My noble friend has a very good and interesting point. I left out the dark morning side because I thought it was not necessary. I am quite happy to put it back. The one thing I was not prepared to take out was ““experiment””. In fact I used it for a reason, and possibly some noble Lords may not know the definition of ““experiment””, as put forward by Roger Bacon. He was a Franciscan friar who taught at Oxford some 800 years ago. He said, in his Opus Maius:"““Without experiment, nothing can be adequately known. An argument proves theoretically, but does not give the certitude necessary to remove all doubt; nor will a mind repose in the clear view of truth, unless it finds it by way of experiment””."
That is the point of this Bill, and I am very glad for both noble Lords who put forward their amendments that they emphasised the experiment. This is an experiment and we cannot know the answer to it. In spite of what the Government Benches may say, they cannot know the answer to it unless we have experienced lighter evenings.
Title agreed to.
House resumed. Bill reported with amendments.
Lighter Evenings (Experiment) Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Tanlaw
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 20 April 2006.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Lighter Evenings (Experiment) Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
680 c1218 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:16:33 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_316273
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_316273
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_316273