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.
| 
