I firmly believe that it should be as simple as possible for people to actively participate in local democracy, and that is what the provisions in Part 3 of the Bill will deliver. We are currently working with local government to develop the guidance that will support the implementation of these provisions. Having listened to the debate at Stage 2, I am keen to seek input from relevant bodies to ensure the guidance is well rounded and fully developed. For example, I am grateful to Members for raising the views and comments of the Building Communities Trust, and I can confirm my officials are meeting virtually with representatives of that trust later this week. 

I reject amendments 111 and 117, which propose further guidance provisions. Section 45 of the Bill already makes provision in relation to guidance and, as such, further guidance provisions are unnecessary.

I call on Members to reject amendment 112, which would require a principal council to involve community councils and national park authorities when it discharges its duty to encourage local people to participate in its own decision making. At introduction, section 46 included a duty on principal councils to encourage local people to participate in the decision making of these connected authorities. However, having listened to concerns expressed during Stage 1 committee evidence sessions regarding the appropriateness of such a duty, the Government proposed an amendment at Stage 2 to remove it. This amendment was agreed. I therefore consider this amendment goes against the concerns previously raised and responded to.

I cannot support amendment 113, which seeks to replace the term 'social media' with 'current and emerging digital and media platforms'. As stated at Stage 2, the term 'social media' is universally recognised, and I do not consider that changing the wording in the way suggested would be helpful. Indeed, I consider the amendment could even be unhelpful and make the provision less clear. 

Amendment 114 builds on the Member's Stage 2 amendment, in which he sought to specify the action to be taken where the number of signatures received for a petition reached certain thresholds. I am pleased the Member appears to have accepted my concerns about placing numerical limits in primary legislation, and this amendment does not include specific thresholds. Instead it requires councils to determine and publish the threshold needed for a petition to be debated by either a committee of the council or at a full council meeting. I do understand the intention behind this amendment. As I have mentioned, work is ongoing with local government to develop guidance, which will include details to support the implementation of petition schemes. This will include matters such as thresholds and process. My aim is to seek a balance between consistency of approach across Wales and local discretion. 

I also have a concern with this amendment as it refers to 'involve', without clarity as to what is being sought. As stated at Stage 2, if this is really a consultation requirement, the term 'consult' has a particular meaning in law that is well understood and used consistently throughout the Bill and other Welsh legislation. If this amendment was adopted, it would question the status of this and potentially other consultation requirements in this Bill and beyond. Whilst involvement is an outcome we are seeking to achieve, and the Bill contains many provisions that contribute to this, if we are to include provision requiring an authority to do something, it must be clear. I do not consider that the use of the term 'involve' in this context is clear. I therefore call on Members to reject amendment 114, and also amendment 116, which is connected to it.

Whilst I agree with the intention behind amendment 115, I cannot support it. Section 43 of the Bill requires a public participation strategy to address ways of promoting and facilitating processes by which local people may make representations to the principal council about a decision before and after it is made. I consider that this provision would include promoting the existence and operation of its petition scheme, and therefore do not consider the proposed amendment necessary or helpful. Diolch.