Peter Weir
Strangford · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Funding was secured for that scheme, and we have been able to take further steps on it. As highlighted by my colleague Diane Dodds, we have seen my successor, the current Minister, be able to implement it at the beginning of September 2021 and funding be made available for it.”
“One of the great fears — I saw it particularly, as Education Minister, from the point of view of children and the domestic setting between partners — was what was going to happen in families when the doors closed and the locks went on. What was happening behind closed doors?”
“There is another significant element of the Bill. I have spoken about it in the Chamber on a couple of occasions. There is always a slight danger that we, as legislators, see legislation as being the end of a process and think that we can pack it away, put it on the shelf and forget about the problem because it has been solved.”
“I welcome the passage of the Bill's Final Stage and commend all the campaigners who have pressed so hard for it and the Bill sponsor. For Pat Catney, hearing some of the tributes must be like hearing eulogies at your funeral, without having to go through the indignity of dying, which is always a double advantage.”
“As highlighted by a number of Members, the impact of period poverty, though not confined to it, has been particularly acute in young women's education. We know that the impact can lead to the missing of education and constraints within education, and that it does so in a disproportionate way.”
“I support the Bill's Final Stage, and I commend the Bill's sponsor for introducing it. I thank the Minister and the Department for the positive attitude that they have taken towards it.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,831 lines we hold for Peter Weir, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 77.
“I have listened to the debate, and I have no desire to get into questions of the whys and wherefores and to either second-guess or impugn the motivation of the Department or the Minister, but, having listened to the rationale, I am not particularly convinced of the merits of that level of delay. We would have been in a better position had we reached the point where the amendments did not have to be brought forward and had what seemed to be a relatively settled position in 2015 been simply honoured by way of commencement.”
“In many ways, there was a certain level of disappointment that there was a need for the Member to table the amendments, because, I believe, the position on preliminary investigations that we unanimously reached in 2015 — at least, those of us who were here in 2015 — was reasonably balanced. <BR /> <BR />I have listened to the debate, and I do not want to go too far into the exchange between the Minister and the proposer of the amendments about the failure to commence the legislation from 2015. It is disappointing. We appreciate that, when the House passes legislation containing commencement provisions, it sometimes can commence immediately on Royal Assent, and, at other times, it can take a bit longer. It somewhat beggars belief that the legislation has not been commenced six and a half years later.”
“I am tempted to say, "I rise to speak", but that may be the wrong terminology given my circumstances. At the start of my contribution, I declare an interest as a non-practising member of the Bar. I cannot and do not claim to have the eminence of the proposer of the amendments. The proposer of the amendments has been eminent in the law for many years; to paraphrase, he was eminent at the Bar before my arrival was imminent. In my short period at the Bar, I never reached the dizzy heights that the Member who proposed the amendments reached, though, once during my pupillage, I served under him. <BR /> <BR />When it comes to the amendments, I appreciate the departmental amendment. It is fairly uncontroversial, and I do not think the House will spend a great deal of time probing it on the basis that everyone accepts it.”
“I thank the Minister for her statement. I welcome the step forward that has been taken today and join others in appealing to anyone who has information on the Dorrian case, the Murray case or, indeed, any of the myriad of cases, in which such heartache is being caused to the families by not even knowing where the remains of their loved ones are, to come forward, even at this late hour. In terms of the centrality of the position of victims' families, are there any plans to have a bespoke and focused role and input for victims' families, either in the consultation or as we move forward with the legislation?”
“<BR /> <BR />Given time constraints, I have not been able to go into the contributions in more detail, but I welcome everybody's contribution. Today's debate has been useful in considering the important outworking of NDNA and, as a number of Members highlighted, the need for full implementation of what is there directly in legislation. If we take an optimistic approach, it at least marks another milestone in the development of the structures of the Assembly. On behalf of the Committee, I ask Members to support the motion.”
“<BR /> <BR />A number of Members highlighted the issue of balance, particularly in the context of enhancement. Gerry Kelly, going back to recommendation 1, talked about the need to ensure that opposition is neither incentivised nor disincentivised. We saw contrasting approaches to the issue of how we get the balance in resources. Gerry Kelly highlighted the need for affordability and said that that has to be taken into account when considering resources. Jim Allister made a different point about affordability and talked about the need to ensure that, financially, there is a high level of support so that we do not simply do this by half measures but ensure that it is done in a proper fashion. The detail of that will be taken forward.”
“Similarly, across the board, there has been a broad welcome for the report, although Members have, in different forms, included certain caveats, such as whether it goes far enough. Some Members were perhaps more enthusiastic about particular aspects than others. <BR /> <BR />A number of Members — Colin McGrath, Kellie Armstrong, Robbie Butler and, perhaps most pertinently, Jim Allister — highlighted the limitations of our current system and the need to at least move forward. <BR /> <BR />Kellie Armstrong and Andrew Muir highlighted the need for swift implementation of the report and said that this is not simply a challenge for the Assembly but that there needs to be a change of approach, which will be challenging for our Civil Service as well.”
“There was also the safeguard in that that would require the approval of the House. <BR /> <BR />Colin McGrath highlighted, as did a number of Members, the fact that this was a step towards a greater level of maturity. It was acknowledged across the board that this is not a panacea for all issues. Whether people see it as a significant step or baby steps, most Members indicated that they welcomed it.”
“Before I reflect on some of the contributions, I acknowledge the kind remarks of Members in a personal capacity. I also acknowledge, on behalf of the Committee, the diligence and rigour of Trevor Reaney in the work that he did in difficult circumstances. <BR /> <BR />Subject to the motion being agreed by the Assembly, the outcome of the review will be an enhancement of the entitlements of an official Opposition for the development of our model of government and delivery on the applicable NDNA recommendations. <BR /> <BR />I will turn briefly and thematically to the contributions. The Chair of the Committee on Procedures highlighted the Committee's reflection on what might not necessarily require direct changes and what would require changes to Standing Orders.”
“As we move forward with what can be completed in this mandate, which will principally be some of the procedural aspects, and look ahead to the next mandate, it is important that we strike a fair balance for everyone. I commend the report to the Assembly and look forward to hearing Members' contributions to the debate.”
“We also need to be careful, however, because we are not in a normal situation. I am conscious of the need for balance not simply between Government and Opposition but among parties. As someone who has served in most capacities in the Chamber — as Back-Bench Member, Committee Chair and Minister — I see that a balance of resources among parties is important in order to ensure that, whether you are in the Opposition or a Back-Bench Member of a party in the Government, a particular advantage is not given to you. <BR /> <BR />It is therefore important that the detail of the procedures and the financial aspects be drilled down into so that we have that balance and so that being in opposition is neither incentivised nor disincentivised. It is about trying to be fair to all 90 Members and all parties in the Chamber.”
“The report does not simply build on NDNA but seeks to implement the legislative proposal in John McCallister's private Member's Bill from a previous mandate on Opposition entitlements. To a certain extent, the recommendations bring us closer to a form of normalisation, but it is important that, in moving forward — the detail will largely be brought forward by the Assembly Commission and the Committee on Procedures — we seek always to strike a balance. I think of the overriding recommendation, in recommendation 1, that an Opposition should be neither incentivised nor disincentivised. <BR /> <BR />That is true of the procedural and financial aspects. Procedurally, it is important that an Opposition be given their place and opportunity and, similarly, that they be adequately resourced financially.”
“The Committee, however, concurs with the Assembly Commission's view that there is not a convincing case for a salary cap to be included in a revised FAPP scheme, as parties assign differing priorities to the activities that are funded under the FAPP scheme. Otherwise, the Committee supports the recommendations on financial assistance, as well as recommendation 18 on access to information. <BR /> <BR />As Chair, I conclude by confirming that, subject to the motion's being agreed, the Committee will take forward recommendations 3, 11 and 18, the implementation of which will fall to the AERC or, given the timing, its successor in the next mandate. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other Members to the debate. <BR /> <BR />I will make some brief remarks on my own behalf and that of the DUP.”
“Members discussed whether, on the one hand, the proposed level of financial uplift would be adequate to provide for an effective official Opposition and whether, on the other hand, it would incentivise parties to go into opposition, which would be contrary to recommendation 1. Arising from the discussion, the Committee acknowledged the basis on which Mr Reaney calculated the proposed increase in resources and agreed that recommendation 12 should be approved by the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />As I alluded to earlier, the Committee supports part of recommendation 14, which advocates detailed guidance on the funding conditions associated with the financial assistance for political parties (FAPP) scheme.”
“Although Mr Reaney did not make a recommendation in his report on addressing that anomaly, the Committee agreed that it would call on the Assembly to approve recommendation 6, with the exception of enhanced speaking rights for Matters of the Day. I should point out that, when the report was being drawn up, the new format of Members' Statements had not appeared. As with Matters of the Day, we do not believe that the procedure falls into the category of Government business, to which enhanced speaking rights attach. <BR /> <BR />The third group deals with the financial assistance for an official Opposition and comprises review recommendations 12 to 17. Particular consideration was given to recommendation 12, which contains the proposed increase in resources.”
“The second group comprises review recommendations 6 to 11, which cover procedural entitlements. Again, the Committee calls for the Assembly to approve the implementation of those recommendations, save for one aspect of review recommendation 6, which I will explain briefly. Mr Reaney, when presenting his report to the Committee last June, highlighted an anomaly in the current arrangements for Matters of the Day whereby an official Opposition would be entitled to be first contributor after the tabling Members. Mr Reaney pointed out that Matters of the Day are designed not to be on Government business and are, therefore, not an occasion for holding the Executive to account.”
“The Committee commends those five recommendations for formal adoption by the Assembly. In particular, the Committee saw as fair and balanced the guiding principle in review recommendation 1, which states:”
“The Committee also invited responses from the Assembly parties and independent Members. The responses that were received have been reflected in and appended to the Committee's report. <BR /> <BR />Turning briefly to the Committee's consideration of the review recommendations, I highlight upfront that the Committee is generally supportive of the proposals that Mr Reaney has brought forward. The Committee, in setting out its position on each of the review's recommendations, has focused on their practical implementation. There are just two fairly minor exceptions regarding recommendations 6 and 14, which I will come to in a moment. <BR /> <BR />The 18 review recommendations fall under three main groupings. The first group comprises recommendations 1 to 5, which are of a general nature.”
“The terms of reference for the review were subsequently agreed between the Committee and the Assembly Commission, and, following a public procurement exercise, the Committee appointed Mr Trevor Reaney, former Clerk to the Assembly, as the independent person to undertake the review exercise. Mr Reaney's review exercise included research and consultation phases, with the latter involving extensive engagement with the political parties and independent Members. <BR /> <BR />Following receipt of Mr Reaney's report, and in accordance with the review's terms of reference, the Committee sought responses from the Assembly Commission and the Committee on Procedures on, respectively, the financial and procedural implications arising from the review recommendations.”
“Clearly, the NDNA recommendations anticipated additional financial support for parties forming an official Opposition. Therefore, the key questions for the review to address were, essentially, these: what should be the level of financial assistance, and what, if any, adjustments or enhancements should be made to the existing procedural arrangements? <BR /> <BR />Following liaison between the Committee and the Assembly Commission, on 13 October 2020, the Assembly passed a resolution referring to the Committee the responsibility for taking forward the review.”
“"Rise" might be slightly inappropriate terminology, but, on behalf of the Committee, I am happy to move the motion. I do not intend to go into the details of the report's recommendations. Others will have the opportunity to do so. The details are self-explanatory, but I will highlight some key aspects of the proposals in a moment. It is also important to give Members a bit of the background to the report. <BR /> <BR />With reference to the second limb of the motion, the Committee's report stems from the applicable recommendations in New Decade, New Approach (NDNA), which states, amongst other things:”
“Make sure that you make that early intervention, see your GP, go to the minor injuries unit and get things dealt with at an early stage. If you do that, there will be better consequences for you and the health service.”
“As politicians, we are often accused, on social media and elsewhere, of being two-faced or hypocritical. This is an occasion on which I hold my hands up and admit that I am saying, "Do as I say and not as I did". I urge people to learn from my situation: if they have a concern over the development of symptoms of any level, they should not simply dismiss them and be negligent. Instead, they should take early action, because doing so is of deep benefit to the health service through saved costs down the line. Furthermore, for anybody who is in that position, whether it is diabetes or any other potential issue, early action could be critical to the extent of any injury to you and may ultimately save your life. Therefore, I urge people to not, as I said, do as I did and instead to learn from my lesson and ensure that they do as I say.”
“On the first day, I was diagnosed as a diabetic, having previously been undiagnosed. That led to a much more rapid spread of infection. I required an operation on my foot, which resulted in the amputation of one toe and the removal of infected tissue. That has meant that, for the next number of weeks, I will be in a wheelchair. Important as that is, had it not been for the skills of the staff in those institutions, it could have been a lot worse. <BR /> <BR />Reflecting on my own role, although they may not have been glaringly obvious, there were some signs of potential symptoms. I took a slightly negligent route by ignoring them and, as a lot of us tend to do, saw things happening to me and put them down to age, which was wishful thinking.”
“Forgive me for not rising. I thank Members from across the Chamber for their very kind sentiments and messages on the passing of my mother; they were greatly appreciated. <BR /> <BR />The subject that I want to talk about today is the value of early intervention in health, the benefit of that to the health service and to patients and the benefit of patients being proactive in their approach to their own health. I will use myself as an example. Just over a month ago, I developed a small cut on one of my toes, which led very quickly to an infection in my foot. I was admitted, first to the Ulster Hospital and then the Royal Victoria, and I am thankful for the care that I received in both those establishments and for the skill of the surgeon who operated on me.”
“The Minister specifically mentioned waste management. How have recycling rates been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic?”
“<BR /> <BR />There are question marks over the value of this legislation and over the detail. Some of that is, as I indicated, about things like state aid or the electricity directive. There are initial concerns that will need to be teased out, but I question whether what we see today will be fit for purpose to be finally proposed as legislation when it comes to the end. I will wait to hear what others have to say during the debate, particularly the response to some of those points from the legislation's sponsor and from the Minister. However, there is a level of scepticism, and we believe that the Bill is considerably flawed at this point.”
“There is existing provision here and in Great Britain, and the regulator approves the price that is offered to microgenerators annually. There is an opportunity to make the arrangements similar to those in GB, where the small export guarantee scheme to microgenerators requires that a zero price be offered. Consequently, there are opportunities for generators as well. It means that the question is this: is this trying to do something that is not particularly necessary? We are edging closer and closer to 5%. While the Member quoted an older figure of 3·4%, I suspect that, today, the figure is probably a lot closer to 5%, if it is not above that. That leads to the question of why it is needed now, particularly in light of the energy strategy that is about to be produced by the Department.”
“<BR /> <BR />On the broader element of the energy market — it has been very prescient over the past number of days — we have seen hikes in energy costs and the pressure on consumers has grown greater. Therefore, we need to question whether we should take actions that will further pressurise consumers. We also know that those costs bear down most severely on vulnerable customers who can afford them least. If we look at the connection costs for those in remote areas, those who are in poverty and those who live, perhaps, where multiple connections are needed, we see that, sometimes, those people bear the greatest costs. We also need to tease that out. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I want to speak about the route to market and, indeed, the existing provisions. A figure of 3·4% was mentioned, but I suspect that that figure is now higher.”
“Again, the question is whether the Bill breaches existing law because of its interference with, or contravention of, articles 5 and 9. <BR /> <BR />I turn now to the impact of the Bill. We are aware that the costs are ultimately passed on to consumers. We also know that the analysis of the Utility Regulator would note that small-scale generation and microgeneration has been four times more expensive to incentivise through the one-off costs for the initial connection to the grid and the ongoing costs, and there is a danger that that proportion of electricity would be produced at a much more expensive rate. The reality is that companies will look to pass those costs on to consumers. We need to get assurances about that as well.”
“<BR /> <BR />Leading on from that is the pre-existing electricity directive. Article 5 of that directive states:”
“What I would say about the Bill and the electricity directive is that restrictions are currently placed on Northern Ireland, particularly state aid restrictions, because of the protocol. I would be happy to do a deal with the Member if he wanted to join with some of the rest of us and say that, to alleviate those fears, he would support sweeping away the protocol so that Northern Ireland is not put in that restrictive position. If that were the case, I would wholeheartedly back the Bill. <BR /> <BR />While that creates an opportunity, it would mean that we would need to tease that out with the state aid unit in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. We are not saying that it is necessarily a very clear-cut breach of state aid rules, but it may be. Consequently, that is a concern.”
“Concerns have been raised about whether it breaches state aid rules. It envisages a subsidy for the production of electricity. While that may not necessarily be direct government funding, nevertheless, it could be interpreted as state aid under article 10 of the protocol.”
“I completely concur. I was going to come to that point later. <BR /> <BR />We need to look at the timing and overall context of the Bill. As the Member conceded, the Department has been working on an overall energy strategy, of which microgeneration is one component. The Member indicated that that strategy is due to be published before the end of this year; indeed, it may be only a few weeks away. Dealing with one small aspect of it is putting the cart before the horse. It would have been an awful lot better if microgeneration had been put in the overall energy strategy. The Bill is a micro solution, but we need a macro solution. That is one of its weaknesses. <BR /> <BR />There is considerable concern about where the Bill will lead on state aid. I will be interested to hear the Minister's views on that later.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Member summed up how he sees the lie of the land quite well when he said that the Bill asks for a, b and c today and that it will be thrown to the Department to do d, e, f, g, h, i and whatever. It is, therefore, somewhat disingenuous to say that the Bill costs the public purse nothing. Its passage may not immediately create a bill, but there will undoubtedly be a major cost to the public purse in effectively indicating to the Department the expectation that a tranche of regulations and schemes will be brought forward.”
“There is no doubt that there are good intentions behind the Bill. No one will argue against the concept of microgeneration or the greater use of renewables that will reduce the pressure to use carbon. It is an entirely environmentally friendly Bill. In bringing it forward, the Member has very much embraced the spirit of recycling: the Bill's wording is the same as that used by his colleague in the Dáil. It therefore did not have a great production cost in Northern Ireland. No one will disagree with the intentions behind the Bill, but, as the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. To that extent, I have considerable concerns over aspects of the Bill that, should it pass today, we would want to tease out. There are also a number of flaws.”
“I thank the Minister for her response. As we all know, children have, in many ways, borne the brunt of the pandemic, and children with special educational needs may have had the toughest times during the past year or two. What additional support is being provided for SEN pupils, particularly in COVID recovery plans?”
“The all-party group on autism has also investigated that issue. Given the vast expenditure that government makes each year across the board on everything, it can be delivered effectively and efficiently for amounts of money that, within the public purse, are not enormous. It is critical that we get that uniformity of training and support. <BR /> <BR />I appreciate that the Committee will want to take its time to see if the Bill requires any fine-tuning, but this is an excellent start. It is not the finished point, as we said, because legislation should be seen not as a single act but as part of a process. We are taking a strong step forward today in what, I think, will be universal support for this excellent Bill.”
“Plan A did not work, but plan B has been a lot more successful. Despite some of the problems that there have been, such as COVID, plan B has worked well and provided an excellent resource to families with a family member with autism. It met the challenges of the pandemic. Through Middletown, we even saw an expansion of the availability of training resources during the pandemic. There is great value in direct face-to-face training, but I suspect that, in a pandemic or post-pandemic world, there is, increasingly, a need to take advantage of a lot of online courses and the opportunities to expand that. There are others who are more expert than me on the subject to dictate what the best form of training is, but it is critical that training is made available to all who need and want it and is done on a cross-public sectoral basis.”
“<BR /> <BR />Finally, clause 2 talks about the need to expand training in the public service and ensure that that is done consistently. Again, while I think that good efforts have been made by successive Ministers of whatever Department to ensure that there is joined-up thinking, the criticism that is often levelled at government in Northern Ireland — probably not just in Northern Ireland — is a tendency of public bodies, including Departments, to operate with a silo mentality. This can be something that draws together best practice. In these things, best practice is not necessarily always what is initially thought of. I think of the Middletown Centre for Autism, which, I know, a number of Members have visited down the years. It is in a very different shape from what was envisaged a number of years ago.”
“<BR /> <BR />Secondly, it is important that the issue of early intervention services is put up starkly in the Bill and made a key component of it. Coming from a broadly educational background, I know the value of early intervention in a range of activities. If we are being cynical, from a state resource point of view, the earlier the intervention to make those early changes, the less we will have to put in the high-level resources to cope with a problem that has been exacerbated and has developed. That is the broad government focus, but it is also an important focus and crucial to the individual because the sooner help can be given, the more that can be used to support that individual's life. For all of us, making that difference to the individual is critical.”
“Undoubtedly, today, despite any of the concerns that have been raised, we are in a much better position regarding diagnosis and knowledge of it than we were in a generation ago. From that point of view, while improvements can be made to the provisions that we make for our children with autism, one of the major gaps is that there are generations that have gone before us where the level of knowledge and the level of detection of autism was not the same. That is where the identification is in clause 1. We see people who have been established as having had autism throughout their life but have perhaps been identified only in the past few years. Probably, in some cases, they are still unidentified. The gathering of data and that focus on the older population, of which I am a part, is critical. That is an important element of this.”
“For all of us, for good or ill, in autism, the game has moved on. I will come to that in a moment. <BR /> <BR />The key emphases in the Bill are on plugging gaps and ensuring that that level of implementation is followed through. For instance, in the audit of data, we see the requirement for Departments to work together. We see in clause 3 the measurements that are there. Clause 5 provides for an autism reviewer. It is all about ensuring that best practice and best implementation actually happens. Ensuring that it happens is one of the major reasons why it is a good Bill. <BR /> <BR />I talked about the game moving on, and, while there can be concerns about the speed of implementation at times, one of the positives that we have seen in the past number of years has been a growing awareness and recognition of autism.”
“As I said, as somebody who is unmarried, I do not want to get too much into marriage overload, but I take the point. <BR /> <BR />All of us can be guilty of looking at legislation and saying, "That is it done. That is it put in a box", and then forgetting about it. It is actually about implementation, and the Member is right to make that analogy about it. That is very much where the focus of the Bill is. To be fair, nobody doubts that the Autism Act of 10 years ago is good legislation, but, even if there was good implementation of a good Bill and all the vows had been faithfully maintained, there are changing circumstances. As my late friend and colleague Gordon Dunne was fond of saying in what was almost a catchphrase of his in particular circumstances, "The game moves on".”
“As somebody who is unmarried, maybe I am the wrong person to draw this analogy, but it is a bit like seeing the wedding day as the be-all and end-all of a marriage without looking at the work that needs to be put into a marriage. As the vast majority of marriages do not end on the wedding day, although the odd one probably does, marriage requires a considerable amount of work. Similarly, with legislation, there is a need to nurture it. That is the case on two fronts. First, from the point of view of —.”
“I support the Bill. I will not go into detail on it. A number of Members have done that, and I do not want to reiterate what they have said. However, I will make a few comments on the general flow of this. First, it is right to place on record my congratulations to my colleague Pam Cameron and to those involved in the all-party group on autism. The Bill is a fine example of how an all-party group, working alongside, in this instance, the autism sector, can deliver something that is productive and focused. <BR /> <BR />A trap that most, if not all, in the House fall into with legislation is that we sometimes believe that it is the end point. We see changes to the law as being the solution to a particular problem, and then we move on.”
“I come from very much the same side of the argument as the Member, but, factually, Mrs Dobson's Bill passed its Second Reading in the House. At that point, clinicians raised considerable concerns about the content of the Bill. There was no further vote on the Bill, and Mrs Dobson withdrew it.”
“I welcome those remarks. There is an old saying, although I do not know what culture it is from, that you are truly dead only when those whose lives you have touched in your lifetime are also dead. Is that not shown particularly in organ donation whereby we see people whose lives would otherwise have been cut short living on?”
“I would not like to see a situation in which my family said no, which is why I have had the conversation with my family. <BR /> <BR />We last debated legislation of this kind about six years ago. One of the elements of reticence about what was then, effectively, the embryonic Welsh model was about whether, from a practical point of view, it would lead to more or fewer donations. In many ways, we have scoped that out. The Welsh system's legislative changes had an impact, but one of its by-products was that it stimulated conversation among families. Does the Member agree that that communication among families will be, in many ways, as significant as the legislative changes in raising the issue?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I join her in strongly supporting the Bill. She makes a very valid point about those who are in mourning because they have just lost a loved one. That is an incredibly stressful time for families. It can lead to very difficult conversations at times between clinicians and families. We need to ease that conversation in terms of where the clarity lies in the Bill, and, very specifically, we need to encourage that level of communication between potential organ donors and their families. That is critical. As someone who has signed up to the organ donation register, I do not know whether a long line of clinicians will be there for any of my organs, but I will leave that to their professional judgement.”