, the reservation certainly covers health issues, but it is not limited to that. Again, I will look to the Box for some support on that later. I hope that it is clear that, while we consider it necessary to have a reservation in respect of the arrangements for social security benefit appointees, we intend to remove that reservation as soon as is practical. We anticipate that it will take at least two years before that is possible. Given the number of customers with appointees estimated at half a million, introducing a review system would be a huge undertaking and we need to make sure that we get it right. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, asked whether we should take the opportunity of the Welfare Reform Bill to ensure that the review system can be put in place. But at this time we do not think that we will need to make changes to primary legislation and have no plans to do so in the Welfare Reform Bill. Therefore, we believe that it is not necessary to have that in primary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked about the review and the timing of it. I have indicated that it could take up to two years. We are scoping the task at the moment, which is neither simple nor small, given that half a million people might be affected by it. Introducing the review system will be a huge undertaking, but it is important that we do it. A number of noble Lords expressed concern that we are proposing to make more reservations than other countries, and that this could jeopardise our standing with other countries or send a signal that the UK has concerns about the contents of the convention. However, the Government’s view is that comparisons cannot be made on the basis of the number of reservations and/or interpretative declarations made by other countries. Countries have different cultures, different ways of doing things and different legal systems and policies, which may raise different issues. Whether that is us being meticulous or pernickety I leave to noble Lords to judge for themselves, but we believe that it is the right approach. The issue was raised of the compatibility of domestic law with the convention, and of the reservations with the convention. The UK’s approach, and I make no apology for it, is not to ratify any international treaty until it can ensure that it can implement the provisions and therefore comply with the obligations that it has accepted. That is why government departments and the devolved Administrations have compared their policies, programmes, practices and procedures with the convention’s requirements. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, asked about the Government’s views on the compatibility of domestic law and practice with the terms of the convention. The Government took account of the requirements for reservations to be compatible with the object and purpose of the convention when considering the terms on which we were proposing to ratify, and we set out our rationale in the Explanatory Memorandum. The noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Maclennan, asked about compatibility with the convention and what these reservations mean. The UN convention allows for the making of reservations and interpretative statements so long as they do not defeat the object and purpose of the convention, so this is specifically provided for. We have considered the reservations and interpretative statement that the UK will be entering, and we are satisfied that they do not defeat the convention’s object or purpose.