Material Contribution

Douglas McAllister MP writes:

On a recent visit to an elderly care home in Golders Green, Andy Burnham made an important observation about the long-running assisted suicide debate. Before we rush into providing drugs for terminally ill patients to end their lives on the NHS, he asked, shouldn’t we first aim to provide the care that they need to live out their last days well?

This is precisely the right question to ask, as Parliament soon returns from recess with yet another assisted suicide bill before it for a vote on 11 September. If this feels familiar, it’s because the same Members of Parliament have already spent numerous hours debating this issue during the last parliamentary session. During that time, the earlier version of the Bill, proposed by Kim Leadbeater, did not pass through the House of Lords. If Lauren Edwards’ almost identical Bill passes Second Reading, we once again face months debating the same issue that dominated headlines and divided colleagues and communities last year.

I opposed the Bill last time because I was not persuaded that the safeguards within it were strong enough to prevent vulnerable people from ending their lives due to feeling like a burden on either caregivers or the state. My concerns have not gone away. But the Prime Minister has made a broader point that should resonate beyond those of us who voted against the legislation.

Labour was elected on a manifesto promise to “rebuild our country”, with a strong emphasis on restoring broken public services. We promised to strengthen the NHS and tackle the social care crisis, restoring confidence that government stands alongside people when they are at their most vulnerable. The scale of the challenge is clear. Data from Hospice UK shows that two in five hospices had to plan on service cuts this year due to serious funding pressures. Meanwhile, two-thirds of people in rural and island communities are impacted by a postcode lottery as they struggle to access vital palliative and end-of-life care close to home.

It is difficult to talk about genuine “choice” and “autonomy” over death if people weighing up a potential suicide cannot access specialist palliative care; or if disabled people must still fight for the support that allows them to live independently. Andy Burnham is right: before Parliament changes the law, our first responsibility should be to fix the care system.

This is not just an abstract argument. One of my constituents, mother-of-four Michelle Anna Moffatt, died in June after becoming one of Scotland’s leading voices against assisted suicide. Following a catastrophic spinal injury that left her wheelchair-bound, Michelle believed her life was over. At her lowest point, she saved money to travel to Dignitas to end her life at Switzerland’s infamous clinic. Thankfully, she never went.

With the support of a GP who helped her combat her suicidality, a community at Spinal Injuries Scotland that helped her rediscover purpose, and a family determined not to give up on her, Michelle slowly rebuilt her life. She became an advocate for disabled people and inspired many by throwing herself into community life, raising four children, fundraising for charity, and even canoeing down the Zambezi River.

If Michelle could have been offered an assisted suicide at her lowest moment, she told friends she would have certainly taken it, cutting her life short by six years. Though her spinal injury itself was not “terminal”, in many jurisdictions where assisted suicide is permitted, she could easily have made herself fit the category required by the legislation. Indeed, it’s frighteningly easy to do so. If an anorexic refuses to eat; if a diabetic refuses insulin; if a paralysed person like Michelle refuses to change a catheter and invites infection that she refuses to treat, anyone could make themselves fit a very loose definition of “terminal”. Similar cases have already happened in places where assisted suicide is legal. But thanks to the law prohibiting assisted suicide at the time, Michelle emerged from that period of despair, grateful that she had been helped to live rather than helped to die.

Her experience reflects concerns repeatedly raised by disability organisations throughout this debate: that vulnerable people suffering coercion, depression or feelings of being a burden could be pushed into an early death under this proposal. The Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Psychiatrists have echoed Burnham’s analysis: you can’t offer death to those who might have made a different choice if their care needs (be it palliative care, adaptive housing, mental health support or practical assistance) had not gone unmet.

Scotland has already wrestled deeply with these questions. When Holyrood considered Liam McArthur’s assisted suicide Bill earlier this year, a proposal very similar to the legislation now returning to Westminster, 85% of Scottish Labour MSPs opposed it, and the Bill ultimately failed. Their decision demonstrated Labour’s core values: support for the marginalised and safeguarding the vulnerable.

Being an MP in Scotland, I know how carefully Labour has sought to balance a shared UK-wide identity with the distinct political traditions that exist north and south of the border. Dragging the party, and the country, back into another divisive assisted suicide debate risks reopening divisions at precisely the moment when we should be unitedly focused on delivering for people.

Andy Burnham has offered Parliament a sensible way forward. When he says we should address hospice funding and strengthen social care before revisiting assisted suicide, he is reminding us what government is for. We should be remembered as a party which secured better help and care to those in need, not the party that simply offered them death.

The First Lord of the Treasury needs to clean his own house, as Maddison Frost writes:

HM Treasury ‘materially contributed’ to the suicide of its employee Chloe Moffat when she took her own life following an anonymous complaint at work.

In announcing her conclusion of an inquest into Moffat’s death at Surrey Coroners’ Court, assistant coroner Anna Crawford found that the Treasury did not follow its disciplinary procedure in informing Moffat that the outcome of the allegation, if true, would be a written warning and not dismissal.

Crawford said there may be a “wider issue” in government and that she would send a Prevention of Future Deaths (PFD) report to the civil service, Treasury and Acas. Recipients of a PFD report must provide a written response within 56 days.

Moffat, 26, worked as a personal assistant for nearly three years and had been on track for promotion. After the Treasury received a number of anonymous complaints, managers invited Moffat to a meeting. The complaints alleged that Moffat had informally shared information about her colleagues, which Moffat denied.

The court heard that when Moffatt asked if she would be losing her job, a senior manager told her she “couldn’t predict any outcome of any potential investigation”.

Moffat had her job responsibilities temporarily changed and access to her manager’s diary – despite the meeting being described as “informal”.

Crawford said that, instead of calling Moffat into the meeting, attended by her line manager and the Treasury’s head of global issues, she should have been given details of the allegations in a letter.

She added that Moffat’s state of mind, being afraid that she would be dismissed, likely contributed to her decision to end her life.

The inquest heard that following the meeting on 19 May 2025, Moffat sent a text message to her friend that said: “I am going to be fired”. The next day, Moffat was found dead by her father.

The court heard that the Treasury managers had followed advice given by HR, but the way the complaint was handled was not in line with policy.

The Treasury’s policy, which is in line with Acas guidelines, states that serious misconduct allegations have to be handled formally, so that the person is “not deprived of their rights”.

The coroner said this includes having a third party present during meetings, receiving five days’ notice of meetings, and providing information on a likely outcome if allegations are upheld.

Treasury staff previously described the meeting as “informal” and “fact-finding”, but internal emails revealed that they had already considered the level of misconduct as “serious”.

‘Sufficient information’

Crawford told the court that she believed the reason for the meeting was to see if Moffat would admit to the allegations so they could move to a formal disciplinary.

She added that before the meeting on 19 May, there was “sufficient information” available to determine the level of potential misconduct.

Ms Crawford said: “HM Treasury materially contributed to Ms Moffat’s death by not applying their written discipline policy and procedure in that they did not inform her that the likely penalty, if the allegations were proven, was a written warning and not dismissal.”

Crawford ruled that Moffat’s death was a suicide and that she was satisfied in finding that Moffat had intended to take her own life.

In a statement, Moffat’s parents said: “Chloe was a bright, caring and talented young woman who loved her family, her friends and her work. She had an exemplary employment record, was highly regarded by those who worked with her, and had a promising future ahead of her. As her family, we remain immensely proud of everything she achieved in her short life.”

A Treasury spokesperson said: “We continue to mourn Chloe’s passing as a colleague and friend. Our thoughts remain with her family and friends. We take the coroner’s concerns extremely seriously and recognise it is important to act quickly. We are now considering the findings carefully.

“We have introduced improvements to guidance, support and wellbeing arrangements, but recognise we must continue to take action to prevent this happening again.” 

Disciplinary code of practice

Last month, Acas launched a consultation on a new draft Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures that places a much stronger emphasis on resolving workplace concerns informally before they escalate into formal processes.

The revised code, the first full update since 2009, seeks to encourage employers and workers to address concerns early through informal conversations, with Acas arguing that effective informal resolution can reduce costs, improve workplace relationships and prevent unnecessary conflict.

Commenting on the Moffat case, an Acas spokesperson said: “This is an extremely distressing and upsetting case and our thoughts are with Chloe’s family. Acas has a disciplinary and grievance code of practice that sets out good practice advice for employers on how to handle disciplinary cases.

“Revisions to this code are currently being consulted on with a deadline for responses of 23 September. Our proposed revisions to the code include a new advice section for employers on how to handle concerns informally. We welcome any feedback on the revised code and will consider any recommendations for Acas from the coroner’s report.”

In July, the UK’s Faculty of Public Health argued that poorly conducted workplace investigations cause such harm that they should be seen as a threat to public health. By putting formal ways of handling workplace issues ahead of staff wellbeing, employers could be causing “unintended harm” where investigations are “poorly conducted or applied excessively”, it said.

The faculty called on policymakers, employers, HR, and public health professionals to recognise how disciplinaries can be a detriment to workforce wellbeing and ensure there are safeguards in regulation and policies.