---

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

I am an enthusiast for the Sale of Goods Act 1893 and its wonderful clarity, at least as much as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, is. I was a little puzzled by the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I thought that he was saying that we did not need to worry about law that was hard to understand because there were other more important problems—for example, the proliferation of laws, the need for consolidation and other such matters. But if law is ““hard to understand””, to use the words in the Bill, that seems to me an example of administrative inconvenience that it might be desirable to change by regulatory order under the Bill. I understand Members of the Committee saying—I would join them—that there are other more important things to do, but the measure is concerned with getting rid of burdens and administrative inconveniences, and one example is given here. If Members of the Committee are saying that they do not like an example being given, and that that is unnecessary, it is rather like the argument advanced earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, in which he wanted to get rid of certain words because he thought that they were not essential. I refer to the words in the Bill following the word ““sanction””. But if it adds clarity, why get rid of the measure?