Circular

              General Produce Brokers' Association of London
Telephone : 
MANsion House 6931
Secretary :
L. S. WILKINS.
PLANTATION HOUSE,
(Ground Floor), 
FENCHURCH STREET, E.C.3
9th June 1942
Confidential.
The Secretary,
The London Chamber of Commerce,
69, Cannon Street, London, E.C.3.
Dear Sir,
As President of The London General Produce Brokers' Association and its representative on the Council of the Chamber, I write to support the request which I gather has already been made to the Chamber by distributing firms in the Cocoa Trade, for the Chamber's help in putting their case before the Ministry of Food, or other appropriate Government Authority.
There is no need for me to enter into the details of the present position, as the whole history of the events leading up to it are already in your possession.
Some 14 firms of London Brokers deal largely in West African Cocoa — all of them are members of my Association, perhaps not all of them members of the Chamber.
What has now happened to these firms of Brokers, and Dealers, as a result of the action of the Ministry of Food, is probably no isolated instance of apparent injustice (other trades have, no doubt, been treated in the same way, or will be), and it appears to me that large and important issues are at stake, and it is from this broader point of view that I respectfully suggest that The London Chamber of Commerce should take action. As you know I represent an Association of some 70 firms of General Produce Brokers, most of them private firms, many of them established for half a century or more.
It appears to me that we stand — and if we can't make our voice heard, may fall — between the really " big business " organisations and combines, and the so-called working classes who have the protection of powerful Trade Unions and Labour Leaders.
In the same category as the Members of this Association, fall thousands of other firms of Dealers and Traders. We are all what in departmental language is now termed " Intermediaries," and I feel there is a danger of this word becoming soon synonymous with " unnecessary " or even " parasitical."
It is no doubt necessary in war time to concentrate individual trades, and for Government Departments to control their activities, and given governmental buying, and government selling, the present utility of " intermediaries " may apparently disappear; the question then arises shall we be permanently unwanted ?
Perhaps not even the Government itself can answer this question at the present time. But we should know the answer as soon as possible. Let us assume that we shall be allowed, or perhaps requested, to pick up the threads of business when the war and subsequent period of control is ended. Then, either we must be allowed to perform some service now (probably at the distribution end) and be paid even if inadequately by pooling arrangements, or we must be " compensated " to a sufficient extent to enable us to keep the framework of our firms alive, and to keep our contacts with Sellers and Buyers here, and where possible abroad, even though in the interim actual business may be impossible. The smaller trader, e.g. the local Milk Distributor, will apparently be compensated if he is no longer allowed to deliver his milk. The distributors of West African Cocoa are told their services are no longer useful.
Obviously there has been overlapping and waste of labour in milk distribution; perhaps there has been in cocoa distribution, but why shouldn't the same principle be applied in each case ?
The Cocoa intermediaries since . . . have in fact acted as "one firm," and pooled the commission they have been paid. The Ministry of Food now say they can do the work themselves — perhaps they can; they have been taught and advised by firms who have been in the trade for years, and no doubt have at