Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Written Evidence


Letter from Blake Lapthorn Tarlo Lyons on behalf of Taffy Ltd to the Committee—12 November 2007

  We write further to the written submissions we sent to you on behalf of our clients, Victor Chandler International and Donald and Garry Morrill trading as Taffy Limited.

  We note from the UK Parliament press release of 7 November 2007 that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee into On-course Horserace Betting will be holding a single oral evidence session as part of its inquiry into on-course horseracing betting. The Committee's decision as to the witnesses it is calling causes our clients some concern. We refer in particular to the NJPC, Mr Clive Reams and Mr Robin Grossmith.

  As you will know, Mr Reams was formerly the General Manager and then the Chief Executive of the NJPC and he has been subject to much criticism about the way in which the NJPC administered the integration of the lists in 1998 and, in particular, his own role in the integration of the lists in the Southern Area has been the subject of scrutiny by the DCMS amongst others. Mr Grossmith was a member of the appeals panel that dismissed some 272 appeals from aggrieved on-course bookmakers.

  The appeal process, as well as the general administration by the NJPC, has been subject to criticism by the DCMS and the Minister in respect of its inadequate paperwork and shortcomings in its administration. The OFT undertook a four-year investigation into a potential infringement by the NJPC of competition law that it closed for administrative reasons in December 2006 because of the prospective closure of the NJPC in September 2007 with the implementation of the Gambling Act 2005. During its investigation, the OFT had formed a provisional view that it had discovered "significant competition concerns" and that it had "amassed good evidence of an infringement of the Act".

  In a letter from Richard Caborn to Iain Duncan Smith of 27 June 2007, Mr Caborn said, "there were shortcomings in the NJPC's administrative process in late 1998/early 1999, and that the NJPC was under resourced during this period. As a result of this decision-making was rushed and it may be that individual bookmakers such as the Morrills and Mr David Overton were not adequately informed of the formula that was being used to allocate seniority positions, and of the reasons why their subsequent appeals were dismissed."

  Mr Caborn did not feel that an independent review would be merited or in the public interest, however, he did say that the Working Party addressing the regulation and administration of racecourse betting areas has undertaken to consult bookmakers on their proposals for the administration of on-course betting. In fact, the Working Party is not directly dealing with the problem concerning the future of bookmakers' lists hence the establishment of this Committee. Yet this Committee is only proposing to hear from one bookmaker speaking in his own capacity, Mr Johnson. The Committee is not at present intending to hear any evidence from the larger long established bookmaker chains in Britain who operate on the track or, indeed, from any of the smaller independent bookmakers who can pass on their knowledge and experience from the ground up. It appears that the Committee is intending to rely on the evidence of Mr Reams, Mr Grossmith and the NJPC to represent the view of the on-course bookmakers and, if so, we are instructed that evidence is unlikely to be viewed as either representative or credible by many bookmakers in the industry. We would respectfully submit that the Committee should appoint a further day for the hearing of evidence primarily from the industry itself and the individuals and companies upon whom the life of the betting ring will depend in the future.





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2008
Prepared 23 January 2008