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.
| 
