PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
LGBT Veterans: Etherton Review - 12 December 2024 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

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.

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.

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.

I am intervening on my right hon. Friend because I have to chair Westminster Hall in an hour, so I cannot take part in the debate.

My constituent not only lost his career in the Royal Air Force but was subjected to abuse when he was arrested, including constant internal examinations. He was beaten, he was kicked and he was spat at. He was marched across the parade ground to his billet, where his personal belongings were gone through. He was humiliated. Was that sanctioned by the Ministry of Defence at the time? Was it sanctioned by senior officers, or were those individuals working on their own? They acted like sadistic animals towards my constituent. Something needs to be done to investigate that.

My hon. Friend has been one of the most consistent and forceful voices on this historic abuse and demands for the Government now to provide some justice. He has raised that case in this House before. I do not know whether his constituent gave evidence to the Etherton review. If he did, he would have been one of over 1,100 individual LGBT veterans who served and had stories to report to Etherton, often of the sort of abuse that my hon. Friend talked about. It was based on that experience that Etherton made his recommendations. It was based on those recommendations that we make these announcements today. It is from tomorrow that we will open the scheme to start assessing and then making payments that recognise that injustice.

I thank the Secretary of State for making a really passionate speech. My constituent Ed Hall, who is in the Gallery, was one of the founding members of the legal campaign to lift the ban. Ed was sacked from the Royal Navy for being gay in 1988 and founded the first legal challenge group in 1994. When I met him, he spoke about people who had been investigated, about humiliation and stigma, and about people who were sacked. Many were made homeless simply because of who they loved and their sexuality. Will the Secretary of State join me in commending my constituent Ed Hall for his tireless work? It has helped to deliver justice today for so many LGBT+ veterans, and which is, as Ed has said,

“A close to the shameful chapter in recent British military history”.

My hon. Friend makes a moving and powerful intervention. Although courageous, relentless, energetic groups such as Fighting With Pride have in many ways led the charge, that was opened up by the stance of courageous individuals such as her constituent who had suffered but were prepared to speak out about their experience, which gave voice to the experience of many more.

The whole history of social change and progress in our country is based on brave individuals who at the outset will not stand for injustice, will not stand for that sort of harassment and will speak out. They start the movement that can bring pressure on Governments and others to change. The case that she cites stands for a number of LGBT veterans: people who served this country and were not served well by our military at that time. I hope that her constituent and her constituent’s family will welcome the announcement, and I hope that they will be able to take advantage of the schemes that we will open up tomorrow.

I welcome the tone and tenor of the Secretary of State’s speech. I wonder if he could assist the House in setting out the steps that the Government intend to take to ensure the reliability of gathering data about the size of the cohort who are affected and may be eligible for the compensation scheme.

The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible point. The shadow Defence Secretary will know—he and his colleagues started this work before the election—that one of, I would argue, the strengths of the announcement and the scheme we are able to put in place today is the close work we have done with veterans’ groups and Fighting With Pride, as well as with historians and those with access to records, to make our best assessment of the number of veterans who may be affected and may be eligible, and may therefore want to take advantage of these financial recognition schemes. We have set the budgets for the schemes and set the levels of award in the light of them. We will see how that goes.

I wholeheartedly welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement, and in particular the additional funds found to support charities who will help LGBT veterans with their applications. One of my constituents wrote to me with a most harrowing story about how his career in the armed forces ended with an investigation by the Royal Military Police. He said that every aspect of his life had been greatly affected since the initial investigation, with his housing, employment, health and family life all having suffered as a result of the ban, which was ruled illegal in 1999. Will my right hon. Friend outline when eligible LGBT veterans impacted by the ban can expect to receive their financial recognition?

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.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Let me start by sincerely thanking Lord Etherton and his team for undertaking this hugely important review, commissioned under the previous Government and taken forward by the present one. As in any such situation, the financial quantum will come under scrutiny, but the Opposition recognise that the £75 million announced today is 50% above Lord Etherton’s recommendations, and we support and welcome it.

In my ministerial and shadow roles, this is the first time that I have spoken on the issue of homosexuality in the armed forces, not having had responsibility for veterans at the Ministry of Defence. I regard it as a great personal honour to stand here and put on record my reflections as shadow Secretary of State. First, I recognise the terrible pain, humiliation and degrading treatment experienced by far too many people who simply wanted one thing: to serve their country.

Secondly, alongside the Secretary of State, I echo the previous Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), and the former Secretary of State Ben Wallace, in apologising unreservedly, given our position as a party in government for a significant part of the time that the ban remained in the military, long after the law for the rest of the country had changed. Thirdly, ultimately this is about recognising that the values of freedom, patriotism and public service are not confined to any part of society, but are common to all. We stand stronger as a nation and our armed forces are best served if we recruit every talent from every possible walk of life.

Lord Etherton has shone a bright light on a shameful, historic wrong, and I am grateful to everyone who submitted a response to the call for evidence. I appreciate that for every person affected, that would have been very difficult—dare I say traumatic. It was right that on the day that Lord Etherton’s report was published in July last year, at Prime Minister’s questions my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton said that the ban was

“an appalling failure of the British state”.—[Official Report, 19 July 2023; Vol. 736, c. 897.]

Earlier this year, a veteran from Bailden in my constituency contacted me. Victoria served in the women’s Royal Army Corps, but was dismissed due to her sexuality. She was subjected to imprisonment and mistreatment, which many would consider abuse. As a result, Victoria has suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder for over 40 years. I welcome the Government’s commitment to raising the compensation funds to £75 million for veterans such as Victoria. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman supports that, and I ask him to join me in welcoming today’s historic announcement, which completes the important work that the Conservative party began when it was in government to deliver on the recommendations of the Etherton review.

Victoria and all those with first-hand experience, or anyone who has read the testimonies or received constituency correspondence, such as that mentioned by the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), will know how harrowing and horrific those experiences were. They are at the front of our minds as we debate this subject. I join the hon. Lady in welcoming what the Government have announced today.

As the report makes abundantly clear, the ban on LGBT people serving in the military saw brave service personnel face awful sexual abuse, violence, harassment and bullying. Lord Etherton’s report also found that invasive investigations undertaken into individuals’ sexuality caused long-lasting and severe impacts for some. It found that many veterans subjected to the ban developed mental health issues including PTSD, and experienced difficulty with their employment, finances and homelessness, as we have heard. They found it hard to form long-term relationships due to shame and trust issues and, perhaps inevitably, some turned to alcohol and drugs. Compounding that, due to an absence of transition support, many veterans felt isolated.

Tragically, the stress caused by the ban means that we have lost LGBT veterans to suicide, and others have contemplated it. When meeting campaigners I was struck by a particularly powerful point: what they want most of all is to feel a full and equal part of today’s veterans family. As a House, I know we speak with one voice in saying to everyone affected: you are as much a veteran as anyone else who served this country.

The financial package announced today will not undo the past, but it means that both parties in government have taken significant steps to deliver redress. Important progress has been made in recent years to improve the experience of LGBT personnel, particularly in terms of training. The Home Office’s disregards and pardons scheme was set up to ensure that those who received a conviction for same-sex sexual offences can have that conviction wiped. The Office for Veterans’ Affairs awarded £250,000 last year to LGBT organisations to provide support services for impacted veterans. That was on top of the £45,000 provided in 2022 to help organisations gather evidence for the review.

In office, we launched the Etherton review and accepted the intent behind each and every one of Lord Etherton’s recommendations. We were committed to implementing them in good time. We set deadlines and made good progress, and we will support the Government as they conclude that work. We understand that 38 of the 49 recommendations have been delivered—the Veterans Minister is welcome to correct me in his wind-up, but I am sure that we would all welcome his providing clarity on the timeline for delivering the remaining recommendations.

For all the work of the previous Veterans Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), it was never going to be straightforward coming up with a deliverable package of financial compensation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) said in his intervention, there is the crucial issue of gathering data, which is complicated. That being so, I welcome the two-pronged approach to the scheme, and in particular the fact that payments will be exempt from income tax, although I believe that means that the timing is linked to the passing of the Finance Bill.

My understanding is that those affected will be able to apply under the dismissed or discharged payment scheme from tomorrow but, inevitably, the impact cohort will take longer due to the involvement of the independent panel. I urge Ministers to keep us posted on how the scheme works in practice. As the Secretary of State said, time is ticking and we all want to see this resolved and money awarded as soon as possible. We fully support the plans to restore rank and amend official reasons for discharge, and ask the Minister to clarify when those affected will be able to ask for that to take place.

Finally, I pay tribute to the many colleagues who have campaigned on this issue with passion and persistence, and to those in the last Government for their work getting us here, particularly Ben Wallace, Johnny Mercer and the previous Veterans Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire. Finally, I pay tribute to Craig Jones, Caroline Paige and Ed Hall of Fighting With Pride, for their extraordinary effort to campaign, raise awareness and deliver this change. They have helped to ensure that a tangible righting of a deep wrong is now happening in practice, underscoring the equal place for people of all backgrounds in our veterans community and our armed forces.

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.

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.

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.

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—

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.

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.

I thank the Secretary of State for giving an update to the House. I also thank him for showing a clear understanding of the hurt and pain suffered by LGBT veterans over the years. It is important to acknowledge that no amount of financial compensation will ever wipe the painful memories away. However, these are clear steps towards cleaning the stain on our nation that these violations have caused. As Lord Etherton says in his independent report, the failure to get this right

“risks prolonging the sense of injustice rather than achieving closure.”

This debate, of course, goes beyond financial redress. It is about correcting an injustice lived by veterans who lost their livelihood and their place in society. It is about acting to repair long-lasting damage that cost many men and women their physical and mental health. It is about giving people back their sense of pride and freedom. They defended our freedoms, while we were denying them their own.

One such individual is a constituent of mine whom I sat with in November as he explained the very real horrors he suffered. He joined the Royal Navy in October 1979 shortly before his 17th birthday. He trained originally as a naval airman, and then later as a marine engineer. In 1982, after three years in service, he was accosted in the middle of the night by four military police, placed in a blacked-out van and taken to the Royal Navy hospital, Stonehouse. There, he was forced to strip and was subjected to what he calls “an invasive medical procedure” carried out by Royal Navy doctors. In front of an audience of military police, this physical abuse was just the start. With his uniform given to forensics, he was issued a dirty dressing gown, driven to a cell block and placed in a strip cell. He encountered silent guards. He was given his meals on the floor. He was accompanied to the toilet and to the showers.

The silence continued for three days. My constituent was never offered any legal advice, nor any legal representation. He was interrogated several times by senior officials, who told him they saw him as a threat to other servicemen because of his homosexuality. He was told he would be detained until such time as they believed it safe to release him. He was not charged with any offence, nor was he aware of when he would be released. For 20 days, he was consigned to a strip cell with the light permanently on, and with silent guards banned from talking to him.

During that time, my constituent’s father contacted the Ministry of Defence in London to say that his sister, who had leukaemia, was now being kept on a life support machine. His father wanted to give him his chance to say goodbye, but was told he was at sea. When my constituent was released into the custody of the regulating branch of HMS Drake, he was told his sister had passed away.

Months went by and, while not detained, my constituent was classed as an “offender at large”. On 28 March 1983, without warning, every available rating and officer not on duty at HMS Drake was ordered to gather in the gym. Alongside others who had also previously been detained for being homosexual, he was ordered to dress in full dress uniform. They were then marched into the gym. There, in front of an audience of hundreds, an officer with sword drawn stood in front of him and removed his cap. The captain of HMS Drake read out numerous charges in full graphic detail—charges that had never been put to him. His description of the shouts, insults and threats from a baying crowd was awful to listen to. No attempt was made to silence the crowd. He was then dismissed from the service with immediate effect. He was handed his civilian clothes and dumped on the streets of Plymouth far from home with £54 to his name.

The long-lasting effects of that experience were—his word—“catastrophic”. Drug and alcohol addiction plagued his life for almost 30 years, with a vicious cycle of precarious work and unemployment. At this point, I want to quote directly from him:

“I carried with me a sense of great shame, for not only was being gay seen as criminal still in the armed forces, but something you were almost forced to declare you had been dismissed for from the armed forces every time you applied for work. Further to this, I spent those 30 years of self-destruction believing I deserved the treatment I received, for I had been caught and as such blamed myself for the mess my life became.”

Only 30 years later has he been able to recover a sense of pride, self-worth and self-confidence. He subsequently went to university and gained a first-class honours degree in English literature and creative writing, and recently obtained a master’s research degree in English literature, both at the University of Chester.

That is just a snapshot—a small part of the physical and mental health impacts that the LGBT ban had on my constituent’s life. We have an opportunity to bring an honourable end to this dishonourable attack against members of our own armed forces. The way LGBT armed forces personnel were treated does not reflect today’s armed forces. I welcome the fact that Lord Etherton and the Ministry of Defence have worked together with an incredible community of veterans to achieve this announcement today.

Finally, I urge the Government to continue to work with the community to promote the scheme and ensure that every veteran affected by the ban receives the compensation they deserve.

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.

Soon, many of us will be held rapt by television’s “SAS Rogue Heroes”, which returns to screens soon. The series will focus on the elite unit as, back from initial success in the desert war, it faces the much sterner challenge of Ayrshire, where it was briefly based until it went into action in Italy and occupied Europe. With legendary founder David Stirling languishing in Colditz, the focus will be on new commanding officer Blair “Paddy” Mayne. Mayne should by rights have been decorated with the Victoria Cross, our premier gallantry award, for his action rescuing pinned-down troops in Oldenburg, Germany, in 1945. Yet the award was downgraded. This was perhaps because of Mayne’s enthusiastic off-duty drinking and his penchant for punching senior officers, but it might also have something to do with the suggestion that he was a homosexual.

It is quite remarkable that such a martial giant should be doomed to be “the bravest man who never won a VC” over something so entirely irrelevant, yet today we must confront the reality that outmoded views of LGBT people persisted in the military for far longer than they ought to have done. Nothing can be done now to right the wrong done to Blair Mayne, but the Government are addressing the suffering of people very much alive today. Take my constituent Alan, once a teenager proud to serve in RAF blue. He told me:

“Arrested for being gay, I was sexually assaulted by the Special Investigation Branch and made to endure horrific, humiliating treatment during a gruelling three-day interview. As a 18-year-old kid, I lost all contact with my family and attempted to take my life five times due to the way I was treated. The long-term effect this has had on my mental health and family connections has not been easy.”

The Government are in a position to deliver the element that veterans such as both Blair Mayne and my constituent Alan would recognise as vital to all military operations: speed. As we have heard, the clock is ticking and time is moving on. The Minister for Veterans and People, the hon. and gallant Gentleman who will sum up the debate, is no stranger to combat, but he may yet find the Treasury a difficult opponent when it comes to the timings; indeed, he may need the courage of Mayne to prevail in that struggle. We must all hope that this scheme is streamlined and delivered apace, in a way that the Post Office Horizon compensation system was not.

I thank Members on both sides of the House for the many compelling and moving speeches that we have heard so far today.

When I made my maiden speech in this Chamber during the general debate on remembrance, I spoke of the bravery and personal sacrifice of all those who have served and continue to serve our country in our armed forces. When reading the testimonies in this review of veterans who have relived their trauma, pain and suffering in the pursuit of justice, we are once again reminded of that bravery and personal sacrifice. There can be no doubt in anyone’s mind that they belonged in our armed forces, and that in banning them we did a great disservice to them and to our country.

The policy of banning LGBT people from serving is rightly referred to as a stain on the history of the UK’s armed forces, but the evidence of the culture of homophobia, bullying, blackmail, sexual assaults, abusive and humiliating investigations and medical examinations —as if being gay were a disease to be remedied—goes beyond a mere stain, and is, at its very mildest, a shameful and reprehensible chapter in our history. These are people who wanted to serve their country and did serve their country, yet all that their country served them was a P45, dismissing or discharging them not on the basis of their performance, but on the basis of who they were. Although after a dreadfully long 33 years the policy was eventually lifted, we know that, as with many abuses, our LGBT veterans—the victims of this policy—have suffered appalling consequences for the rest of their lives.

That is what makes this review and this debate so important. We must recognise that these are not dark tales of times gone by, and that this injustice is still having a real effect on people to this very day—people like my constituent Chris, who bravely gave evidence to Lord Etherton’s review board about his own dismissal in 1984. He came to one of my first constituency surgeries and moved me almost to tears, and I was proud to march alongside him in this year’s Remembrance Sunday parade. Chris served in Northern Ireland; he volunteered for the Falklands; he received an air officer commanding commendation; he gained promotion to corporal on his return to the UK; and, while originally enlisted for six years, he had aspirations to serve our country—to serve his country—for much longer.

However, once Chris’s secret was out, and after six months of not knowing what was going to happen to him, during which he was placed in the psychiatric wing of a military hospital, medicated daily, considered a security threat and investigated by the special investigation branch, he was dishonourably discharged despite a glowing report of his service career. He was booted out and left to fend for himself with no support as he grappled with the rapid transition to civilian life, financial hardship, and suicidal thoughts.

In meetings and correspondence with me, Chris has talked of his pride in being a member of the armed forces and the love that he had for the Air Force. He has said that when his secret was out, it was not just his career that was dashed, but his life as well. That point is important: this injustice was not just a career setback, but something that ruined lives and took away time and opportunity that can never be given back. While we are thankfully a different country today—in no small part owing to the last Labour Government’s lifting of the ban—it is right that we address the wrongs of the past, and I must therefore turn to the subject of compensation. No amount of money can undo the wrongs of the past, but I am delighted that the Government have announced a 50% increase in the total compensation fund from £50 million to £75 million, with those affected able to receive up to £70,000, and a flat rate of £50,000 for all those eligible for the LGBT dismissed or discharged payment.

Veterans who suffered from this abhorrent abuse, including a constituent of mine who is up in the Gallery today, suffered the most shocking experiences of brutal rape and assault, and bravely want their story to be told. Does the hon. Member agree that funds should be allocated among the victims on the basis of the severity of their cases, as a small recompense for the vast horrors that they have had to endure and, psychologically, continue to endure?

I agree with the hon. Member.

Referring to previous cases and the range of amounts awarded, the review states:

“An amount which falls below that range…risks prolonging a sense of injustice rather than achieving closure”.

I am glad that the Government are not taking that risk. I am also glad that Government recognise that some veterans impacted by the ban are seriously unwell. It is right that those individuals will be prioritised, and that money is being set aside to fund key charities to help LGBT veterans with their applications, which can be submitted from tomorrow.

However, this is not just about money but about pride in service. Given that many LGBT veterans had their ranks taken away and were dishonourably discharged, I wholeheartedly welcome today’s announcement that ranks will be restored and discharge reasons amended so that they reflect and honour the service of veterans who were impacted.

Finally, I want to add a personal comment. As a citizen of this great country, I know that the freedoms and opportunities I enjoy have been secured by the bravery and sacrifice of our armed forces, and as a gay man, I know that the rights that I can almost take for granted were hard fought for, and hard won, by those who went before me, who spoke up against injustice and campaigned for change—often at great personal cost, and often with the knowledge that they might never know, experience or benefit from the change and the future that they spent their lives working towards. Today gives us a chance to thank both those groups, and to recognise that they are not distinct but overlapping, because there have always been people like Chris, gay and serving their country. Chris served his country with pride at a time when his country was not proud to take him for who he was. Today, he can hear his Member of Parliament, and so many others, say, “We are proud, we are thankful, and we are sorry.”

As has been said today, it is almost extraordinary now, in 2024, to think that for so long the UK armed forces upheld a ban on LGBT+ personnel. The ban allowed for the legal discharge of LGBT+ individuals from their duties, and in some cases it meant that people were criminally prosecuted. LGBT+ veterans were outed to their families and friends without their consent, forced to endure stigma and discrimination. They lost their jobs, and had their medals and their pensions taken from them. Some were criminally convicted simply for being themselves. This has made it nearly impossible for them to rebuild their lives, as they have faced significant barriers to finding employment and moving forward.

My constituent Stephen Purves, from Haywards Heath, is among the thousands who were so deeply wronged. Stephen was the last RAF officer to go to prison for being gay. He served—indeed, endured—six months in a civilian prison, and he did so solely as a result of being himself. To add insult to injury, he was stripped of his pension. He was court-martialled and dismissed in disgrace from the RAF in 1985. He should have received a pension from the age of 38; he did not.

Financially, Stephen was left in ruins. He has had to work far harder to make ends meet ever since. That financial insecurity, coupled with the difficulty of finding employment with a criminal conviction, is just one of the reasons he was left mentally scarred. He tells me that those scars remain. He has been left to battle with the mental health repercussions of this scandal for decades. As well as the obvious and severe stresses and strains of the financial situation that he was left in, he has endured stigmatisation, isolation and social exclusion.

It is indefensible that those who served our country and put their lives on the line for our safety and freedom were treated in that way. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are committed to ensuring that LGBT+ veterans receive the justice that they deserve. That absolutely includes guaranteeing fair compensation for every affected veteran. I welcome the increased compensation announced today, but I am sorry to say that I do not think the maximum award of £70,000 is sufficient, given the other compensation schemes announced by the Government, including for the Post Office Horizon scandal. I do not think that that compensation is sufficient for someone like Steve, who lost his career and his liberty, who went bankrupt, and who suffers to this day. I urge the Government to go further.

In the 1980s, aged 18, my constituent Robert moved from Scotland to sunny Weston-super-Mare to pursue a bright career at RAF Locking, which was then a vital part of the RAF’s technical training, radio and radar network. However, not long after moving to Weston, Robert was questioned by the special investigations branch about being a practising homosexual. Very soon after that, his career in the RAF was over, and the shame and embarrassment cast a long and powerful shadow over the rest of his life. Robert was unable to return to Scotland because of the hostility and rejection associated with being gay. After being treated so terribly by the state that he was working so hard to protect, it took Robert a long time to be able to live a happy, healthy and fulfilled life.

For so many gay people over many generations, moving away from the home and family was a way of finding acceptance, or at least anonymity, and an escape from judgment and shame. For Robert, like for so many others—myself included—Weston-super-Mare is a place of sanctuary and healing. Our town looks after people, and I am very proud of that.

Over the past decade, the RAF and our other armed forces have become international beacons of inclusion, demonstrating that who we are is no barrier to serving our country. Today’s announcement is a profound statement of who we are as a country and, importantly, it reminds us that we are stronger and better defended because of that openness and candour.

There are some things, however, that only a Government can and should do. The independent review by Lord Etherton is a powerful move towards justice, and so many people are grateful to him for his diligence and compassion. Today’s announcement follows the Government’s commitments to the victims of the contaminated blood and Post Office scandals. Those are profound acts by the state to apologise to and rebuild trust with those who have waited far too long for fair treatment.

I am grateful to the Defence Secretary, the Minister for Veterans and People, Fighting With Pride, and the previous Government for their work to right this wrong. I hope that the thousands of affected veterans, including my constituent Robert in Weston, will receive meaningful justice.

Like the Front Benchers, I want to start with an apology. I am sorry that anyone had to go through this. As has been said, the compensation does not make up for the treatment that victims received or fix the situation. It still happened, and I have been pleased to hear, from everyone who has spoken so far, the recognition that it happened but should never have happened. I will talk a little about some of the speeches that have been made, but first I have a number of questions for the Minister about the compensation scheme.

I listened carefully when the Secretary of State talked about how the scheme will work. I understood from what he said—although I may be wrong, so it would be helpful if the Minister clarified—that there will be two pots. One pot will be for flat payments of £50,000 to people who were dismissed or discharged. The Secretary of State used the words “instructed to resign”. A little clarity on what that means would be helpful. If people were sat down and told, “You must resign,” does that count as an instruction, or would it be an instruction only if they were given a letter formally telling them to resign? Where is the bar by which the flat payment of £50,000 is judged?

The Secretary of State seemed to suggest that the other payment was for two different groups. It is for those who have suffered hardships in addition to the discharge—imprisonment or additional discrimination, for example—but I was not sure whether it is also open to those who were not discharged but did suffer discrimination as a result of their sexuality. Does it fulfil those two purposes of being both a top-up payment and a payment of recompense for those who experienced more minor suffering than a discharge? Some clarity would be helpful.

The scheme’s two-year time period has been mentioned. Although I appreciate that people need to know the closing date, it would be helpful if the Government committed to undertaking some sort of review at, say, the one-year point to ensure that the scheme is operating as intended, that as many people as possible have applied and that the process is going smoothly. This would allow the Government to say, “We think two years is adequate, because we reckon that 90% of people have applied in the first year,” or, “We don’t think two years is appropriate, and we therefore think the scheme should be extended to ensure that everyone who is entitled to this compensation can get it.”

Will people who are currently overseas be able to apply? The hon. Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward) talked about people losing their sense of self, and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) said that some people had to flee because they wanted to leave their trauma behind, and may now be overseas as a direct or indirect result of their treatment. Will they still be able to apply to the compensation scheme and to receive compensation, regardless of where they currently live?

Can the Minister assure us that the charitable support will have a geographic spread? For instance, if there are charities that work only in England, will other charities be funded to provide support to veterans in other parts of these islands? The citizens advice bureau in Aberdeen has something like a 14-week wait for people to get any advice. Although it is a national charity, it has different waiting times in different places. Will the Minister look into whether the charitable support has the geographic spread to ensure that everyone can get the help and support they need?

We have heard about people’s sense of self, and about what they lost as a result of either being discharged or having their life made so difficult that they could no longer remain in the armed forces. The immensely powerful speech of the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Elaine Stewart) set out the trauma her constituent went through, and it echoed the evidence given to the review.

It is very difficult for us, sitting here, to listen to such accounts, never mind for all those people who had to go through those horrific experiences. People lost not only their career or their standing in the community; they lost a part of themselves when they were told, “You cannot be both a soldier and gay.” These people had dreamed forever of joining the armed forces, and they served with incredible bravery and honour, only to be told, “We don’t want you.”

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is not just the loss of a job or a pension, but the loss of shared values? These people felt rejected, as they could no longer do things that other veterans are able to do together.

The hon. Lady talks about people who fled the country, but Karen in my Mid Dorset and North Poole constituency was betrayed by another LGBT service member who was seeking to protect themselves. Some personnel avoided their own discharge by betraying someone else. Does the hon. Lady have any thoughts on that?

It is not my place to comment on individuals who perpetrated such abuses, nor to judge whether these were systemic issues or whether personal gain was received. However, I understand that people want redress. The Minister has recognised that, above and beyond the pot of money specifically for those who were discharged, there is another pot for those who faced additional hardships.

One of my constituents has been in touch to say that he had intended to be in the armed forces for life. That was his plan and he had never wanted to do anything else; his aim was to be a member of the armed forces. When he was ejected, his hopes, dreams and sense of self were all gone from him, and recovering from that trauma is incredibly difficult. I appreciate the work that the Minister and the Secretary of State have done, as well as the work done by the previous Government, in order to ensure the compensation scheme has come forward, and I appreciate that the amount of money in the pot has been increased.

I have already asked some specific questions, but on the family of veterans, it is incredibly important that there is follow-through. For example, previously, the medals sent to some LGBT veterans were posted in the normal post and fell through the letterbox on to the carpet, along with bills from BT and energy suppliers. I do not think that was appropriate or provided the same recognition that other people received when they got their medals. More can be done to ensure that being part of the family of veterans is not just warm words, but a reality. People should be provided with a welcome, as well as being told that they will provided with a welcome to that family.

I thank the Minister and everyone who has spoken today. I thank all the organisations and individuals who have been fighting for this outcome. I also thank those who have not been brave enough to tell their stories, and who are going through such difficult times that they are not able to do so. Those who are in the Gallery today have been able to give voice on behalf of themselves, but also on behalf of their friends and colleagues who are not able to tell their stories to us today or to the review. I thank those who have told their stories for being the voice for the community.

I hope the Minister is able to answer some of my questions, in order to ensure the compensation scheme works as the Government intend and gives an amount of recompense for the extreme trauma and suffering that people have been through.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that, in response to the Etherton review into the treatment of LGBT veterans, additional amounts of compensation will be offered to all victims, and a second tier payment will be offered to those most severely affected. That is most welcome, but it is so very late and it will never be enough to compensate our LGBT veterans for the treatment they suffered while trying to serve our armed forces, and the abandonment they felt once they had left.

As Craig Jones wrote in his book, “Serving with Pride”, which shares some of the tragic stories of LGBT lives blighted by this shameful period of military history:

“With quiet dignity, most have endured. These are veterans deserving of our compassion for the adversity they have faced and the courage they have shown all while waiting to be heard and acknowledged. After all they have been through, it is quite remarkable that for most, their loyalty to the armed forces has endured and still today many simply seek acceptance and recognition amongst their comrades.”

Today, I would like to tell the story of a brave and committed solider that I had the honour to meet. My constituent, a veteran from 50 years ago, carried the heavy burden of shame of being dismissed from the services for being who they are, rather than being thanked for all that they did. Gunner Ashton joined the Royal Artillery in 1969, became the best small arms shot and served in Germany, defending us from the cold war threat. He achieved top technical ratings as a surveyor, was tipped for promotion and spent four months in Northern Ireland at the border and by the Falls Road in Belfast, where he was shot at, bombed and saw his comrades fall: such bravery and courage, such distinguished service and commitment, such capability and achievement. May I place on record the pride and recognition that Gunner Ashton so richly deserves?

Gunner Ashton, however, served three years before being medically discharged. Ex-Gunner Ashton disappeared back up north into obscurity, never knowing he was a victim of the gay ban, not knowing he was a veteran and, certainly, never having been thanked for his service. What a sad end to a promising career and a sad indictment of the armed forces’ disgraceful treatment of our LGBT officers at that time.

I am glad to say that that is not the end of the story. Gunner Ashton was courageous enough to seek help to become Claire Ashton, the same kind, compassionate and capable person that she has always been. When I met her in our constituency, I was immediately impressed with her dignified approach, her thorough and detailed account, her excellent service record and her steely determination to seek recognition for the thousands of her comrades who had suffered this injustice and who deserve our recognition.

Finally, after 50 years, ex-Gunner Ashton heard the Prime Minister apologise to our LGBT officers last year and launch the reparations and compensation scheme. Finally, Claire received her veterans identity card and a small veterans badge. Finally, ex-Gunner Ashton was recognised as a veteran and for her remarkable contribution to the Artillery. Claire joined the ex-service organisation that supports LGBT personnel, Fighting With Pride, and was given the honour of carrying its standard at last year’s Royal British Legion festival of remembrance at the Royal Albert Hall in front of the King and Queen, among 50 veterans from the organisation, standing shoulder to shoulder with thousands of our other veterans.

Claire’s finest hour, however, was when, wearing her small veterans badge at the Cenotaph, a passer-by noticed the badge and said simply, “Thank you for your service.” That was the first person to do so; it had taken 51 years. I would like to be the second person to thank her for her service and to ask that it be recorded in the Houses of Parliament.

Claire Ashton is here today, having travelled on the train at 5 am from Shrewsbury. She is in the Gallery, watching the debate, and I hope that she feels the respect and admiration of this House for her contribution to our armed forces. [Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear!”] I also hope she feels our earnest endeavours to put right this terrible wrong.

I asked Claire Ashton if she had a message for the Minister and for this House. She asks that we understand that, in order to recruit and retain good recruits for our armed forces, we need to treat our veterans with the dignity and respect that they deserve. Serving personnel will ask, “What future do I have in our forces?” and new recruits will hesitate if they do not feel welcome. We have an opportunity to learn the lessons from the past and ensure that strong recruits and excellent officers are supported and nurtured to reach their full potential and thrive in our armed forces. It is a matter of fundamental welfare for serving personnel and veterans to feel safe and valued. Indeed, as Claire Ashton, who will have the last word, reminds us:

“That is all we want, to feel valued”.

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—

Please say, “he”.

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.

I start by thanking the Secretary of State and my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister for Veterans and People for their intense understanding of this issue and of the whole veterans’ community. This debate comes at a critical juncture in the story of these people—these people of service who have been let down by our nation. That is a great source of national shame, as other Members have said. Although progress has been made, we must ensure that these veterans, some of whom have suffered immensely at the hands of the state, are compensated adequately. I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State’s announcement today, especially around the financial arrangements. It is delivery as promised and it is a victory, which has been a long time coming for these people.

As a gay man in this place, I am all too aware that we stand on the shoulders of campaigners, activists and giants of the LGBT rights movement, who have come before us. For over three decades, individuals who served, or wanted to serve, this country were shamed, or risked being shamed, expelled, imprisoned, and put on a register of sex offenders in some cases. Their lives were destroyed for the sake of their sexuality.

Being LGBT is not a weakness; it is a strength. We train, fight and serve as hard as anyone else. Like carbon kept under the earth’s crust for a long time, diamonds emerge in our hearts because of those experiences. These are the people who have built our forces over the years. We owe them a great debt. I am glad that this discrimination, which was once accepted—indeed, institutionalised—is over. Our forces are better for it, and our country is stronger for it, but for so long the values that we hold dear of respect, duty, service and honour were not upheld for these people, who were let down, such as my constituent Steven, without whom— I have told this story before—I would not be raising this issue. This is a man who lobbied me from day one of my selection as the Labour candidate, and rightly continues to lobby me to this day. He was expelled on suspicion of his sexuality. His life was taken from pride in what he was doing to ruin.

In my recent Adjournment debate, we heard truly heartbreaking and harrowing stories of service, and betrayal of that service by those in power at the time. As I said in that debate, I pay tribute to Fighting With Pride, which has been at the forefront of this campaign, alongside other colleagues in the Chamber. Individuals such as Craig Jones, my friend Carl Austin-Behan, and the noble Lords in the Gallery, Lord Etherton and Lord Cashman, who have been a part of this over a long period, have done so much to raise awareness of the unique challenges faced by LGBT veterans, and veterans more broadly.

As the Minister knows, financial redress is key to justice for these veterans, but the capped £50 million allocated was plainly inadequate given the level of trauma and destruction that these people experienced, be it mental health crises, substance abuse, homelessness, destitution, disownment by families, being labelled sex offenders, being victims of suicide and more. The scary thing is that this is not ancient history. People have come to me with stories from the late ’90s, when I was a kid. It is not that long ago.

I am glad to hear today’s announcement, because frankly, true justice has always required a more substantial financial commitment that acknowledges the suffering and delivers fair and meaningful compensation. While I welcome the Government’s actions, particularly around the scheme itself and the two-pronged approach, I have some questions on the cap, especially for the second element of the scheme. I understand the flat-rate approach for the first tranche, but on the second tranche, people who have experienced complete horrors, of which we will probably hear more in the debate, I wonder whether a cap of £70,000, although that is a substantial amount of money, is enough redress.

The Secretary of State mentioned that a committee will assess case-by-case the experiences of such veterans. I wonder whether the experience of that committee might leave it better placed to decide the level of redress, perhaps within an overall cap. I understand that, particularly in the view of the Treasury, this is not always possible, but it is best to have the maximum amount of flexibility in dealing with specific cases, some of which are completely harrowing. Lord Etherton’s review offered a crucial road map, and the noble Lord has done veterans, and indeed our country, a great service in bringing us to this point. Completing the recommendations in full will ensure that veterans, regardless of their orientation, are treated with respect and fairness, and from the Government’s perspective, it will honour the contract that was started with these men and women so long ago—a contract that was broken on the Government’s side.

Lastly, I welcome the restoration of rank and the amendment of dismissal reasoning, and thank the Minister for listening all the way through this process. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward) has long been a champion of this issue; I think he mentioned it to me on the first day we were here. I know it has been a long listening exercise for the Minister. There is still a little further to go to ensure that there is maximum flexibility for our veterans, but I know he is doing his best to champion the issue and right this wrong. Today can be considered a great victory for these fighters. I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for taking the time, and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute.

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—

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.

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.

This is an important day for a whole generation of ex-service personnel in my constituency and across the UK who lost everything they knew because of a policy that was discriminatory and wrong. I pay tribute to the charity Fighting With Pride and the coalition that has led this campaign with the dignity of ex-service personnel, in the very best of that tradition. We speak a lot in this House about the tremendous debt and respect we owe to our armed forces. That is something we in Aldershot and Farnborough feel very deeply, as people from our community have served in every major conflict that our country has faced over the past 200 years, yet the stories we are hearing today remind us that that respect is about not just words but deeds. I thank Lord Etherton for his work and the Government for listening, responding and taking action.

I will use my time in today’s debate to draw the House’s attention to the sister ban of this policy, for which the Government are rightly compensating people—the ban on people living with HIV joining or serving in our military. That ban was not repealed in 2000; it was repealed in 2022, and even now, there are loopholes that are still being exploited. So regressive were the rules that people were banned from joining the armed forces even if they were HIV-negative but were taking the HIV prevention drug PrEP. Regrettably but not surprisingly, opportunities to revise these rules were missed in 2008, in 2016, and yet again in 2019. Even as the British Government accepted the “can’t pass it on” science about people living with HIV in relation to treatment in the years that followed, no change was forthcoming. Those who were already serving personnel were labelled as medically not deployable.

It took the Terrence Higgins Trust, the National AIDS Trust and a remarkable Hampshire resident, Lieutenant Commander Oliver Brown MBE, to right this wrong. Oli was cycling through London when a brick hit his bike and he hit a wall. He was taken to a London hospital, and—as is finally becoming custom, due to the last Government and the £27 million announced by the Prime Minister last week—he was routinely tested for HIV. He discovered that he was positive. As his broken arm was being fixed, Oli had to come to terms with a stigmatised diagnosis and worry not about whether he would live or have his family’s support but about whether he had a job or a place to live. When he told his employer, the Royal Navy, he was labelled and held back. Thankfully, he found similar guts and spirit to those of Craig and Fighting With Pride, and became a relentless campaigner on this issue.

In June 2022, the rules were finally swept away not just for the LGBT community, but for anyone living with HIV. Days later, the Civil Aviation Authority did the same, and removed all barriers to pilots living with HIV on medication. That is why everyone involved was so surprised that the Military Aviation Authority gave itself an extra two months to remove the ban, and the obligations imposed then have still not been fully fulfilled. People living with HIV are still not able to join the armed forces as air crew or controllers. It would be a great thing if, off the back of this debate, my hon. Friend the Minister committed to investigate this issue, and agreed to meet Oliver Brown, the Terrence Higgins Trust and the National AIDS Trust to find a path forward on this issue.

We need to turn our military culture from just an absence of bans to one that promotes HIV and sexual health testing, with people being encouraged to take charge of their sexual health. The military needs to be a place where HIV stigma has no home. Our amazing HIV charities are on hand to help, and the UK could be the first fast-track military in committing to the goal of zero HIV transmissions, zero preventable deaths and zero HIV stigma. To meet that global goal, we need our armed forces to do their bit. If we achieve it, it will be the first time we have stopped the onward transmission of any virus without a vaccine or a cure. We cannot fail. Today is a great day, but the fight for equality is a journey, not a destination.

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I am very pleased to be able to speak in this debate as one of the newly elected co-chairs of LGBT+ Labour, and it is a great honour to follow a number of hon. Members who have given very powerful testimonies from veterans. It is very difficult to follow that and to do justice to this issue. There is much interest in this debate and in the review of LGBT veterans. As he mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) recently held an Adjournment debate on this topic. He raised the issues that the ban had caused those who were dismissed, and we have heard about many of those issues in the words of the veterans themselves.

People were dismissed under the bans, and there were broken family relationships, poor mental health issues and a marginalisation driven by the shame of being thrown out of the military. In his debate, my hon. Friend rightly highlighted that this had an impact not only on LGBT people, but on those merely suspected of not being heterosexual. It also had an impact on all those serving given the climate of fear and discrimination that it drove within the military. He said in that debate that, as a young gay man, it seemed an alien world, but of course this is discrimination not from a century ago, but from our lifetime and within living memory.

Looking at the history of this campaign, which was the focus of much energy in the 1990s, when I was in the early days of my political campaigning, it is worth noting that there was an attempt 28 years ago to change the law so that lesbians and gay men could serve in the military. In the debate at that time, the then MP for Liverpool, Garston, Eddie Loyden, intervened on the Minister, who was defending the status quo. As Eddie explained, he was one of the few remaining Members in the House at that time who had served through the whole of the second world war. The question he put to the Minister, which I remember watching at the time, is worth repeating. Speaking of world war two, he said:

“I was in no fewer than seven troop ships carrying men and women to the four corners of the globe to fight on behalf of the nation. There were no questions about homosexuality then…If there was a war tomorrow, there would be no discrimination against homosexuals or lesbians. They would be dragged in just as they were in 1939.”—[Official Report, 9 May 1996; Vol. 277, c. 507.]

Of course, there was plenty of discrimination pre-1967 and at the time of that debate, but Eddie was making the point that this policy was based not just on discrimination, but on hypocrisy. It was hypocrisy in that distinguished service was duly undertaken, and was often honoured and recognised with medals, only to be disregarded and thrown aside when the question of someone’s sexuality was raised. Far too many people suffered from that policy, and the opportunity to end it earlier was lost as the Government of the day asserted that it would undermine military effectiveness if LGBT people were allowed to serve.

My West Ham predecessor in that debate, Tony Banks, was heard to shout “Rubbish!” at that assertion. He was of course right. Someone is a good soldier based on their skills; bravery and good service are not dependent on someone’s sexuality. History has since proved that it was rubbish, as over the last 25 years, since the change in the law, the military has continued to operate with distinction and LGBT people have played their part with honour within it.

That attempt to alter the law failed, and it took until 2000 for the change to take place, which led to continued discrimination and suffering for serving personnel, as we have heard. Those targeted lost not only their job but their reputations and rank, and until the 1990s—a quarter of a century after the decriminalisation of homosexuality in civilian life—they faced criminal convictions and jail time. It is perhaps worth noting how much has changed since that debate of 1996. Then we had only one openly gay MP, Chris Smith, and the idea that Parliament would now have so many LGBT MPs would have seemed impossible to believe. Most of the freedoms and privileges that the LGBT community now enjoy were yet to come. Indeed, many of them were beyond the possibility of even campaigning for.

This House has changed, the law has changed, and society has changed too. It has changed for the better, but the impact of the policy and the ban has a long tail, and veterans are still dealing with it today. That is why Lord Etherton’s report is so important. This is a live issue that we must resolve, and I welcome the progress we have made as a society and the progress on delivering the recommendations. I very much welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State about the financial redress being made available to veterans. When I spoke recently to a veteran they raised the issue of financial redress, as the impact of dismissal from the military has had a big impact on many, some of whom are now of an age when the issue of support is pressing. It will come as welcome news that we are making further progress on that, and that applications will open immediately. We must ensure that all those eligible can easily apply.

It is also welcome that veterans will see the restoration of their rank, and their service record amended. I very much welcome the fact that pre-1967 veterans are also being considered. It is important to ensure that we deliver on all recommendations in the report, so that all those who have served and faced discrimination can now wear their medals and remember their service with honour and pride, and so that we can wipe away the hypocrisy that tried to tarnish their service to their country. It is important that we support veterans in that, but also that we work to create a culture of dignity and respect for those veterans, to value them as a society, and to respect their service to their country and expunge the legacy of discrimination.

As so many Members have already done, we should pay tribute the campaigners who have fought hard for this campaign, many of whom are in the Public Gallery. That includes those who stood up and led the legal campaigns of the 1990s, and in more recent times the campaigners from Fighting With Pride. We are here because of them, and this debate is built on their hard work. We have an opportunity finally to draw the legacy of that shameful policy to a close and place it fully into the dustbin of history. It is an opportunity we have to take. I am grateful that the Government are rising to that challenge, and we must ensure that we rise fully to the needs of that community.

Today is a moment to acknowledge the historical injustice endured by LGBT veterans, and to reaffirm our collective responsibility as a House to right the wrongs of the past.

I will share a story of one of my constituents, Professor Andrew Hartle, a man whose life epitomises the resilience and achievements of LGBT veterans against the odds. Andrew joined the Royal Air Force in the 1980s, full of ambition and a desire to serve his country. His early years in uniform were marked by excellence. He rose swiftly through the ranks as a medical officer participating in search and rescue missions and serving in the first Gulf war. But while Andrew was fulfilling his duties he was living a double life, weighed down by a constant fear of being discovered. At a time when being openly gay in the armed forces was not just taboo but illegal, Andrew faced an impossible conflict: to live authentically, or to preserve the career he loved.

In 1996, Andrew was outed in a tabloid newspaper with the horrifying headline, “RAF doc’s gay fling with an AIDS victim”. Andrew was suspended, subjected to demeaning accusations and eventually forced to resign. For seven agonising months, he was left in limbo, isolated from colleagues, forbidden to access his NHS place of work and ostracised by an institution he had dedicated his life to serving.

Andrew continued to face prejudice throughout his career. NHS administrators demanded he take an HIV test against his will. That was just one of many humiliating incidents that he experienced after leaving the military. Despite that discrimination, and the obstacles he faced, Andrew became the first openly gay consultant anaesthetist, working at St Mary’s hospital, a world-class hospital serving many of my constituents in Kensington and Bayswater. He rebuilt his life and career, became a trailblazer in his field and has been a powerful advocate for justice.

However, for Andrew and for so many others, the scars inflicted by the gay ban remain. As Andrew reflected in his own words:

“Coming out as I did was not my plan…My mental health deteriorated, and I buried the impact of my outing and dismissal.”

Andrew was one of the fortunate ones, however. He is here with us in the Gallery today, and he spoke so powerfully on the radio this morning. Many others were not as lucky, so I welcome the Government’s announcement today that they will move from apology to action.

The apology given last year by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), was long overdue and was right. He was right to describe the ban on LGBT people serving in the military as

“an appalling failure of the British state”.—[Official Report, 19 July 2023; Vol. 736, c. 897.]

He was right to highlight the abuse, harassment and discrimination that many suffered, but words alone are not enough. This Government have been clear that they will tackle historic injustices head on, from Horizon to Grenfell, and from infected blood to the horrific legacy of the ban on and mistreatment of LGBT veterans. With today’s announcement, we take a meaningful step forward to support the veterans who suffered at the hands of the British state.

I welcome the scheme’s focus on simplicity and speed of payment, which are vital for veterans who have waited decades for justice. I also welcome the Secretary of State’s clarification that those reparations will be ringfenced, ensuring that veterans will not lose access to tax or benefits as a result. This moment would not have been possible without the tireless advocacy of organisations such as Fighting With Pride, so I thank them for their dedication in supporting LGBT veterans and for their crucial role in securing today’s announcement. I also thank Lord Etherton for his review.

Andrew’s story reminds us of the immense personal cost of injustice. His courage, perseverance and achievements should inspire us all. Andrew has waited 27 years, but some have waited as long as 50. Tragically, many veterans have died without ever seeing justice. As we approach 12 January, the 25th anniversary of the lifting of the ban, we must also focus now on the task ahead of us: to locate and support all eligible veterans to come forward and to ensure no one is left behind. I hope that the Minister for Veterans and People can provide further detail on that strategy in his closing remarks. We must honour those who served in silence, who lived in fear, and who were ostracised simply for being themselves and loving who they loved. That is not merely an act of kindness, but a moral obligation, and I am proud that this Government are resolute in their determination to deliver it.

I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I am humbled by the testimonies that have been shared by my friends on both sides of the Chamber, but I was particularly moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley). The testimonies that have been shared show us how ashamed we should be that our country treated so many people so badly for so long. Make no mistake: we have had LGBT people in our armed services for as long as we have had armed services, and I am proud to call many of them my close friends. They have shared their harrowing stories with me, but what always shines through is their loyalty to their service and their country.

Today’s debate makes me proud to be a Labour MP. I remember the Labour Government lifting the ban on LGBT soldiers in 2000. I celebrated that with my friends. Labour argued for the Etherton review, and I thank Lord Etherton for his work. Now, as a Labour MP, I welcome the recommendations. I will fight for every LGBT veteran to get the compensation that they deserve.

The historical treatment of our veterans was a moral stain on our nation. It was wrong on every single level. We will never know how many good men and women were too afraid ever to apply to serve their country, or too afraid ever to come out to this day. So many LGBT soldiers had their hopes and aspirations cut short despite their commitment to serve our country. They were left feeling ashamed, demoralised and humiliated when they should have been proud, like I am, to be a member of the LGBT community.

We cannot undo the damage of the past, but we can ensure that those who were affected receive what they are owed. I pay tribute to all the veterans with us today, and to Fighting With Pride, which has supported LGBT veterans for years and pushed Governments to do better. I also pay tribute to Kelly Holmes, whose recent personal account was difficult to hear but typical of so many women I have spoken to.

I encourage every LGBT veteran to apply to have their rank restored so that they can feel pride again in the service they gave to our country. It is time to renew the nation’s contract with all those who have served, and delivering Lord Etherton’s recommendations is just a small part of that. I hope that today is another historic landmark in the fight for equality for LGBT people in this country. I will support any veterans to get the compensation they deserve to restore their dignity and pride for their service for our country.

I welcome Lord Etherton’s review and thank all the organisations and campaign groups that contributed to it, including Fighting With Pride. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) rightly said, this is welcome, but it is so late. I also place on the record my thanks to my constituents in Suffolk Coastal who raised the issue with me directly and have worked for years to support their former military colleagues who have suffered at the hands of this abhorrent and humiliating practice. In particular, I thank Kalvyn Friend, who contributed to the review and has engaged with me directly on the issue. He and his colleagues Terry Skitmore and Simon Wallington were perceived as gay in the ’90s and late-’80s and were treated appallingly as a result.

It is important that we acknowledge that there are many former armed service personnel who did not live to see this justice come about. Either they died natural deaths after the ban was removed or, devastatingly, they took their own lives. Many of those who are still living have attempted to die by suicide or have thought to do so. I have heard appalling stories from campaign groups and charities.

The Etherton review has exposed harrowing stories of members of the armed forces and how they were treated by the very institution they were prepared to give their life for. I also thank the Royal British Legion, which among other charities and campaign groups provided evidence to the review and has highlighted stories from former veterans—men and women—who faced at best humiliation and at worst degrading and appalling acts of intimidation, as well as needless discharge from the armed forces. In some cases, they faced imprisonment and no access to their military pensions, as we have heard.

I reiterate that the cultural and operational justifications for the ban, as described and endorsed by the Ministry of Defence at the time, have rightly been criticised in Lord Etherton’s report as an

“incomprehensible policy of homophobic bigotry”.

It is crucial that we learn from those past mistakes and that the principles of equality and respect that underpin our society are taken forward.

In 2002, I attended Welbeck military college. After I left, I joined the Territorial Army, serving in the Royal Logistics Corps. This was just a few short years after the ban was lifted, but the shadow of the policy was still evident. Serving personnel were terrified of being found out, still living their lives in the shadows. At college, I had teachers and physical training instructors who had lived with and lived through the ban, having been personally affected by the homophobic policies or having seen at first hand how friends and serving colleagues had been bullied out of the Army and lived their lives in the shadows. Unsurprisingly, many have suffered from mental health problems brought on by living and working in an institution that had previously tried to hunt them out for being gay or bisexual.

Even though the ban was lifted by the time I left Welbeck college and the TA, I saw how the culture lingered for LGBT colleagues. We have heard today that although the ban was lifted in 2000, the culture and the practice were still evident among serving personnel. When I was there, colleagues still felt that they had to hide their sexual orientation and that it was still something to be ashamed of. They were not proud or open in the way that we are today and that we take for granted in society now.

The impact of this abhorrent practice cannot be overstated. The lifelong scar it has had on so many who gave so much to our nation is a stain on our military history and more widely on our society. The review rightly recommends that compensation would be an appropriate means of redress. I am delighted that we have increased the compensation from £50 million to £75 million. If that had been left unchanged, it might have equalled as little as £12,500 per claimant. I urge the Government to make sure that the payments are made quickly and without delay. It is important that we do what we can to make sure that the compensation is released quickly to those who deserve it.

I welcome this announcement, and once again I thank all those who contributed to the review and who took it forward. The work being done to implement the recommendations will go some way to recognising the past failures of the Ministry of Defence.

It is a privilege to participate in this important debate and to hear many moving accounts from both sides of the House. My constituency plays a crucial role in our nation’s defence, ranking seventh in the UK for the veteran population. Torpoint, a wonderful town that is home to HMS Raleigh, has the third highest number of veterans of any community in the UK, with over 14% having served our country.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for today’s statement, and to Lord Etherton for his crucial work on this topic. I am also grateful to the Minister for Veterans and People for visiting Torpoint recently to meet veterans from across the constituency. The visit was an important demonstration of Labour’s commitment to our armed forces and our veteran community.

Today, we reflect on a deeply regrettable chapter in our history. As we heard, prior to 2000, being a member of the LGBT+ community was considered incompatible with service in the armed forces. As a result, LGBT individuals—or those perceived to be—could be dismissed or forced to leave the military, robbing them of careers, livelihoods and dignity. I welcome the Government’s announcement of support for our veterans. It is a historic step towards righting these wrongs. By increasing the funding—and, in fact, exceeding that recommended by the review—for the LGBT financial recognition scheme, the Government continue to show an unwavering commitment to supporting our veterans.

I acknowledge the brilliant work of Fighting With Pride to support the wellbeing of LGBT+ veterans, armed forces personnel and their families. Its efforts, alongside those of the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes, Stonewall, SSAFA and many others, are invaluable. I have heard from constituents who have been personally affected by this injustice, and I am so grateful to them for their work and for sharing their stories with me.

I am immensely proud of our LGBT+ serving personnel and veterans from South East Cornwall and across the nation. Their resilience, despite the adversity they faced, is a testament to their strength and dedication to keeping us safe. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, and I hope to hear more in due course about the progress being made on this vital topic.

I am grateful for your forbearance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I very much welcome the announcement made by the Secretary of State today, although its arrival is almost as late as my own arrival in the Chamber this afternoon, for which I apologise.

The ban on LGBT people serving in the armed forces until 2000 was a failure of the state; the delay in announcing reparations is another failure, which is in danger of eroding the public’s faith in politics to deliver for people. I see no point in in blaming the previous Government. In fact, I commend the work of the previous Government and of Lord Etherton, and of our own Government in bringing forward this scheme so swiftly. However, just as we saw with the Hillsborough scandal, the infected blood scandal and the Post Office Horizon scandal, we must move more quickly to compensate people. I concur with the hon. Members for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) and for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who emphasised that the scheme must be delivered swiftly and in a measured way. A long delay simply prolongs the agony of the many veterans who have waited decades for an apology and for the formal financial reparations announced today.

I have a constituent, Janice MacIver, who served in the British Army and was caught up in this dark period of our history in the 1990s, some 30 years ago. From 1992 to 1994, Ms MacIver served with the Army Intelligence Corps in Hong Kong and England. There was nothing wrong with her work or her service to the country, but, on 30 June 1994, she was unceremoniously and dreadfully kicked out of the British Army and sent back from Hong Kong simply because of who she was.

Many veterans affected by this scandal have lost their homes, health and peace of mind because of the awful treatment meted out to them. Ms MacIver is a resilient individual, as islanders tend to be, and she managed to get herself back on her feet. She served her country in another way, as a police officer, with a career of public service spanning two decades. However, as we have heard today, some people never made it that far.

What was done to Janice MacIver happened 30 years ago, but she was one of the first over the threshold of my Stornoway constituency office when I was elected. What happened to her still stings, still hurts. She did get a letter of apology from the head of the Army, which she appreciates, and a new beret, and the Intelligence Corps are to welcome her back to base in a ceremony next month. It is fantastic that Janice’s sister is flying from Australia to be with her and support her at that event.

The new levels of compensation are very welcome, but for Janice and many other veterans, it is not just about the money; it is about having proper acknowledgment and acceptance that what was done to her—the way she was treated by her country after serving her country—was wrong. This announcement, I hope, will go some way to repairing the damage done. I hope that with this, that sad episode will be done and dusted, but it ought to be recorded and acknowledged in Army records and museums. It belongs in the past.

What happened to Janice and to thousands of other veterans was wrong, which is so evident. It is widely acknowledged, and it is a shame it has taken so many years to put it right. However, I am glad of today’s announcement, and hope that LGBT service personnel and veterans can now say, finally, that they have served with pride.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

With the leave of the House, I am winding up this debate as well as opening it, as you can see, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are only two of us, and there is a Bill Committee sitting at the same time—there are some things we cannot physically get around in that situation. I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for letting me wind up. It enables me to pay tribute to some incredible speeches today, all of them moving, in which Members have shared the many traumatic cases of their constituents. They underline exactly why the Government have made this announcement today, based on the review that we launched in government.

Some specific themes were raised. The hon. Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward) spoke of time running out. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Elaine Stewart) also spoke about the issue of time and the urgency of getting this resolved. My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter), spoke of how she wanted to see payments getting out quickly and without delay. I am sure we all agree and echo that sentiment. I am sure the Minister will provide clarity where he can, in particular on the second payment, the LGBT impact payment, which will presumably have a longer process given the presence of the panel. Perhaps he could give some indication of the timings he expects in that regard.

The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) reminded me that we should thank our serving LGBT personnel and not just talk about veterans. Of course, they serve in a very different military and a very different military culture. We wish them well and thank them for their public service.

There were many moving cases mentioned. What struck me in particular was the reminder of the impact—literally, the impact—on those people concerned. The hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) spoke about the case of a constituent who was imprisoned. In the case mentioned by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tom Rutland), they were put in a psychiatric ward because of being LGBT. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) spoke about his constituent attempting suicide and being sexually assaulted. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock said that we denied people their freedom while they were defending ours. I paraphrase, but I thought that was an excellent statement.

There were other cases which we might say had some kind of happy ending, or at least they went on to do other things which we should honour. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) spoke about the very moving case of someone who I understand is in the Gallery. Gunner Ashton obviously had a very difficult experience, but then went on to carry the banner of the Royal British Legion at the Royal Albert Hall remembrance evening. I was at the most recent one and it is an incredible occasion, so I pay tribute to her.

The hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) spoke about a constituent who became a very senior clinician. We heard from the hon. Gentleman for the Western Isles, if he does not mind me calling it that—the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton)—who spoke about his constituent who obviously suffered a great trauma but became a police officer. He called it the resilience of islanders. I think we have seen that resilience in other cases spoken of today.

The hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) said that she believed there had been LGBT soldiers ever since we have had an army. Again, I paraphrase, but she is probably absolutely right—although, of course, Lord Etherton has not quite gone back that far in his review. Echoing that theme, the hon. Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser), in a very enjoyable speech, made the point that so many would have served in world war two. We should remember that and pay tribute to them, because that sacrifice gave us our freedom which means we are here today. He also made a very good point, which I think I made in my opening speech. When we talk about military skill and the bravery of people who serve in our armed forces with distinction, those features are irrelevant to background and sexuality. That is a very good point indeed.

The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), who I believe is a former RAF policeman, made the point that the RAF has changed significantly. It is important that he mentioned that point. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), along with the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater, reminded us of the importance of the HIV issue and the additional associated stigma in that regard. She made the laudable point of calling for zero HIV stigma in the armed forces today. I wonder whether the Minister would want to comment on that.

Finally, the hon. Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) had an Adjournment debate recently on this subject, so he exemplifies the great persistence we have seen from a number of colleagues in this House on this subject. A few are not here at the moment, which may be because of a slightly premature end, but hopefully they will see in Hansard that I have paid tribute to their speeches. There were lots of excellent contributions.

I will conclude by saying this: as the Secretary of State said in his opening speech, in addition to implementing the recommendations of Lord Etherton’s review, we must ensure we thoroughly learn the lessons of this deeply sorry and regrettable episode in our defence history. They are two separate things and it is crucial we do both. Terrible things were wholly unjustifiably inflicted on brave and committed service personnel with lifelong repercussions for those affected, as we have heard from cases up and down the country. It is incumbent on all of us to reflect on this having happened in our country. All those who put themselves forward for service must be treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve.

We should all share in the mission to correct this historic wrong, because we all know that every person affected will have shared equally the same values of freedom, patriotism and public service as anyone else in the armed forces. Today we salute them, and, as far as we are able, we take further significant steps to restore full and formal recognition of the role of LGBT veterans serving our country.

What a debate we have had today. We have heard some exceptionally harrowing and, indeed, inconceivable stories of events that have taken place in our lifetime. On that note, and on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, I wish to apologise to all those affected by the ban. The way in which the MOD mistreated LGBT personnel between 1967 and 2000 is a flaming injustice that has burned for more than five decades. It is an injustice that was acknowledged by Lord Etherton’s excellent report last year, and, as I said during our debate six weeks ago, it is an injustice that put the MOD on the wrong side of history. It is an injustice that the last Government worked to heal, with the support of Members in all parts of the House, and for that we thank them. When the scheme opens tomorrow at 09:00 hours and we finally begin the important process of offering financial recognition of the pain caused, we will turn a page and start a new chapter in defence history.

This Government have taken the decision to increase the amount that can be disbursed by the scheme by 50% more than the plans that we inherited. Not only will those dismissed or discharged from service receive a payment; those who were impacted more broadly by the ban will do so too. However, it is important to acknowledge at the outset that no amount of money can undo the hurt and pain caused, and no process can genuinely quantify the impact on earnings. This is a financial acknowledgment of wrongdoing and regret by the state, and while I know that it will not fully satisfy all, I hope that it will help to bring affirmation, and some closure, to those affected. The scheme will also address two more of Lord Etherton’s 49 recommendations—including rank restoration and rewriting those records—leaving just seven to be completed, which remains a major priority. I thank all Members on both sides of the House for their comments and the harrowing stories that they related, and I will now try to address some of their specific questions.

Let me say first to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward) that we are working exceptionally hard with Fighting With Pride and 10 other charities to ensure that we advertise this scheme as broadly as possible across the community. Indeed, this debate itself is one way to get that message out. We have 24 months of the recognition scheme, primarily because of the prerogative powers but also following the recommendations of Lord Etherton’s report. We have allocated £90,000 to help charities to assist the veterans with their applications, because we acknowledge that some of the processes may not be as simple as others. We are also asking for a reverse burden of proof on the access of the £25 million financial total. Predicting the number of cases that will come forward will be exceptionally difficult: experiences will differ, time served will differ, and therefore the amount of recognition will differ as well.

As we heard from the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), facing the Treasury is perhaps much safer than facing the enemy. Nevertheless, I thank those in the Treasury, and the broader team in the Ministry of Defence, for working so hard—championed by the Secretary of State for Defence—to deliver the extra £25 million, a 58% increase on what we had previously. Speed of delivery is essential, and we have gone for both speed and breadth: the speed to deliver the scheme as fast as feasibly possible, and the breadth to ensure that compensation is delivered to all those affected by the ban, both dismissed and discharged. Those who may have been impacted by the ban, but not necessarily recorded—this was mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman)—will also be able to apply for these resources.

We appreciate the comments of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), as well as his work prior to our coming into government. I hope that LGBT veterans now feel, more than ever before, part of the veterans family, thanks primarily to the restorative measures in Lord Etherton’s report, which have gone so far to delivering that. We have now implemented 42 of those 49 recommendations, and I think we will close them out by 2027. Responsibility for some of them does not sit with the Government, but we are working hard with the Office for Veterans’ Affairs and other Government Departments to close them out as quickly as possible.

I will cover two of the points raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven now, but will address others later. Overseas applicants can apply; the scheme is open to everyone. We will have a look at the geographical spread of charitable support. Although we do not have a huge amount of control over it, we will ensure that it is balanced and will work with the Office for Veterans’ Affairs to deliver it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) mentioned the important subject of HIV. I can confirm that we are on the case. Although there is no blanket ban on HIV-positive personnel flying in the armed forces, the Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that our policies that impact on people with HIV are regularly reviewed. I and the Minister for the Armed Forces in particular are closely considering HIV policies relating to aircrew, and we will get back to my hon. Friend in due course.

My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), and the hon. Members for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), for Aberdeen North and for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) mentioned a concern about the cap. The financial recognition scheme is a response to a gross injustice—we acknowledge that. It was designed to be a tangible acknowledgment of wrongdoing and regret, and was never intended to compensate for loss of earnings, but I accept that there will always be people who feel, for good reason, that we have not gone far enough.

A North Cornwall constituent of mine was attending the debate from the Public Gallery but has had to leave because of the outrage that he feels. Does the Minister agree that greater financial compensation should be given to veterans such as my constituent, who suffered such enormous harm, including gang rape and severe physical assault that resulted in lifetime disabilities?

I thank the hon. Member for that question. We have tried to balance demands for individual circumstances to be fully recognised on a case-by-case basis with the demand for speedy resolution. We have arrived at amounts that reflect the practice of relevant employment tribunals, and payments made for harm and suffering in the service complaints process, which also align with similarly sized payments awarded by the scheme in Canada. Although Government schemes of this type will always cause debate—I acknowledge that— we have done our best to be fair and balanced, using figures based on relevant precedents and a process that will reflect individual circumstances within a framework designed to avoid delay and ensure fairness across that cohort. It is probably worthwhile to dig into that in a little more detail to provide the House with answers.

The LGBT dismissed or discharged payment for veterans who were dismissed or discharged based solely on their sexual orientation or gender identity under the ban will be a flat rate of £50,000. The LGBT impact payment is open to all those who experienced any pain and suffering directly related to the ban, including bullying and harassment, invasive investigation and, of course, imprisonment. Those who were dismissed and discharged can also apply for that payment. The LGBT impact payments will be assessed by an independent panel against three tariffs—£1,000 to £5,000, £5,000 to £10,000 and £10,000 to £20,000—up to a maximum of £20,000, to ensure that awards are proportionate to the level of impact.

We heard several questions, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley), about why the measures have taken so long. Today has been more than 50 years in the making. I totally agree that veterans have waited far too long for this recognition of historical injustice. However, since coming into government, we have moved exceptionally fast. This Government have a bias for action. We came into Government in July, listened to Fighting With Pride and the LGBT veterans, informed and updated the House and colleagues last month, and designed a broad and rapid payments scheme, and at 0900 tomorrow, that scheme will open and deliver.

We also had some questions about the impact of loss of earnings, particularly to do with pensions. It is worth noting that this is not a compensation scheme and has not been designed as such. With such a variety of experiences and personal circumstances within the affected community, and with limited evidence available, it is difficult to estimate how long each veteran would have served if not for the ban and what rank they might have reached.

Finally, on the question about Lord Etherton’s recommendations: two are for the Ministry of Defence to implement and five are for the national health service to address. My team is in touch with the Department of Health and Social Care as we move that forward.

As various Members mentioned, it is worth noting the broader non-financial restorative measures that are taking place. There are 719 applications already, which is fantastic. In practice, this means everything from apology letters sent directly to individuals from the chiefs of the Army, the Royal Navy and the Air Force, through to medals and berets, ensuring that these veterans feel included as part of the veterans community.

When I joined the Royal Marines in 1999, this abhorrent ban on homosexuality in the armed forces was still in place. Today, a quarter of a century later, we turn a page on that shameful chapter in our national story. The financial recognition scheme is an acknowledgment by the state that it was wrong. While I accept that many veterans will continue to feel that it does not go far enough, the scheme is another vindication of the harm and pain they have suffered, and vindication for all those who stood against the ban.

I urge everyone affected by these past failings to access the financial recognition scheme and other restorative measures by visiting the LGBT veterans support page on the gov.uk website. On this page, they will find a simple guide explaining how to apply for financial recognition payments, which includes details of the scheme, eligibility and the supporting documents required. There are simple screenshots of what to expect when applying, and the application form has been streamlined to make the process straightforward and user-friendly to ensure that veterans can apply with as much ease as possible.

I thank Lord Etherton for his outstanding work on this report. I also thank the LGBT community and the charities that supported it, particularly Fighting With Pride, for their courage and continued efforts to bring this to a resolution. They have engaged comprehensively throughout the programme, with both the MOD team and me.

I have an old saying from combat: “Courage is a decision, not a reaction.” Few have been so courageous as those watching this debate today. To stand up, to struggle to your feet when everyone is trying to push you down, and to shout when everyone is trying to silence you—that is an active decision, and perhaps the most courageous decision of all. They should stand proud from here on out.

The debate today and the speed at which we have worked—the fact that from tomorrow at 0900 the scheme will open—is a credit to all those who have worked on the team. It also reaffirms that this Government are a Government of action. Indeed, we have a bias for action, and the Defence Secretary and I will continue to drive this forward until every recommendation of Lord Etherton’s review is implemented to right the wrongs of the past.

To the individuals affected—Victoria, Craig, Danny, Claire, Andrew and Janice, to name but a few—we apologise. We hope that this will go some way through the healing process. In line with Claire Ashton and my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury, we want to ensure that every veteran who has helped to keep Britain secure receives the respect and support they deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Lord Etherton’s independent review into the treatment of LGBT veterans.