Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill [HL]

My Lords, that does not answer my question. If the noble Lord had really wanted a Committee stage, why did he wait six months? It has also been said that the Bill can be killed at Third Reading. It cannot. It can be killed only on a Motion that ““This Bill do now pass””, after all the amendments are considered on Third Reading. The House authorities have made absolutely clear that it is perfectly proper, and indeed principled, to oppose a Bill of this nature at Second Reading. Their advice is unequivocal. The Companion to Standing Orders sets out very clearly the proper procedure for opposing a Bill at Second Reading, and that is being followed. The Companion also states:"““There is no procedural distinction between bills sponsored by a minister and those introduced by other Members of the House””." This Bill is a public Bill and the argument for different treatment because it was introduced by a private Member is just plain wrong. The Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is unusual but it is not unprecedented. It is fully within the conventions and precedents of the House to oppose a Bill at Second Reading. For all the reasons that I have given, the perception outside the House is that the Bill might become law if it remains on the parliamentary agenda and the timetable chosen by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. I shall have no hesitation in voting ““Content”” if the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, divides the House. But the final decision is really for the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. He has certainly obtained the publicity he was seeking and was entitled to seek. He has done a signal service in bringing the question of palliative care right up the health agenda. Even at this late stage, I would urge him to recognise parliamentary reality and the fears of those outside this House by not moving the Motion to commit the Bill, and effectively to withdraw the Bill for this Session.