We'll move on to our next group of amendments on public participation. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 111. I call on Mark Isherwood to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Mark Isherwood.

Amendment 111 (Mark Isherwood) moved.

Diolch. Thank you. Amendment 111 places a requirement on the Welsh Government to develop and issue guidance to local authorities to support them in achieving improved involvement, or 'participation' as currently drafted in the Bill. The term 'involvement' was proposed to us by external expert bodies working in the field of community engagement, empowerment and regeneration on asset-based and strength-based rather than deficit-based approaches. It's a commonly used term, widely accepted in the UK and beyond.

During Stage 1 proceedings, Electoral Reform Society Cymru stated that the Bill as drafted may lead to a patchwork of effectiveness at local authority level in enhancing participation or involvement. They also noted that the provision as drafted does not demonstrate the type of engagement or involvement the Welsh Government expects to see from local authorities.

They also noted that there is no specific role for the Welsh Government in imparting information and guidance to local authorities to support them in achieving improved participation or involvement. Amendment 112 therefore requires principal councils to involve connected authorities when encouraging public involvement in the making of decisions at all levels of local government. A lot of our amendments to this Bill as a whole are to embed the principles of co-production and asset-based community development within the Bill and therefore into the delivery of public involvement strategies, as well as the design and delivery of public services. I've heard many Members across the Chamber speak in favour of these principles; this is an opportunity for you to put them into practice in your own communities. Co-production is about building resilient communities' confidence and capacity. It's about seeing everyone as equal partners in local services, breaking down the barriers between people who provide services and those who use them, making everybody in your county hall your partner, not the decider of what you can or cannot have.

Co-producing public services with users and communities goes beyond the models of service-user consultation for better delivery of health, social services and other services for ageing populations, for people facing illness and disability, for the economically inactive and for those living in social isolation—very pertinent at the moment. It's about prevention and reablement via personal and community responsibility and localism. It's about sustainable social economic and community regeneration, and it also falls within the Welsh Government's stated policy approach. As the Building Communities Trust's new report 'Building Stronger Welsh Communities' states,

'Disconnect between Government, public bodies and communities is a barrier to community action, despite examples of cross-sector collaboration.'

People in Wales, they say, feel increasingly less able to influence decisions affecting their local area. Many community groups welcome Welsh Government's policy ambition to involve them more, but there's a feeling that worthy words are not being backed up by action. Referring to the findings of over 250 conversations with people from grass-roots community organisations across Wales, their report states,

'Groups still described deficit models towards communities dominating Government thinking and that public bodies are doing to, not with, people and communities.'

They also describe entrenched public sector ways of working, characterised by poor communication, lack of trust, risk aversion, silo working, professional bias and staff demotivation as significant barriers to greater community action.

During Stage 2, the Welsh Government removed similar provisions from the Bill in response to concerns from One Voice Wales at the then provision to require principal councils to encourage local people to participate in the making of decisions by authorities connected with the council would result in principal councils directing community councils while encouraging greater involvement in local decision making. This amendment therefore seeks to respond to these concerns by requiring principal councils to involve connected authorities when encouraging greater involvement in local decision-making processes. This would ensure genuine co-production between different bodies while encouraging greater involvement with local government. Improved collaboration between principal councils and connected authorities would also ensure that local strategies to encourage public involvement with local government is consistent, reflecting the concerns of the Electoral Reform Society Cymru.

Amendment 113 amends section 41(2)(f) to help encourage elected Members to use a wider range of media platforms to involve people in decision making. Currently, subsection (f) only requires elected Members to be aware of the benefits of using social media to communicate with local people. However, it must be recognised that many people do not have access to social media and it's therefore important that elected Members are aware of a wider range of media-related tools to involve local people and local community-based organisations. This amendment therefore incorporates but is not limited to social media in order to encourage elected Members to involve everybody in decision-making.

Amendments 114 and 116 require a principal council to determine a threshold for the number of signatures a petition needs to be debated by either a council committee or a meeting of full council. Whilst we welcome the provisions in the Bill to make a petition scheme, we believe the scheme must enable local people and local community-based organisations to be involved in the wider decision-making process. In a survey carried out by the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, 56 per cent of respondents said that the main barrier to engaging with the council was that they did not think their views would make any difference. Thus, by enabling petitions to be actively considered and debated by councils, the views of the community can be directly considered by elected members, allowing them to be involved in decision making. During Stage 2, the Minister supported the intention behind our previous Stage 2 amendment, but stated that,

'careful thought needs to be applied when placing any numerical limits in primary legislation.' 

This amendment, therefore, seeks to respond to the Minister's comments, and give principal councils the flexibility to decide on their local threshold, which should be designed by involving local people and local community-based organisations.

Amendment 115 further strengthens section 43—duty to make a petition scheme—by ensuring that principal councils actively promote their petition scheme, and to make it as accessible as possible. The Electoral Reform Society Cymru noted in their Stage 1 evidence to committee that petitions are also a good way to engage the public, but it's fundamental that transparent mechanisms are put in place within the process. They also highlighted concern that the Bill does not require local authorities to promote the petition scheme once established, asking who's going to inform voters that the scheme is up and running, who's going to measure its success and hold the local authority to account. Our amendment, therefore, addresses this.

Amendment 117 requires Welsh Ministers to publish guidance to principal councils on how the petition scheme is to function. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that there is some degree of consistency in the functioning of council petition schemes across Wales, meaning that the petition system is as accessible to as many people as possible. Diolch.

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.

Mark Isherwood to respond to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. Well, clearly I'm pleased to hear the Minister state that her officials are going to meet the Building Communities Trust. I hope that she will instruct them or invite them to ask them what the term 'involve' means. As I stated previously, this is a term widely utilised not only in the UK, but internationally, and its driving green shoots of credible programmes in many communities on the four corners of Wales and in between, whereas there's real concern about the misuse, overuse and misunderstanding of the term 'consultation' being used repeatedly as an alternative to co-production and co-productive words, in practice to improve lives and strengthen communities, when consultation is the barrier, because inevitably consultation is about rubber-stamping a decision that's already been made rather than designing and delivering services and other activities within and with local communities themselves. I look forward to the day—I hope I'll live to see it—when we have a Welsh Government that at last embraces the true meaning of this language and understands that it's not a threat. It's an opportunity to improve lives, improve prosperity, to connect people, and to tackle many of the things that we all raise in the Chamber weekly as genuine problems facing the people we represent.

The question is that amendment 111 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 111. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 18, three abstentions, 30 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 111: For: 18, Against: 30, Abstain: 3

Amendment has been rejected.

Amendment 112 (Mark Isherwood) moved.

Amendment 112 in the name of Mark Isherwood is formally moved. Any objections? [Objection.] Yes. Open the vote on amendment 112. Close the vote. In favour 18, six abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 112: For: 18, Against: 27, Abstain: 6

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 113 (Mark Isherwood) moved.

Amendment 113 is moved. Any objections? [Objection.] Yes. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 113. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 21, three abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 113: For: 21, Against: 27, Abstain: 3

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 114 (Mark Isherwood) moved.

Amendment 114 is moved. Any objections? [Objection.] Yes. We'll move to a vote on amendment 114. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 18, three abstentions, 30 against. Therefore, amendment 114 is not agreed.

Amendment 114: For: 18, Against: 30, Abstain: 3

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 115 (Mark Isherwood) moved.

Amendment 115 is moved. Any objections? [Objection.] Yes. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 115. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 18, six abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 115: For: 18, Against: 27, Abstain: 6

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 116 (Mark Isherwood) moved.

Amendment 116 is formally moved. Any objections? [Objection.] Yes. I will therefore open the vote on amendment 116. Close the vote. In favour 18, six abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed. 

Amendment 116: For: 18, Against: 27, Abstain: 6

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 117.

Amendment 117 (Mark Isherwood) moved.

Amendment 117 is moved in the name of Mark Isherwood. [Objection.] There is an objection. So, I will open the vote on amendment 117. Close the vote. In favour 18, three abstentions, 30 against. And therefore the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 117: For: 18, Against: 30, Abstain: 3

Amendment has been rejected