PM leads tributes to Welsh Labour politician who died suddenly aged 47
Mr David, who has served as the Member of the Senedd for Caerphilly since 2016, died on Tuesday. He would have turned 48 on Wednesday.
Prime Minister Sir Keir called him a 'powerful voice for the people of Wales', who dedicated his life to making sure every community in the country had the 'opportunities they deserve'.
Mr David's death was first confirmed by Eluned Morgan, the Welsh First Minister, who described him as a 'much-loved member of the Labour family' and an 'outstanding politician'.
His partner was Vikki Howells, the Cynon Valley MS and minister for further and higher education in the Welsh Government.
In a statement following Mr David's death, Sir Keir said: 'The entire Labour movement will join me in grieving the loss of Hefin David.
'He was a powerful voice for the people of Wales and a committed public servant, who dedicated his life to making sure every person and community in Wales had the opportunities and support they deserve.
'As Member of the Senedd for Caerphilly, where he was born and lived, he was incredibly proud of his community.
'Our hearts are with his family and those who knew and loved him at this painful time. May he rest in peace.'
Baroness Morgan said: 'Hefin was a much-loved member of the Labour family. He served Caerphilly as a councillor and a Member of the Senedd with pride and passion.
'He was an outstanding politician, warm and enthusiastic and a great communicator – especially on behalf of his constituents. He will be greatly missed.'
Mr David was first elected to Caerphilly County Borough Council at a by-election in March 2007.
He worked as a senior lecturer at Cardiff Metropolitan University, teaching human resource management and professional practice to undergraduate and postgraduate students.
In 2016, he was elected as Member of the Senedd for Caerphilly – succeeding Labour's Jeff Cuthbert, who became police and crime commissioner for Gwent.
He served as one of the five Senedd commissioners, who are responsible for providing the Welsh Parliament with the staff and resources needed.
Gwent Police confirmed a 47-year-old man was found unresponsive at a property in the Caerphilly county area on Tuesday.
Paramedics attended and confirmed the man had died. His death is not being treated as suspicious.
Tributes have been paid by politicians across the Senedd, with former Welsh Conservative leader Andrew RT Davies calling it 'heartbreaking and tragic news'.
Rhun ap Iorwerth, the leader of Plaid Cymru, said he was 'deeply shocked and saddened' at the news.
'Hefin represented his constituency with tireless dedication,' he said.
'He brought passion, energy, and independence of thought to Senedd proceedings and our parliament will be poorer without him.'
Laura Anne Jones, who recently defected from the Conservatives to Reform, described Mr David as a 'genuinely lovely person'.
She said: 'Regardless of political differences, we got on well. He always had time for a kind word, a smile or a funny anecdote.
'He always cared greatly for his constituents, fought hard for what he believed in and I admired him for his passion to improve additional learning needs policy, drawing on his experiences.
'He contributed greatly to politics in Wales, and will be missed greatly, politically and personally, in the Senedd.'
Elin Jones, the Senedd's Llywydd (presiding officer), said the Senedd community was devastated at the news.She said: 'Our thoughts go immediately to his partner, our colleague and friend, Vikki Howells MS and to his cherished children and family.
'Hefin was so full of life and enthusiasm for his constituents and their causes.
'He was a passionate politician, loyal to his party, his country and constituents.'
Gwent Police Chief Constable Mark Hobrough called Mr David a 'dedicated public servant to Caerphilly' whose loss would be significant.
A spokesperson for Cardiff Metropolitan University, where Mr David had been a lecturer prior to becoming an MS, said: 'Anyone that met Hefin, whether it was a brief chat or a longer connection, will know of his considerable commitment to education.
'He would, rightly, talk with pride about his path in higher education: from undergraduate through to senior academic. And it was that journey that gave him such an understanding of the need to make sure that education works for all. To make sure that his path could be taken by all, rather than the preserve of a privileged few.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Prince Andrew was ‘cruel to staff,' ‘took advantage' of his position, royal author claims
Royal expert Andrew Lownie tells Fox News Digital that there are 'countless stories' of Prince Andrew humiliating people, including royal staffers and former classmates.
Fox News
21 minutes ago
- Fox News
Prince Andrew was ‘cruel to staff,' ‘took advantage' of his position, royal author claims
Royal expert Andrew Lownie tells Fox News Digital that there are 'countless stories' of Prince Andrew humiliating people, including royal staffers and former classmates.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
My criticism of university sparked a backlash. I stand by it – young people deserve better
My article last week arguing that too many youngsters go to university stirred up a hornets' nest. I had a large amount of correspondence, most of which was supportive, although some was critical. This raised many fundamental issues, for which I am grateful. One line of criticism was that many prospective employers advertise jobs as graduate-only. Accordingly, even if many students would rather not do another three years of full-time study, they may feel that they are compelled to do it. This point is well taken. What is going on here is a system of mutual re-enforcement. More graduates are produced so employers can supposedly raise the status of their jobs by advertising them as 'graduate only'. This then leads to an increased appetite for degrees. And so on. One of the effects is to propel many students into undertaking post-graduate courses in order to mark them out from the hordes of mere graduates. This is a sort of arms race. Admittedly, degrees aren't all about money. The attitudes of students and parents are critical. It took decades for an attitude to develop on the part of both teenagers and parents that it was natural for everyone to go to university. Given this, some of my respondents were sceptical that anything could be done to change the system. The answer, as so often, lies with the funding. At the moment, most government funding for university courses comes in the form of support for the student loan agency, which provides funds to pay for tuition and, in some cases, living expenses. These loans are guaranteed by the state. If and when they are not repaid, the state bears the loss. Accordingly, herein lies a route through which the state can influence matters. There are three aspects of the over-expansion of higher education: individuals ill-suited to higher education; next-to-useless courses; and poorly performing universities. A blanket reduction in the amount of loan funding would be a crude and inefficient way of proceeding. It would be better for the Department for Education to vet university courses according to content, excellence of teaching and the subsequent success of students who take them. The majority of university courses would pass this test. But those that failed it would cease to be eligible for student loans. That would surely cause the number of students applying for these courses to plummet. Moreover, some of these courses would cease to be offered and some universities might cease to exist. That would be no bad thing. Another of the strands of criticism that I encountered was about equity. Isn't it important, some respondents said, that everybody should have access to higher education? I do think it is important that students who are capable of benefiting from a university education should have that opportunity, whatever background they come from. But being at an institution for which you are not properly suited, wasting three years to acquire a useless qualification and then emerging with a heavy burden of debt (which averages more than £53,000) is not an opportunity. It's a curse. We do young people no favours by encouraging them into such a position. Moreover, one of the consequences of the preponderance of graduate-only jobs is that some teenagers whose parents could not afford to top up a student loan, or do not think themselves suited to three more years of full-time study (perhaps because they are neuro-diverse), are locked out of a whole range of jobs which have been 'elevated' to graduate-only status. How on earth is that equitable? Some of my respondents argued that I was sounding the death knell for arts subjects in favour of Stem (science, technology, engineering and maths). They are wrong, I have long recognised that a number of non-Stem subjects provide a marvellous training for the mind and an excellent perspective that helps people with degrees in those subjects to make a wonderful contribution to the economy, while enriching their lives. Nor do I accept that the AI revolution means that there should be a wholesale culling of the humanities at universities in favour of Stem subjects only. As I argued in my book, The AI Economy, the impact of the AI revolution will be to release human beings from all sorts of humdrum mind-based employment. The effect will be to increase the human realm, where many new jobs will be created. However capable AI becomes, there is one thing that it will never be better at than human beings, namely being human. It is entirely appropriate that some students should spend time studying the humanities. Another strand of criticism is the argument that we shouldn't judge the benefit of universities solely by reference to the effect that degrees have on employability and future earnings. I have always agreed with this. Again, this partly comes down to funding. If a young person wants to spend three years studying Chinese medieval wall coverings, or media studies, or whatever – or indeed to get into university and then do nothing at all – that is a legitimate life choice. But it is not legitimate to expect the taxpayer to fund it. I am a particular fan of sandwich courses, which combine university study with a form of employment, usually in the student's third year. I have seen on many occasions how the exposure to the world of work broadens and enlightens young people, both benefitting their studies and enabling them to make better career choices later. Our system of higher education needs radical change. We have sleepwalked into the current situation through a mixture of delusion, wishful thinking and the unenlightened self-interest of some educational institutions and their administrators. This comes at enormous financial cost. Student debt is currently estimated to total about £270bn, or about 10pc of GDP. More importantly, this charade brings a terrific human cost in wasted time. Our young people deserve much better. Roger Bootle is senior independent adviser to Capital Economics and a senior fellow at Policy Exchange
