§ 68. Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what differentiation is made under existing Regulations between the sale by private persons and by firms of £1 notes abroad.
§ Sir S. CrippsNone, Sir. If either is regarded as resident in the United Kingdom for exchange control purposes, the sale is an offence under the Exchange Control Act, 1947; otherwise it is not.
§ Colonel Crosthwaite-EyreAs the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that the case of Thomas Cook in New York was not an offence under the Regulations and since the company is a subsidiary of the British Transport Commission resident in this country, why did he say on previous occasions that Thomas Cook was not subject to these exchange Regulations?
§ Sir S. CrippsThe company which dealt in New York, I understand, with these notes was an American company.
§ Colonel Crosthwaite-EyreIs it not true that Thomas Cook of New York is a subsidiary of Thomas Cook (Overseas) Limited, which is a subsidiary of Thomas Cook in this country?
§ Sir S. CrippsIt does not make the slightest difference. The question is the domicile or residence of the particular company.
§ Colonel Crosthwaite-EyreIf the company is held and, indeed, owned by a company resident in this country, why should the right hon. and learned Gentleman take exception to the rules applying to a company domiciled in this country being applied to Thomas Cook?
§ Sir S. CrippsBecause they do not apply according to the law.