Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Written Evidence


Letter from David Overton to Adrian Sanders MP—23 November 2007

  I am writing to you because Simon Hughes is my MP and you represent the Liberal party.

  Simon has written a number of letters and also attended several meetings on my behalf with regard to the activities of the NJPC.

  I have read through submissions made on behalf of racecourse bookmakers and the common theme is security of tenure.

  I find it ironic that the same bookmakers who are motivating their colleagues to ask the Select Committee for help are, in most cases, the same people who quite happily prevented other bookmakers from working by cutting the number of bookmakers allowed to attend in order to increase their own business. I had permanent pitches until the NJPC arrived but I have had no security of tenure since thanks to my former "colleagues" and the LJPC backed up by the NJPC.

  My "security of tenure" was taken from me on at least 100 days a year. It still is! This was done by the Local Joint Pitch Council. At Lingfield the LJPC rep was not there until 1999 so I fail to see how he was an expert on bookmaker numbers. There was also a certain amount of insider trading.

  At Ascot, in my section, I was the number one pitch holder and also the number one in seniority yet on many days I am cut out of the numbers.

  Two bookmakers were added to the rails list after the NJPC took over in October 1998, so in effect the first time they could operate was in the spring of 1999, yet were guaranteed to operate any time they wished. They overtook bookmakers who had a 25-year start on them.

  This was achieved by not applying the one and only agreed method but by using various methods to establish the seniority positions. This despite the fact that we were assured that only one method would be for all bookmakers.

  Those bookmakers representing the Rails Association benefited from the change in seniority from starting dates to previous pitch numbers. (They will be able to show exceptions if this did not happen but by and large this is what happened.)

  William Hills should have been first using the agreed method but they were denied their correct positions. I have evidence to support this.

  Hills recently bought the number two position at Brighton. Done correctly they would have been first with 25 years to spare.

  This altered method put hundreds of thousands of pounds into the pockets of certain bookmakers which the historic records could not support, chiefly at the expense of Hills and Ladbrokes.

  Iain Duncan Smith has done an awful lot of work on behalf of his constitutent and is fully aware of everything that took place.

  In my section, as an Away bookmaker, I can show how different seniority was awarded to each of us.

  This from "an independent impartial regulatory body".

  There are many questions that deserve a complete explanation from the NJPC. The NJPC quite happily mislead the Ombudsman, MPs and anybody else that asked awkward questions.

  With regard to the appeals procedure I understand that the DCMS could find no evidence of appeals taking place after the appeal procedure was closed.

  Without looking I can name two people who appealed months after the appeal procedure was closed.

  Under the circumstances I think that the validity of the lists should be questioned before any security of tenure is discussed.

  Perhaps those that seek your help now could explain why their rights should be guaranteed after they had happily taken away the rights of other bookmakers.

  In my case, after 20 years. My father had transferred from the silver ring into Tatts in 1978.





 
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