I am grateful for that indication. The noble Baroness has my original position and we on the Front Bench have the points which she wishes to raise in any such meeting from the official record and from the note taken.
Concerning Amendment 83, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has explained that this proposed new clause seeks to ensure that the established duties under the Children Act 1989 are not undermined by the requirements of the Bill. On a point of drafting which goes to the heart of the amendment, the proposed new clause refers to the Secretary of State’s obligations, duties and responsibilities under the Children Act 1989, whereas the 1989 Act is principally about the duties and functions of local authorities and the courts. As I have indicated, the Bill does not alter local authorities’ existing statutory duties in relation to unaccompanied children, so in practice Amendment 83 does not take us any further forward or change the current legal framework, and there is a risk that, in seeking to clarify the current law, the amendment will sow confusion and doubt.
Amendment 83A calling for guidance, which was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, would require the Secretary of State for Education to issue guidance to local authorities and others with duties and responsibilities under the Bill. There is already a wealth of guidance available to local authorities and others, notably Working Together to Safeguard Children, which is the core statutory guidance for all organisations, agencies and
individuals involved in safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in England. We will work with the Department for Education to ensure that any relevant guidance is updated as necessary to reflect the journey of children under the provisions of this Bill. I submit that it would not be helpful to issue freestanding guidance in the way envisaged by the amendment against that background of existing guidance.
The provisions in Clauses 15 to 20 provide clarity under the law. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord German, I think, about the devolution point towards the end of our discussion. On the issue of the geographical extent of accommodation and the transfer powers in Clauses 15 to 18, the noble Lord pointedly said that this applies to England and not anywhere else—I think he put it more pithily yet. The provisions will initially apply to England but the Bill includes a power by regulation to apply them to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These provisions relate to immigration, including asylum, which are reserved matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and therefore matters for the UK Government. I am not able at this time to provide specific details on the operation of these powers, including regulations or timings. I think we can as a Committee agree on the importance of national distribution relating to the care of these children so that all parts of the UK pay their fair share.
These clauses are not a device by which the Home Office can take over the long-established responsibilities of local authorities for the care of unaccompanied children. If it is necessary for the Home Office to provide for the accommodation of children who meet the conditions in Clause 2, this will be, as I said earlier, for the shortest possible time. I have sought to reassure noble Lords about the need for these provisions and about how they will be applied. On that basis, and standing my commitments to correspond with noble Lords on a variety of matters, I ask the Committee to support Clause 15 standing part of the Bill.