LGBT Veterans: Etherton Review
Debate between John Healey and Emily Thornberry(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Lord Etherton’s independent review into the treatment of LGBT veterans.
In July last year, Lord Etherton’s report on LGBT veterans shone a much needed light on a dark period in Britain’s military history: an era between 1967 and 2000 when LGBT people were banned from serving in our armed forces; an era when homophobic bullying, harassment and abuse were widespread; an era when LGBT personnel were demoted, dismissed, or driven out of the forces because of their sexuality. The testimony of those who gave evidence to Lord Etherton’s review and who have courageously campaigned for justice are truly harrowing. The very values of a tolerant western democracy that we expected those forces personnel to defend were denied to them. It was profoundly wrong. I have been determined as Defence Secretary that we will continue the work of the previous Government to deal with the injustices suffered by so many LGBT personnel.
I am grateful to Lord Etherton for his work and for his report. I am grateful also for the support of Fighting With Pride and the coalition of more than 20 charities that back its work. I am grateful to them for providing the Government with invaluable guidance and advice on a range of restorative actions, some of which I am able to announce today. I am also grateful for the very small team of officials who have worked from the outset within the MOD on this area. I am grateful, too, for how Members from all parts of the House have come together to recognise the injustice and to support the actions that first the previous Government and now this one are willing to take.
This is unfinished business for Labour. We lifted the ban in 2000. We argued for the Etherton review in the Armed Forces Bill in 2001. We welcomed the Etherton review’s recommendations and publication. In opposition, we called on the previous Government to deliver on the previous Defence Secretary’s pledge for a debate in this House to, as he said,
“make sure that the House properly debates the report and the Government’s response to it”.—[Official Report, 19 July 2023; Vol. 736, c. 921.]
Today, this Government delivers on that commitment, and it is an honour for me as Defence Secretary to open the debate.
In doing so, I will update the House on the actions we are taking as a new Government to right the historic wrongs to LGBT veterans. First, among the remaining recommendations made by Etherton, I can announce today that we are establishing a financial recognition scheme. When that scheme goes live tomorrow, it will mean that almost all of the 49 recommendations made by Lord Etherton will have been delivered. Recommendations 28 and 29 in his report specifically refer to financial award —a tangible payment—to reflect Government accountability and our determination to recognise these historic failings.
I am pleased to announce today that we are launching an LGBT financial recognition scheme, with a total budget of £75 million. That is 50% higher than the level recommended in the Etherton review and the cap set by the last Government. This financial recognition scheme will open tomorrow, one year to the day since the previous Government responded to Lord Etherton’s report.
The scheme provides two types of payment to recognise the discrimination and detriment suffered by LGBT personnel under the ban. The first is for those who were dismissed or discharged. It will be available to veterans who were dismissed or administratively discharged, including officers instructed to resign because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or their gender identity under the ban. The payment will be at a flat rate of £50,000. The second is for those who were impacted in other ways. This LGBT impact payment is open to all those who experienced pain and suffering under the ban, including harassment, intrusive investigations and in some cases imprisonment. The impact payment will be assessed by an independent panel, with tariffs ranging between £1,000 and £20,000 to make the awards fair and proportionate to each individual. The two payments will run concurrently as part of a single financial recognition scheme. We have also set aside funding from the MOD to support those charities that can advise applicants on the schemes.
As a result of the additional funding we have allocated, payments can reach up to a maximum of £70,000 for those who were most impacted and most hurt and who qualify for both awards. The scheme will remain open for two years, and applications for payments from the scheme from terminally ill veterans will be prioritised. All payments, from both schemes, will be exempt from income tax and will not affect benefits that applicants may receive. The scheme will open tomorrow morning, and fuller details will be online at that point. I hope that our decision to listen to the views expressed on the last Government’s plans, to uplift the value of this scheme and to deliver it within one year of the recommendations being accepted demonstrate our profound regret and our determination to do right by our LGBT personnel.
Today, I can make three additional important restorative announcements. First, those who were administratively discharged based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation will be able to apply to get their records set straight. As a result, the ban will be shown as the reason for their discharge, finally removing any blame or dishonour on their record for those who have served. Secondly, we will restore the ranks of veterans who had them reduced as a result of the ban, ensuring that they regain the rank they rightfully earned in service. Thirdly, while not within the scope of Lord Etherton’s review, which covered the ban between 1967 and 2000, we also want to acknowledge any LGBT veterans who served before 1967 and who may have suffered under the ban. We are taking further action to recognise their service and contribution. As a result, these veterans can now apply to have their administrative discharges qualified, their rank restored if it had been reduced, and their certificates of service reissued. Former officers may also apply to have their service details published in the Gazette as part of the official record.
Working on these restorative measures and meeting affected veterans have not been easy, but they have shown me how much progress our modern armed forces are making. There has been a change in culture and a change in prevailing attitudes, and Britain’s military today is more inclusive and more tolerant than in the past. Each of the services has held presentation ceremonies to welcome LGBT veterans back into the family, where they have always belonged. While there has been change, and there has been progress, there is no place for prejudice in the modern armed forces. We still have more to do to reinforce zero tolerance of any discrimination or abuse anywhere in defence.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I have a constituent who was not a member of the armed forces, but a member of the secret service. He lost his job in the 1980s because he was gay. There is no compensation for him at the moment. I suspect it may not be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, but does he not agree that there should be parity of treatment across the forces? We rely on our secret service as much as we do our armed forces. Surely what is fair for them should be fair for those who have given their time and risked their lives in the service of our country.
John Healey
My right hon. Friend makes the powerful point that this discrimination, harassment and abuse—systematic in some cases—is not and was not confined in the past to the military. That concern has been raised by civilians at times within the wider defence field. I and Ministers in this team are as concerned about it there as in the military, but I think she will appreciate that we ask those who put on a uniform for our country to take on a special role, to step forward and to be willing to give their lives to defend the rest of us. When those basic values that they fight for and that our country stands for are denied to them as part of their service, that is a deep injustice, and Lord Etherton’s report gives us the basis for recognition and restoration. That is the focus of my concern in this debate.
In September, the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) and I were proud to present the first Etherton ribbons to veterans, as a way of acknowledging the mistreatment of those affected by the ban.The Government are delivering for defence and delivering for LGBT veterans.
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between John Healey and Emily Thornberry
John Healey
My hon. Friend knows as much about this as anyone in the House, and in her characteristic way she has put her finger on a fundamental problem that the Secretary of State and his Ministers are now facing. It is a problem of trust. Just three years ago, councils and housing associations were given a 10-year guarantee on the rents that would be in place for them and the properties they manage, so that they could plan their businesses’ development and maintenance. How can they now trust this Secretary of State and his Ministers to keep their word in the future? This is a serious problem for housing associations. How can they trust a voluntary deal, the terms of which are not in the Bill? They have no guarantee that the Secretary of State or his successor will not welch on the deal, or that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not march in with his big boots to override the Secretary of State. Unless the guarantees that they are seeking as a basis for this deal are placed in the legislation, I fear the worst for them.
Emily Thornberry
Does my right hon. Friend know—has the Secretary of State perhaps told us—what will happen to the 261 National Housing Federation members that are not represented in this deal?
John Healey
This is a problem. We are not being given the details of the so-called vote taken by housing associations to enter this voluntary deal. The deal does not reflect the majority, or certainly a large number, of associations, which did not respond or were not consulted. There are serious questions for the Secretary of State about this. Despite many of the housing associations saying that they do not want to sign up to the deal—or not having said that they will do so—the Bill will nevertheless give regulators the power to enforce compliance by those housing associations on “home ownership” measures. How can we take at face value the words of Ministers about this being a voluntary deal for housing associations when behind it lies regulation that will enforce compliance? And if the right to buy is not put in place, what will happen to the tenants? The Secretary of State hardly mentioned them in his speech. How can there be a “right” to buy without the legislation to create that right? Without that legislation, and without giving tenants the ability to challenge landlords if they say no, this will not be a right to buy; it will be a right to beg to buy.