Is death devolved? Let me know.
"Gosh, is death devolved then?"
You really do get asked some weird and wonderful questions in this job, plenty of which - if they weren't rhetorical - I'm not sure I'd know how to start answering them.
In this instance, a conversation that started with the Welsh government's proposal that everyone's organs are available for donation when they die, unless they opt out, ended with a friend musing on her death and its relationship with Offa's Dyke.
I'll steer clear of reflecting on death and its dominion, let alone where exactly those particular 'levers of power' lie. But we do know the Welsh Government are confident of their legal position on this particular issue, that they believe they can press ahead with introducing 'soft presumed consent', as it's known, in Wales and certainly, questions in Westminster as to whether they do have the powers to press ahead have gone quiet lately. 'Gone quiet', note. Neither the Welsh government, nor I, know whether they've gone away.
Why change the law? Because Ministers believe it will lead to more organs becoming available in Wales, organs that would be donated not just to patients in Wales, but across the UK. It will, they believe, save lives and improve the quality of other lives -without dismissing the views of relatives. Their objections would be listened to and respected. They know there are experts who say, with some force, that the law change is well-intentioned but wrong, "madness" even. The Government has listened. That is why there has been a consultation.
There is something else too. I'll put in Labour's own words, as they appeared in the "Delivering for Wales" document last week: "This has widespread support and is a bold and visionary policy setting an example for the rest of the UK". In other words the government is keen on policy because ministers believes it is the right thing to do. The fact that it is an opportunity to do something first? Well, that is no bad thing either from where they're sitting.
So where does Brussels fit into this?
I went to Belgium because the organ donation system there is often held up as an example to follow. For the past decade at least, Belgium has appeared in Europe's 'top 5' countries whose donation rates other aspire to. It introduced presumed consent in the 1980s. The number of organs donated rose immediately but perhaps of more interest to us in Wales, suggest experts who've looked into this in some detail, is that they have remained high.
Success is one thing. How do you maintain it?
In the transplant centre in the "Clinique Universitaires Saint-Luc," Dominique Van Deynse, a transplant co-ordinator, described the law change to me as "a first step" - a key step in his view but only a step towards a system that works. The next steps are about co-ordination that is second to none and investment. No-one thinks twice about presumed consent, he said. Don't bother asking the patients about it. They won't have thought about the system. They just know they've getting (in this unit) the kidney they've been waiting for.
Take Jean Yves Bruyère. He was happy to chat to while away the last half hour before he was taken down to the operating theatre. A kidney had been flown in to Brussels in the early hours, he'd packed his bag and driven full speed to Saint Luc. "It is" he gestured towards heaven, "as if something's fallen from up there".
But if you think presumed consent means no more waiting, think again. Jean Yves had been waiting for some years for this kidney. Previous optimism had fizzled out and the bag had been unpacked.
And if you think presumed consent means as many organs as any nation might need, think again. Those who think a change in the law won't increase the rate of organ donation, who think it'll waste money, who are afraid it'll put people's backs up and put them off donating altogether, point to a key figure: you''ll find it here.
This one shows that Wales has reached an organ donation rate from those who've died that is higher than Belgium and it's done it without telling people they must "say no", or their answer to organ donation when they die will be read as a yes.
True, say campaigners but Belgium's rates of donation have been consistently high. In Wales we have to maintain that donation rate. They remain adamant that a change in the law would increase the number of organs available for transplant, cut the number of patients waiting, even dying, on transplant lists.
By the way I asked Dominique about religious leaders and their attitude to presumed consent in Belgium. He looked puzzled. Why are you asking? I explained that the Archbishop of Wales had made his objections to the legislation very clear. The General Secretary of the Presbyterian Church of Wales, on the other hand, supports it, arguing that "we have moral obligations to use the members of our bodies to benefit fellow human beings".
Dominique shrugged. The Belgian Catholic Church, as far as he knew, were ok with it.
The consulation ends at midnight tonight. If you've objected, look again at Labour's delivery document and you'll see there is little sign that they are wavering. "The aim is to introduce a soft opt-out system in Wales which aims to increase the number of organ donors in Wales."
Changing the law on organ donation remains a clear aim of this government.
(By the way, I should have been clearer. My reports from Brussels are appearing today but I have already made it back to Wales. Apologies to those in Brussels who'd fancied a cup of tea and a chat about Wales/Greece/the Eurozone).