We now move to the short debate, and I call on Bethan Sayed to speak to the topic that she has chosen. Bethan.

As a republican, I, Bethan Sayed, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and swear my allegiance to the people of Wales from now until the end of my term of office, that I promise to faithfully discharge the duties of my office to protect and defend the welfare, the best interests and the rights of the people of Wales.

As a republican, I, Bethan Sayed, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and swear my allegiance to the people of Wales from now until the end of my term of office, that I promise to faithfully discharge the duties of my office to protect and defend the welfare, the best interests and the rights of the people of Wales.

This is the first time in this place that I’ve had an opportunity to express what’s on my mind and in my heart as a real pledge of allegiance. When we pledge allegiance, it is crucial that we believe in that oath. That is true in any part of life—it’s true in a court of law, it’s true in any conversation. This is what’s at the heart of trust. It’s crucial in the way that we represent people that we believe in what we say and that we, as representatives of the people, honour our beliefs. But, in Wales, when we take an oath in this place, many of us pledge allegiance to an institution that we don’t believe in, not through choice or malice or any attempt to mislead but because we are required to do so in order to take our seats here. In a way, we are threatened into taking an oath that we do not believe in and this is entirely unacceptable.

Now, some people have said—some people who aren’t in the Senedd any more—that this should not be a priority. They have asked why on earth am I raising something like this, which they would consider to be ostensibly meaningless. But I disagree with them entirely. This is a hugely important issue. When we take an oath, there are versions of oaths in every culture, and virtually every country in the world insists that members take oaths to maintain certain values and principles in public life. In the Assembly, we are required to adhere to the Nolan principles on public life, and morality is important, as are ethics, in almost every parliament throughout the world. These rules are in place because public expectation and opinion state that they are important, but it appears that there is no room for some Members, in their first act in this room, to pledge allegiance to something that they believe in.

This is what Members pledge to do currently, 'I—the name of the specific Assembly Member—pledge that I will be faithful to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, in accordance with the law. So help me God.' Well, I don’t believe in that statement. I am a republican and I am very proud of that fact. I do understand that not everyone is a republican and, of course, they have every right to disagree. I respect that. That is the true nature of democracy. But that respect should work both ways. I respect Members who wish to pledge allegiance to the Queen, although I don’t fully understand why they would wish to do that or agree with their desire to do so. But my desire, and that of several other Members, not to do that is not respected. It’s not respected either in Scotland, England or other nations where the Queen is the head of state, such as Australia and Canada.

What is strange about the oath is that arrangements are in place to take a different oath on the basis of one’s religious beliefs but not in terms of an oath to the monarchy. My belief makes it impossible for me to pledge allegiance to the Queen or her heirs because I don’t fundamentally believe in the institution that she represents. It doesn’t comply with my beliefs or the kind of Wales that I want to see for the future, but, again, if I am to sit in this particular seat, I have to do that, and it makes no sense at all to me.

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. 

I call on the Llywydd to reply on behalf of the Assembly Commission—Elin Jones.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you to Bethan Sayed for introducing a new and interesting topic for discussion here this afternoon. I am responding on behalf of the Assembly Commission, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to outline the current situation in terms of responsibilities and competence in relation to the oath taken by Assembly Members. The Government will also respond on its role and view in this regard.

So, at the moment, in accordance with the Government of Wales Act 2006, there is a requirement for every Assembly Member to take an oath or a similar affirmation within two months of election. The wording of the current oath, as stated by Bethan Sayed, is outlined in section 2 of the Promissory Oaths Act 1868. The Assembly has power to change certain sections of the Government of Wales Act 2006 but not the provision outlining the requirements in terms of the oath. The power to change the relevant section could be devolved, but this would require a Westminster Bill.

An alternative approach and a possibly simpler approach to transfer these responsibilities would be to make something called a section 109 Order. This could be used to change the Government of Wales Act in order to provide the legislative competence to the Assembly to change the oath. A section 109 Order would be placed before the Westminster Parliament and the Government here, and the consent of both Houses in the UK Parliament would be required as well as that of this Assembly. Standing Order 25.26 allows any Assembly Member to table a motion calling on the Welsh Government to introduce a proposed Order under section 109. Under Standing Order 25.25, any committee could also propose an Order under section 109.

However, the devolution guidance note published by the UK Government on Westminster legislation affecting Wales is clear on one matter, namely that the guidance states that the UK Government would expect negotiations to take place between the two Governments, because the 109 Order would have to come before Westminster and the Assembly and be brought forward by the two Governments. In a situation where a majority supported the transfer of the relevant power from Westminster to Wales, you would need a Bill in this Assembly to implement this power.

Of course, it's only the procedural issues that I've outlined to date. To implement any change to the oath, you would need to secure the political will and a majority through a vote to do that—in Westminster and in this Senedd.

It is clear that the topic of this debate has engendered some interest and has sparked a debate. It reminds me of that time in 1997, as mayor of Aberystwyth, when I changed the toast from a toast to the Queen to a toast to the people of Aberystwyth. But I did not need legislation or constitutional change to do that—just perseverance and a little persuasion.

My advice, therefore, to any Member who wishes to implement change of this kind, or any other change on any issue, is to hold positive discussions among Members in this place and the people of Wales, and across parties, of course, and to garner the support of a majority. Everything is possible, but only through garnering support.

Thank you. Can I now call the Deputy Minister and Chief Whip to reply on behalf of the Government? Jane Hutt.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to thank Bethan Sayed for bringing forward this short debate today. Being sworn in as an Assembly Member is one of the most important moments in our political careers. We can remember the times. I think there are nine of us who've actually been through this; three—four, five—in the Chamber today. Four of us who've been in this—no, five—. Anyway, we're here because it means a lot to us and to respect the fact that you've brought this forward. Interestingly, you're bringing it forward at a time when, next week, we'll be celebrating, marking, 20 years of devolution.

But it is an important time, in terms of being sworn in. It does mark that transition from being a politician to an Assembly Member, or continuing on, or succeeding others, and also continuing as an Assembly Member, serving our constituencies and the people of Wales, both here in the Senedd and at home. So, you have raised a number of very interesting, important issues, Bethan, in this short debate about the oath.

Responding to how Members take the oath, and the form of words they use, is not a matter for the Welsh Government, but I was pleased that the Llywydd did respond to the short debate as well this evening, laying out the current position regarding the procedural and legal issues concerning the topic of this debate. Diolch yn fawr. 

Thank you very much. That brings today's proceedings to a close. Thank you.

The meeting ended at 18:19.