Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Browne of Belmont

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendment 60 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. There is no doubt that problem gambling is a debilitating condition that takes over people’s lives and, in some cases, destroys them. Since the Gambling Act 2005, the opportunities to gamble have increased significantly. As we have heard, the recent report from Swansea University and the Armed Forces veterans’ health and gambling study clearly indicate that, in the United Kingdom, serving personnel and veterans in particular are significantly more likely to struggle with problem gambling than non-veterans.

I was privileged to meet many problem gamblers, some from the Armed Forces, when the GAMSTOP exclusion from online gambling was being debated in your Lordships’ House. One of those gamblers was a retired Army major, Justyn Larcombe, whose case is well documented. He lost more than £750,000 over three years through taking part in online sports books. As a result, he lost his home, his family and his wife. However, I am glad to say that he has now been reunited with his wife and family, and has become actively involved in helping others obtain help for their gambling addiction. Indeed, he was the co-investigator on the United Kingdom Armed Forces Veterans’ Health and Gambling Study 2021 report, which provided a useful survey of gambling, mental health and associated costs among a sample of UK veterans.

The findings of that report back up the fact that members of the Armed Forces are much more likely to develop gambling problems, especially if they have experienced post-traumatic stress. Also, the transition from active military service to civilian life can be extremely challenging, leading, as we have heard, to many veterans engaging in high-risk behaviour, such as alcohol and substance abuse, and having behavioural problems. As I have said, there is growing evidence indicating a specific vulnerability to gambling-related harm.

Veterans’ gambling is more likely to be motivated by a need to escape and avoid distress. Indeed, we should note that the 2021 veterans study found that

“gambling is estimated to cost the UK between £260 million to £1.6 billion in economic, health, social and criminal justice costs”.

As the Forces in Mind Trust states:

“This research found that veterans with problem gambling had higher health care and benefits costs, as well as higher levels of debt than non-veterans.”


I believe that this amendment would lead to the provision of much needed further research—because research is limited at the moment—to assist our understanding of the mechanisms underlying problem gambling among Armed Forces personnel. With increased data, the Government would be in a much better position to formulate and draw up policies to help those in our Armed Forces facing gambling problems. It would also help them to think of policies to reduce the stigma often associated with those in the Armed Forces seeking help for gambling problems. Unfortunately, many personnel fear facing the possible repercussions, such as losing a chance at promotion or, in some cases, being dismissed from the services.

The problem of gambling in the Armed Forces is real and causing real problems for not just the individuals in the Armed Forces but their families. The inclusion of this proposed new clause in the Bill would go a long way to provide for and protect them so that the Government could make well-informed decisions, as I said. Northern Ireland has the highest incidence of problem gambling in the general population. It is four times higher than in any other region in the United Kingdom. I hope that, if these two proposed new clauses are accepted by the Government, they will apply to Northern Ireland.

We must continue to improve service and, where we can support sensible, practical and long-lasting protection for all our military personnel, we should do so. I fully support any legislation that will improve the lives of our very fine personnel.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches. I will particularly speak to Amendments 48 and 66A. As the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, pointed out in introducing Amendment 66A, it very much builds on those he sought very hard to bring forward on the overseas operations Bill. The suggestion at the time was that perhaps that Bill was not the right place for such an amendment.

The idea of a duty of care seems to be beneficial, and the amendment is laid out in very clear detail. I have a suspicion that the Minister might come back with a whole set of reasons why even this Bill is not the right place, and that the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, about unintended consequences might come with the suggestion that there will be scope for some sort of legal interpretation and that this might create all sorts of problems. However, does the MoD not have a duty of care to service personnel and their families? Should this not be very clearly stated? If the Minister does not accept that Amendment 66A as currently proposed would be a desirable addition to the Bill, could she undertake to think about an alternative amendment that could be brought back on Report?

Amendment 48, relating to service personnel and mental health, is important. As other Peers have pointed out, the contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, are important in bringing personal insights. Often when we talk about legislation relating to the Armed Forces, we are a bit technical. We talk not necessarily about individuals but about generalities. It is clearly important to think about the individual because it is precisely the individual who matters in each of the three amendments in this group.

However, I have some sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, that Amendment 48 specifically refers to veterans affected by events in Afghanistan. There may be a case for saying that, on the face of a Bill, we should be a little more general rather than being quite so specific. If the Minister’s only objection to Amendment 48 happens to be something along the lines of not being able to talk specifically about people being affected by the withdrawal from Afghanistan, perhaps again she might suggest some alternatives. Very clearly, there are a huge number of serving personnel and veterans who have been affected by the withdrawal from Afghanistan, precisely because they served there on multiple occasions, so this case is very specific.

All these amendments enhance the Bill. I hope the Minister will see her way to accepting parts of at least some of them, even if she cannot accept all of them in full. If she cannot accept them, we will obviously bring some or all of them back on Report.