I remember that clearly. The right hon. Gentleman and I-and, I am sure, Labour Members-can confirm that there are regulations, such as those relating to the British Government's role in running the railways in India, that it would be appropriate to get rid of, because frankly they are no longer relevant. I suspect that there are quite a lot of other examples. I want to focus briefly on the EEA. At the start of the referendum campaign, those involved in the leave campaign advocated the Norway model. As it became clearer to them that that was not what they wanted, they moved on to the Switzerland model, with its 150 or so different agreements. Once they realised that that was quite complex, Peru emerged as the model they wanted to emulate, before they eventually settled on the idea of a bespoke deal. As we heard earlier, no one anywhere is willing to identify how such a bespoke deal would work or, indeed, whether it is even possible to put one together. As other Members have said, it is clear that membership of the EEA does not in any way, shape or form match the benefits we get from being members of the European Union. It might provide an alternative-a step down from our current position, but without the consequences of our leaving completely-to the no-deal scenario. It is a poor substitute, but it is better than no deal. It would keep us in the single market but out of the customs union, and-this major sticking point was, I think, the reason why the leave campaign moved away from the Norway model-it would probably require a financial contribution. It would allow trade deals to be struck, so there are some advantages to it, which is why we will support new clause 22 if it is pressed to a vote. I want to finish by focusing on the question of whether leaving the European Union automatically means that we also cut our links with the EEA. Articles 126 and 127 of the EEA agreement have already been mentioned. I have been involved in an interesting exchange of parliamentary written questions and answers about the EEA. When I asked what was required to formally withdraw from the EEA agreement, the parliamentary answer stated:“As the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said when he addressed the House on 7th September, there is agreement that when we leave the EU, the European Economic Area Agreement will no longer operate in respect of the UK.â€I followed that up by seeking to identify who that agreement was with and why that would happen. The response stated:“It is Government policy that we will not be a memberâ€, so it seems as though the Government have reached an agreement with themselves that we will automatically be out of the EEA. I would suggest that that is not a particularly high bar. Although article 126 makes it clear that we will leave the EEA, article 127 requires us to give notice in order to do so. As an aside, if we are leaving the EEA, it would probably be courteous for the UK Government to at least talk to its other members, particularly EFTA members, just so that they are aware that that is what we are doing. As of last week, no contact had been made with at least one of the EFTA members. It might be appropriate for the Government to inform them as a matter of courtesy. New clause 22 is very good, as it would provide us with an opportunity to keep some of the benefits of our EU membership without crashing out of the EU completely, and without seeking the mythical bespoke deal that I do not think anyone believes can be delivered in the timescales that the Government have to work towards. I look forward to the vote on that new clause.