LGBT Veterans: Etherton Review

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

They can expect to be able to get the full details from 9 o’clock tomorrow. They can expect to be able to complete the details and respond to the information required from tomorrow. I am conscious that, for many of these veterans, time is ticking, and I am determined that the scheme will not take long to make its proper decisions. Therefore, soon into the new year, LGBT veterans who are confirmed as eligible should expect payment.

I look forward, by the way, to the large number of contributions that there will be in the debate. As I wind up, I want to emphasise two or three points. This is a Government delivering for defence. This is a Government delivering for LGBT veterans. On behalf of the Government, I want to apologise without reservation for the pain and injustice caused during this dark chapter of our armed forces’ history. The treatment of LGBT veterans was a moral stain on our nation. It is shameful that those who put themselves in harm’s way to defend our country were treated in such callous and unjust ways.

Our Government will now right those wrongs of the past. That is why we are providing financial recognition to veterans. It is why we are making sure that payments will be fair, proportionate and prompt, and it is why we are delivering on the remaining recommendations of the Etherton report. We will learn the lessons from that report. We will never forget the pain and trauma that LGBT veterans were subjected to between 1967 and 2000. We will root out any remaining prejudice and abuse wherever it rears its head in the forces and we will look to build a more diverse, stronger military that better reflects the society that it serves and protects; a military in which everyone can serve without fearing injustice or discrimination. That is the one nation mission that the Government are committed to: a modern, representative, unified armed forces, proud to keep Britain secure at home and strong abroad.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. As Members can see, a large number of speakers wish to contribute to a very important debate. I have no plans as yet to impose a time limit, but perhaps Members might be respectful about the number of interventions they take.

[Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome today’s debate, and I thank the Defence Secretary and the Veterans Minister for the way that they have gone about this, working with LGBT veterans and charities such as Fighting With Pride, and building on the work of the previous Government. I know that the Defence Secretary and the Veterans Minister care deeply about this issue. The Defence Secretary rightly said that this was unfinished business for Labour, and the Veterans Minister assured me when I first raised this matter with him many months ago that the scheme would be up and running by the end of the year. We can put that under the “promises kept” part of the Government’s record, and I am grateful for that.

This is a profound injustice and a moral stain on the nation, as the Defence Secretary rightly said a few moments ago. Thousands of servicemen and women over many decades were interrogated, persecuted and punished for their sexuality—people who only wanted to serve our nation, but were let down in the most profound way. A constituent of mine in Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven told me that he felt “washed in shame” at the way he was discharged, imprisoned and discarded by the RAF, despite his exemplary service record. Thousands more veterans fall into that bracket, some of whom we have already heard about this afternoon and, hopefully, we will hear more about.

Those people lost their career, their pay, their pension and often their family and friends, but also, as the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) said, their sense of self, value and belonging. The emotional, psychological and physical impact is still being understood. That is the central point of this debate and the injustice we face—how do we ever go about rectifying something on such a scale? Harder still, how do we put a value on it and a process around it?

I thank Lord Etherton for his work on this issue over many years, and recognise that the Defence Secretary and Veterans Minister have worked incredibly hard to build on the work of the previous Government to deliver this hugely welcome financial recognition scheme, which will be set up tomorrow. I know it will be welcomed by veterans in my constituency and others across the country. I will do everything I can to encourage the many LGBT veterans in my constituency to apply for it, as I hope other Members will, and as I know the Defence Secretary will.

I welcome the increase in funding that has been allocated—a 50% increase is not insignificant. This is a significant commitment from this Government, and it is welcome. I also welcome the creation of two clear funding schemes: first, for those with formal discharge and dismissal; secondly, importantly, for the many who never suffered that discharge and dismissal, but who suffered much wider loss—emotional, financial and physical —as many Members have spoken about.

As the Defence Secretary has said, it is also incredibly important that the option of restoring rank and removing the record of discharge has been brought forward—a point raised by many LGBT veterans I have met in my constituency surgeries and around Brighton Kemptown. It is, in some senses, as important as the financial measures announced, so I welcome that, too.

However, if I may be so bold, I would also welcome clarity on a couple of points. First, what estimate has the Ministry of Defence made of the number of people likely to apply for each of the two tranches under the scheme? Secondly, what estimate has been made of what the average payment is likely to be? No two cases are the same, as the Defence Secretary said earlier. Of course, the headline figure of £70,000 is very welcome, but how many people does the Secretary of State believe will ever receive that? How many are likely to fall into those two tranches? I would welcome some clarity on that.

Thirdly, how does the Secretary of State respond to the concern that by keeping a hard cap on compensation—albeit a significantly increased one—many applicants will ultimately receive quite low sums, particularly given the level of injustice that we have all stated? Fourthly, will he explain why there is a two-year cap on applications, and what the Government will be doing to ensure that all who are eligible will come forward and will be able to apply? As we know, and as we have all heard from looking at this over many months, many people are only just willing to come forward on this issue. It might take much more time to reach the many people who have suffered this injustice. I am slightly concerned about that cap, and I would welcome some clarity on it.

I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know there is a lot of work to do to get these schemes up and running and to get the compensation out as quickly as possible. Today is an incredibly welcome step on that journey. As we have heard, it has been a very long journey for many people—decades in the making—and time is running out to deliver justice. Above all, I thank those who have made that journey possible, especially the extraordinary LGBT veterans whom I have had the pleasure of meeting in the past five months, and Fighting With Pride, which has done so much for so many to achieve the progress we are discussing today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I will just make the point that it is imperative that Members be present for the opening statements of any debate if they wish to be called—perhaps particularly so for those on the Front Benches.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

We are here today to discuss the implementation of the recommendations laid out in Lord Etherton’s independent review into the treatment of LGBT veterans, following the unjust and appalling treatment of LGBT+ veterans who served in our armed forces under the shadow of a discriminatory and dehumanising ban. It is not just a matter of historical injustice, but an ongoing fight for dignity, recognition and fairness for those who gave so much to our country and were repaid with shameful betrayal. We must also recognise all those who served before 1967, and the injustice they faced before that time.

Between 1967 and 2000, thousands of LGBT+ personnel were dismissed or forced out of the military simply because of who they were. The anti-gay ban had and continues to have an enormous impact on people’s lives; careers were destroyed, lives upended and futures taken away. LGBT+ veterans were outed to their friends and family without their consent, facing extreme stigma. Not only did they lose their jobs, but they had their medals removed and were stripped of their pensions. In some cases, a conviction made it impossible for people to move on and rebuild their lives due to the barriers a criminal record creates when trying to find employment. It is indefensible that those who put their lives on the line for our country should continue to be treated with disregard.

The independent review by Lord Etherton lays bare the devastating impact of this discriminatory policy on LGBT+ veterans and makes 49 recommendations to address those wrongs. While progress has been made, this process is far from complete. The Government must ensure that all the review’s recommendations are acted on as swiftly and comprehensively as possible.

Let me share two harrowing examples from constituents of my colleagues, which illustrate the enduring trauma caused by this policy. This morning, I met Michael Sansom, who sits in the Public Gallery today, who is a constituent of Monica Harding MP. He joined the Royal Air Force—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. As a Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Lady, first, should be on the Bench when I am on my feet. Secondly, we must not refer to colleagues by name in the House but by their constituency.

[Helen Maguire]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Michael joined the Royal Air Force at just 16 years old, filled with pride and ambition, and served with distinction for five years before his life was shattered in 1992. After innocently sharing details about attending London clubs, Michael became the target of a covert investigation: his barracks were searched in a humiliating manner, exposing deeply personal items such as a romantic letter; he was extensively and inappropriately questioned about his personal life, offered electroconvulsive “conversion” therapy, and underwent what at the time was described as a “medical examination”, but would today be called sexual assault.

Ultimately, Michael was charged with homosexuality and detained for 14 days before his discharge, during which time he was subjected to cruel physical and verbal abuse. Following his discharge, Michael lost not only his career, but his home and his sense of purpose. He was left homeless, battling severe depression and rejection from his family. Despite his immense contributions to lifting the military ban, Michael continues to struggle with the deep scars of his past. He now seeks justice for himself and others who endured similar horrors. The current compensation scheme, capped at £70,000, is an inadequate acknowledgment of the profound harm suffered by individuals such as Michael. Michael said to me that he was proud to serve his country, and his country was ashamed of him.

David, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), also served in the RAF during the 1980s, fulfilling a lifelong dream. However, his career was marred by persistent rumours, bullying and verbal abuse. Despite never being charged, he was subjected to constant surveillance and intimidation. After years enduring shame and distress, David left the RAF following an interview with his commanding officer, who bluntly stated that there was no place for him “in this man’s RAF”. To add insult to injury, David had to buy his way out of the RAF. He spent years unable to live openly as himself, and has faced diminished career prospects and a significantly impacted pension. Like Michael, David finds the proposed compensation deeply disappointing, and urges the Government to reconsider their approach.

These stories are not isolated incidents. They represent a systematic failure that affected thousands of LGBT+ veterans. Lord Etherton’s review revealed the immense toll this policy took on mental health, with 87% of LGBT+ veterans reporting that their dismissal impacted their mental health, and 75% stating that their finances had been affected.

The Government have accepted 38 of the 49 recommendations made in the review, which I acknowledge, and have also acknowledged the need for compensation. I am also pleased that the total budget for the compensation scheme has now been increased. However, the flat cap of £50,000 for dismissed or discharged applicants is inadequate. Veterans charities have rightly called it “inadequate and unacceptably low”. For people who lost their careers, homes and futures, it is a small offering. Justice demands better. It is unconscionable that veterans such as Michael and David are left fighting for recognition and fairness after already enduring so much. The LGBT impact payment of between £1,000 and £20,000 is also unacceptably low for what one veteran described as “state-sanctioned sexual assault”.

The Liberal Democrats are unequivocal in our stance: LGBT+ veterans deserve full and fair compensation for the harm they suffered. We call on the Government to reassess the compensation scheme, ensuring that it truly reflects the gravity of the injustices endured. We welcome the four non-financial measures outlined by the Secretary of State today for veterans who served before 1967, but it is vital that all 49 recommendations of the Etherton review are implemented swiftly and comprehensively, including the return of medals, clarification of pension rights and the establishment of a memorial to honour LGBT+ veterans.

Justice delayed is justice denied, and the Government must expedite support for elderly or ill veterans such as Joe Ousalice, who served with distinction for 18 years but now fears he may die before seeing justice. Joe deserves to have suitable compensation swiftly. He dedicated his life to serving our country and asks for very little in return.

This debate also reminds us that discrimination in the armed forces has not been limited to LGBT+ personnel. The 2021 Atherton report highlighted the pervasive challenges faced by women in the military, including bullying, harassment and sexual assault. Some 62% of female veterans reported experiencing some form of abuse during their service. Such systemic issues are unacceptable and undermine the very values our armed forces are meant to uphold. We must ensure that the recommendations of the Atherton report are fully implemented and that diversity, inclusion and respect become cornerstones of military culture.

The armed forces represent the best of our nation. They are made up of individuals who have pledged to protect us, often at great personal cost. For too long, LGBT+ veterans were denied the respect and recognition they deserved. It is time to right that wrong. The Liberal Democrats stand firmly with our LGBT+ veterans. We will continue to fight for fair compensation, the implementation of all recommendations from the Etherton and Atherton reports, and a culture of inclusivity in the armed forces. Let us honour the sacrifices of these brave individuals by delivering justice swiftly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. It might be helpful if I provide a small business update to hon. and right hon. Members. The second debate that was scheduled for this afternoon will now not go ahead. That gives this very important debate the full time up until 5 o’clock, which will certainly enable me to get all Members in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

We have heard some very powerful stories today. It is not every day that my constituency surgeries lead me to well up—I am normally as hard as nails—but I recently had the pleasure of meeting Craig Jones MBE, one of the founders of Fighting With Pride. He talked so powerfully about his own and other veterans’ stories of pain and injustice, but he also spoke of honour and pride. It was deeply moving to speak with him.

During our meeting, the word “honour” came up time after time, as Craig described his LGBTQ+ colleagues in the armed forces who suffered so much under the ban which, we must reflect today, was lifted only in 2000. In the period before that, thousands and thousands of LGBTQ+ service personnel were removed or forced from service and many, as we have heard, were physically or sexually abused. Craig told me that many of his colleagues felt “washed in shame” because of what happened to them.

In those days, simply admitting to being gay was dangerous and had far-reaching consequences, which we must compensate for today. Although homosexuality was decriminalised for civilians in 1967, it remained a criminal offence in the armed forces. These people faced imprisonment. We must compensate fully for that.

Craig described moving to Brighton, saying that our city was the only place in which he and his partner felt safe. On the day that the ban was lifted, he came out as gay and, after a few more years, he left the forces. He helped found Fighting With Pride, and took part in that excellent campaign that led to the Etherton review and the actions that we are pleased to welcome today.

But I do not think that this is finished. As other Members have said, the financial scheme is crucial; it must provide full compensation. It appears that Lord Etherton was unable to go higher than the recommendation in the review of a cap of £50 million, and was unable in his terms of reference to recommend a financial scheme that was unconstrained. This £75 million is a rise, but, as others have said, it is not high enough. Fighting With Pride has said that £150 million would be a more realistic estimate if it is to provide real justice to the people who might come forward.

In the interests of real justice, I do not believe that we can cap this number at all. As the Royal British Legion has said in response to the earlier proposed cap, the cap provides an incentive for the Ministry of Defence to limit the number of people applying for compensation, in opposition to the aim of achieving fair recompense. Moreover, Fighting With Pride today asked whether the flat rate of £50,000 would really be able to compensate for the pensions that would have been earned by all those people who were discharged early.

As Craig pointed out to me, this has been a “discreet” community. We still do not know how many people could come forward having been harmed by these unjust policies in ways not envisaged by the strict types of payment described in today’s statement. For the wider impact payment, we are talking about harassment, invasive investigations and imprisonment. I would welcome some clarity from the Minister today as to whether this could go further. People may have resigned because they felt that they could not come out; because they were not able to live in the way that they would choose to live. They have still suffered harm. They have been unable to fulfil their full potential, which is genuine harm.

We have spoken about shame and honour in the stories that we have told today. There could be people who wanted their colleagues to preserve their honour to help them not feel ashamed and who wanted to be discharged for stated other reasons, so that nothing in the written record would confirm that they had suffered from the harms for which the flat-rate payment is envisaged, but who have none the less suffered exactly the same harm. I would welcome some clarification on whether you might go wider, and be willing to be challenged—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Please say, “he”.

[Siân Berry]

Sorry. Would the Minister be willing to be challenged on those terms in the future?

This compensation must bring the full comfort and security in older age that is enshrined in the armed forces covenant. It must bring true justice for the community that was shamed so shamefully. These payments must be looked at again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

As a retired RAF police officer, I was particularly moved by stories where my own branch seemed to have acted so zealously. Perhaps it is appropriate that I apologise on behalf of the RAF police. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) made the same request on behalf of the Royal Military Police.

I am glad that the debate is being held at length in the House after it was deprioritised by the previous Government. Perhaps it would have required Olympic-standard political gymnastics to show empathy with the victims of the LGBT ban, apologising to those victims as did Prime Minister Rishi Sunak while manufacturing—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I made the point earlier that we do not in this House refer to serving Members of the House by name. He remains the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton.

[Cameron Thomas]

Thank you for correcting me, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) did so while the mother of Brianna Ghey was on the estate. I appreciate that is a bit of a change in tone from the rest of the debate, but it is important that we recognise that the rhetoric we use in this House has a cultural impact across the rest of society.

The Government should be proud that they brought the debate before the House. They have my gratitude, and I know there are people present who were directly affected by the ban, including Lesley Davison, who travelled from South Devon to be in the Public Gallery. Our LGBT veterans should have been able to serve their honourable careers fully and retire simply as veterans, but they were unfairly discarded by the Ministry of Defence in line with the laws of the very country they served. The Ministry of Defence described this as a “moral stain” on the armed forces, but it is also a stain on the history of our country.

One haunting testimony comes from a constituent of north Shropshire. It is an account of how hundreds of gallant, proud and selfless service personnel were hunted by the military police, arrested, interrogated and often imprisoned for even an assumption of their sexuality. Take a moment, if you would not mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, to imagine the line of questioning of an interrogation into one’s sexuality. To anyone who was affected by the ban in any way, I believe you and I am sorry.

By the time I joined the Royal Air Force in 2000, the ban had been lifted, but the legacy of the ban and of the political culture at the time was a toxic mentality that remained in plain sight for several years. I recall my initial trade training at RAF Cosford. One particularly notorious training team threatened to call ahead to my future unit and have my head “caved in” once I arrived for merely daring to voice support for the LGBT community. I was 17. I am sure that such intolerance continues to persist in small pockets of narrow-mindedness that exist beneath the surface today, but I am proud that the RAF I left in 2023 is, indeed, a greatly transformed and more inclusive organisation.

I am now simply a veteran. During the general election campaign in June, I joined some local veterans for a communal breakfast in Tewkesbury. They were decent, honest and selfless, and they met regularly and welcomed me as their own. But before I was introduced to the group at large, one person pulled me aside and whispered, “Don’t worry about the he/she. We just ignore it.” It turned out that “it” was transgender Royal Navy veteran Gina Shelton, who had served in the closet as a man despite internally identifying as a woman to avoid persecution by her own friends and colleagues. I spent a few minutes speaking with her. She was seated clearly separately from the rest of the main group, and I could not help but feel moved by her courage and dignity as she spoke matter-of-factly about her circumstances, but with an affection and understanding for those fellow veterans who even now disowned her. She took responsibility for the way she was now ostracised, which I admire but reject. I otherwise enjoyed the company of my fellow veterans. I should reiterate that these are decent, honest people, but meeting Gina reminded me that changing minds is the greatest challenge before us, and that challenge will endure long after legislation.

The Liberal Democrats have always stood with the LGBT+ community, and are proud to have brought the equal marriage Act into law while in government. I am proud that those treated unjustly by the LGBT ban have now been able to speak their truth. It is difficult to put a monetary figure on such an injustice, but having considered the Secretary of State’s announcement this afternoon, we still call on the Government to stand with the Royal British Legion and Fighting With Pride and uplift the fund to £150 million. Finally, let these veterans’ legacy not be one of tragedy. Let Members of this House learn the lesson that the previous Government never did: that the language we use in this place has real-world consequences.