We make similar points about the Welsh ministers and your Lordships will have those and your Ladyship will have that point. We make other points about the huge lost swathes of EU law, and Lady Hale put a question about that the other day. We mentioned the interpretation point in section 154, but I fully accept the connection that your Lordships draw between section 2 and GOWA.
What we say is it is not unnecessary in a (Inaudible) connection for the reasons I have given, but also say that GOWA may throw some light on section 2. But apart from that and it should not be forgotten, my Lord, Lord Pannick, has put forward compelling arguments in our respectful submission, Ms Mountfield will do the same no doubt, as to why section 2 does not mean what the Government says it means. Certainly we say you should not construe section 2 alone; you should not forget the Sewel convention, you should not forget devolution when you are approaching that question -- what other background is important, in my submission.
So then I just wanted, having gone through that and pointed out the dispensing provisions that we say -- sorry, the provisions of the Government of Wales Act that we say are dispensed with, I wanted to come back to the Government's objections and, essentially, the objection in the devolution submission is twofold, and the key point I think I wanted to draw, do your Lordships have the devolution submissions of the Government?
They are -- I don't know if your Lordships have them. If you have -- you do? What I wanted to point to, my Lord, was paragraph 4(3) and 5, where there is a reference at paragraph 4(3) to the Government of Wales Act. What is said, I think, and it is the point made against the Scottish devolution arguments as well --