But there are options for those of us who should be able to swear a different oath based on our conscience, but it would require a change to the Government of Wales Act at Westminster. Whilst I don't anticipate this happening tomorrow, if we don't discuss certain issues, then they certainly will never change. It's raising the profile of this issue and kick-starting a lively debate. It's already sparked minds and passions over this one week alone.

Across the world, there is a variety of options for a different oath—an oath to the people or country office holders represent. In the United States, there is a requirement to uphold, protect and defend the constitution—a very old document that nonetheless is designed to guide that country and espouses its founding governing principles. In Germany, language for office holders such as the Chancellor and other Ministers includes pledges to consider and protect the welfare of citizens. In France, there is a requirement to defend the republic and the values upon which it was founded.

In the north of Ireland, there is no requirement for an oath at all because of the sensitivities involved—we all appreciate that—but also because there is a recognition, due primarily to historical enmity, of the long-held beliefs of republicans. It would be impossible to force allegiance to the monarch in the north of Ireland without denying representation to a large proportion of the people there. This is also based upon the principle of many people in the north of Ireland not wishing to swear to something they fundamentally disagree with. But here there is no such recognition of wider views. Here, we have a threat hanging over us, 'Bend the knee, swear the oath, or don't be seated.' It does call into question how democratic our system truly is. Some would say we truly cannot be a democracy as part of a monarchical system, but that is a debate for another day.

Let's be clear about this, forcing me and others to swear allegiance to an institution we do not believe in in order to take our seats, here and in Westminster, shows that the United Kingdom establishment places adherence to an ancient and anachronistic tradition ahead of democratic norms. The fact we have a system in Westminster, which has been followed here, that bars republicans representing hundreds of thousands of people in the north of Ireland from taking their seats as an example of placing tradition above normal democratic expectations, and that isn't right. 

So, why should we be content with the system? Because it's the way it's always been done? Well, I reject this. One of the rationales I've heard from our current oath and swearing-in process also does not recognise democratic norms as most people would understand them. The National Assembly and other Parliaments of the UK exercise power on behalf of the monarch and at the discretion of the monarch, because the monarch chooses not to exercise their prerogative powers. Much of this is based on a mixture of long-standing procedures and laws that stretch back centuries. There are still laws and precedents influencing elected Governments and their relationship with the monarchy that stretch back to the English civil war or to precedents and powers exercised on behalf of the monarchy by Robert Walpole, the first Prime Minister, even though at the time that wasn't the formal title.

The outdated adherence to tradition for the sake of it demonstrates one of the fundamental and overlooked problems with the monarchy—the outsized power and deference given to an institution that does not have elected legitimacy. I'd be willing to bet that most people don't really know just how much power the monarchy actually has in theory but chooses not to use. It's one of the reasons we have our current oath: misguided deference to a political settlement that is well past time for review in a modern country, in a modern Wales.

So, what could a different oath look like? Well, I've asked for ideas on social media this week and the vast majority were constructive, and I myself have been surprised by the numbers of people who've contacted me offering their suggestions and ideas. A common theme running through the suggestions was obviously a commitment to the people of Wales, but also a commitment to better the lives of the people, to ensure their welfare, to act in their best interests, as we are elected to do, to consider decisions and act in a way that upholds the values of this institution, to transparency and honesty, and to protect the culture and language of Wales—a slew of ideas based on the principle that power should be derived from the people who put us here, not a monarch who deigns to devolve to us her divinely inherited power.

So, how about the oath I suggested at the outset? There are so many other forms this could take and, ultimately, what I'm concerned about is having the option. I'm not overly fussy or prescriptive about the actual wording. What I am fussy about is this fundamental point of principle, of putting the people of Wales at the heart of everything we do as AMs, from the minute we take the oath onwards. It's a clear statement of intent. It was great—. I'm hearing quite a lot of remarks from a sedentary position, but somebody hasn't asked me for a minute, so, with all due respect, please give me the chance to do my speech.

It was great to have engagement regarding this debate, proving that, unlike the suggestions of some people that this was not an issue anyone cares about, it was, in fact, something that very many people were very passionate about. There is a changing relationship among people in Wales to the monarchy, and I think that is becoming clearer now. We have to build support for a debate on our values here in Wales and whether or not we think the monarchy fits into those particular values. This is just the start. As we saw with the backlash over the renaming of the Severn bridge, people are not prepared to blithely accept something simply because there is a royal promotion attached to it. The tide is for the turning.

I don't think, in our Government and in our representative bodies, that we should just sit back and accept things the way they are, because then nothing will change in our lives. This is an area that should be reformed. It's the right thing to do. It's a relatively easy thing to do. I'm not asking to ditch the current oath to the Queen. Some would want to see that, but I'm not saying that. If we have an option not to do a religious oath, which is also fair, we should also have the decision not to do an oath to a royal family, a system that some of us simply do not believe in. Let's continue with this debate. Let's do that in a fair and open way, and let's respect each other's opinions when we come at this debate, because we are all different and we are all entitled to our opinions, and we all should be respected for those opinions, too. Diolch yn fawr iawn.