The Prospect Sketch: The evils of high end fruit machines

The Commons was subdued for this first Prime Minister’s Questions of 2014, after news came earlier today of the untimely death of Paul Goggins, 60, the Labour MP for Wythenshawe and Sale East. The Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and MPs from all sides of the house were united in paying their respects to the former Northern Ireland and Home Office minister who collapsed while out running just over a week ago after suffering a suspected brain hemorrhage.

Ed Miliband, wearing a black tie, paid tribute to his former colleague, before posing questions on the government’s reaction to the recent flooding and also the reaction of the energy companies, which were unable to re-connect large numbers of homes in time for Christmas. The mention of power companies raised the whiff of a grumble from the Labour benches, but nothing like the usual ire. Resorting to the immortal cliché, the Prime Minister conceded that there were lessons to be learned from the experience.

Diane Abbott (Lab, Hackney North and Stoke Newington) raised the subject of housing benefit, asking the PM what he would say to families whose benefits were being reduced. Cameron replied that he would say he was cutting their taxes, and at this a rough gargle of disapproval rose up from the Labour benches.

But this flash of adversarial vim was swiftly put down as Ed Miliband rose to put his second series of questions, which this time concerned Fixed Odds Betting Terminals. If you are not familiar with these machines then you are one of the 96 per cent of the British population that has never used one. And yet these machines—high stakes gambling machines in bookmakers’—have been singled out by Labour for the chop.

Miliband told the commons that “communities” were coming under stress from these machines and that the evidence of the damage done by these terminals is clear. It is possible to stake up to £100 on a single bet on these machines and they tend to be favoured by people who can least afford them. The PM said that he wanted to see more evidence that this is the case.

There were other questions, on the economy, and also the floods—at one point the Prime Minister said he accepted that the floods were probably due to climate change. But the Miliband choice of betting machines was a strange diversion. The end of the last Parliamentary session was dominated by wages, living standards, energy markets and the economy. It was unusual see the House diverted into debating the evils of high-end fruit machines.

An explanation for this was suggested to the Prospector by an MP at the close of last year, who bemoaned the lack of Government business scheduled for debate in the Commons. This, said the MP, combined with the Speaker’s preference for a rapid pace of business in the House, means that the Government is having trouble filling the Parliamentary schedule and as a result Labour is managing to slot in a large number of Opposition Day motions. One example was Labour’s Opposition Day debate last year on the “Bedroom Tax”.

Today has also been scheduled as an Opposition Day by Labour and the subject of the debate is… fixed odds betting terminals. On the Order Paper, Labour’s motion reads: “That this House is concerned that the clustering of betting shops in or close to deprived communities is being driven by increasing revenue from fixed odds betting terminals.”

This is the reason for Miliband’s line of questioning and though the subject chosen was appropriate, the situation is an interesting one. The fixed term Parliament means that the Government is approaching its fifth—or “extra”—year and is running low on legislation. Miliband therefore has a unique opportunity to direct the terms of Parliamentary debate and there is little the Government will be able to do about it.