Commons Leader Lucy Powell has urged MPs not to get “bogged down” in the process of the assisted dying Bill.
The Government will work to make Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill “operable” if it is supported at its second reading, Ms Powell told the Commons.
Earlier, during Business questions, shadow Commons leader Jesse Norman accused the Government of trying to rush the Bill through “by proxy”.
MPs will have the opportunity to debate and are expected to vote on the proposed legislation on Friday.
Responding to a question from Labour MP Anna Dixon, Ms Powell said: “Should the Bill pass its second reading, the Government will work with the (amendment) sponsoring members to make sure this Bill is operable and is implementable.
“And will be implemented, should the House wish it to do so… that work will begin in earnest following the second reading debate. Should it not pass at second reading, that work would not happen at all.
“So that’s what I think Members should consider when considering the principles of this Bill, and not get too bogged down in some of the process.”
Ms Dixon, MP for Shipley in West Yorkshire, is a co-sponsor of a reasoned amendment to the Bill which calls for an independent review and a public consultation before it should return to the House for further debate.
Speaking from the Conservative front bench, Mr Norman accused the Government of proceeding with the Bill the “wrong way round”.
He told MPs: “Personally I feel very strongly pulled in both directions, by both sides, on the issue of assisted dying. But on one thing no-one can be in any doubt at all: that the Government has no business trying to rush this legislation through this House by proxy.
“The text of the Bill was published barely two weeks before we vote tomorrow. No impact assessment, and no legal issues analysis has been published.
“Far from public debate preceding legislation, legislation has preceded debate. This is completely the wrong way round.”
Ms Powell replied: “I think it is with some regret that (Mr Norman) has chosen this opportunity today to raise those matters in such a political – unnecessarily political – fashion.
“This is an issue that does generate very emotive responses on both sides and I hope that the conversations that we have tomorrow and the debate we have tomorrow can be conducted in a respectful, considerate, non-partisan, non-political (manner).”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here