I would like to ask the Attorney General if he would explain precisely to the Assembly and through the house of the commercial community what the relationship is between these two clauses in the proclamation. It seems to me, as my honourable and learned friend, the member of the Liverpool Exchange Service, who was speaking in this House on the same day after 1000 communities, said, that Article 6 of the proclamation was in direct contradiction with the original clause. The honourable and learned gentleman, the Member for the Liverpool Exchange Service, was speaking at last week`s debate. He said: „I say frankly that I have always insisted on the termination of reinsurance contracts. I think that is very much the view of many lawyers. Many of us seemed that Article 6 of that proclamation – provided that the reinsurance company had a branch in London – and almost all of these German companies – allows the company to move forward as if the proclamation had not taken place. My Hon. and Friend said that he wanted to draw the attention of the Attorney General to this and that they considered that Term 6 of the Proclamation should disappear. The learned attorney general promised that he would look into the matter and see what could be done. I am asking the Attorney General this afternoon whether he will deal with this issue. Then the honourable gentleman said that, while it may be a true principle, and I think he will agree, it will be largely repealed, because the proclamation authorizes the dealing of branches of companies established in that country whose head office is in the enemy country.