-
Question
The Labour MP asked if there will be a full debate as promised by the previous Defence Secretary to ensure proper discussion on the report's recommendations beyond just the compensation scheme. Additionally, he inquired about actions being taken for restoring pensions of those misinformed about their pension rights and ensuring that those who lost evidence due to destruction in 2010 do not face disadvantage.
Minister reply
The Minister stated that a full debate will take place once the financial award scheme is matured. He did not provide specific answers regarding pensions or the compensation scheme.
-
Question
The Labour MP questioned about Lord Etherton’s recommendation for a memorial and whether the Government had plans to progress on this matter.
Minister reply
The Minister confirmed that planning is underway for a veterans memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum.
-
Question
The Conservative MP inquired about the Government's plans to address the issue of next-of-kin eligibility as recommended by Lord Etherton.
Minister reply
The Minister stated that they have gone above and beyond Lord Etherton’s recommendations, creating a broader definition of 'next of kin' and ensuring those who would have been nominated are seen as such.
-
Question
The Labour MP asked about the Government's plans for financial compensation for veterans affected by the ban, particularly focusing on transparency in how the scheme will be developed.
Minister reply
The Minister confirmed that they are developing a fair and equitable scheme based on data from interested veterans. A matured scheme with eligibility criteria would be launched following a full debate.
-
Question
The right hon. Gentleman questioned the government's commitment to fully implementing the Etherton review, specifically addressing issues around pensions restoration for those misled about their rights and ensuring no loss for those whose evidence was destroyed.
Minister reply
The Minister stated that the government has accepted all 49 recommendations of Lord Etherton’s report. He assured that a full debate would take place in the new year to discuss financial elements, and he provided examples where different methods were used to achieve the same outcomes as described by Lord Etherton.
-
Question
The right hon. Member emphasised the importance of testimonies from affected veterans, expressed concern about the debate happening in Westminster Hall rather than on the Floor of the House, and stressed the need for financial redress to be tailored to individual cases.
Minister reply
The Minister confirmed that the debate will be held on the Floor of the House. He encouraged constituents to provide their testimonies as they would form part of the national story recorded in the National Archives.
-
Question
The hon. Member acknowledged the government's statement and welcomed Lord Etherton’s work but questioned the adequacy of reparations, especially with an arbitrary cap on payments. She also sought reassurances that all LGBT veterans would be properly supported through continued engagement with groups like Fighting With Pride.
Minister reply
The Minister confirmed that a cap is part of the Etherton report and acknowledged the government's commitment to working closely with communities such as Fighting With Pride to ensure proper support for all affected individuals.
-
Question
Welcoming the Etherton report and the Minister's response, James Grey inquires about the £50 million cap on compensation claims. He asks if the Government will revisit this figure if it is exceeded.
Minister reply
The Minister acknowledges that writing a blank cheque is not feasible. Lord Etherton proposed £50 million based on precedents and comparable schemes.
-
Question
Inquiring about pension benefits, Kevan Jones asks if the compensation scheme will take into account pensions that could have been accrued but were not due to dismissals. He also suggests looking at the Post Office Horizon compensation scheme for guidance.
Minister reply
The Minister confirms that Lord Etherton’s recommendation covers pensions accrued, but does not extend to those lost after discharge. The scheme is based on precedents such as the Canadian one.
-
Question
Acknowledging the disproportionate impact on women and highlighting issues with pregnancy bans in the armed forces, Sarah Atherton asks for a commitment to address misogyny within the military.
Minister reply
The Minister affirms his commitment to eradicate misogyny in defence, crediting previous work by Atherton herself.
-
Question
Referencing a constituent's case from 1996 where he was discharged for being gay, Clive Betts questions the fairness of potential financial loss to these individuals. He suggests that compensation should not result in lifelong financial disadvantage.
Minister reply
The Minister explains that while Lord Etherton’s recommendations aim to rectify past wrongs, restoring all financial losses is unrealistic.
-
Question
Edward Timpson seeks the Minister's thoughts on using UK progress as a model for other countries struggling with similar issues in their military personnel.
Minister reply
The Minister acknowledges that the UK is often looked up to for setting norms and values, including training allies in these standards.
-
Question
Highlighting her close experience with someone dismissed from the Army due to being a lesbian, Joanna Cherry asks if the compensation scheme will account for all forms of loss including pain and suffering, earnings, employability and pension rights.
Minister reply
The Minister acknowledges that while past cases were compensated, specifics of the current scheme are still under development.
-
Question
Expressing pleasure about a memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum and inquires about discussions with the Home Office regarding convictions for service personnel related to their sexual orientation.
Minister reply
The Minister confirms that part 12 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 expunges such offences committed during military service.
-
Question
Inquiring about a constituent dismissed from the Secret Intelligence Service due to being gay, Meg Hillier asks if this case falls under Lord Etherton’s review and if the Minister will discuss it with other Government departments.
Minister reply
The Minister agrees to discuss such concerns separately but notes that the current review covers only Defence-related cases between 1967 and 2000.
-
Question
Commends the Government for accepting all 49 recommendations of Lord Etherton's review and inquires about encouraging service personnel with past convictions to apply for disregards. He also suggests a second review focusing on UK intelligence officers.
Minister reply
Acknowledges the point made by Mark Pritchard regarding the need for a wider public service review and expresses willingness to discuss the specific case of UK intelligence officers.
-
Question
Asks about the possibility of considering cases where individuals were discharged due to reasons other than their sexuality, but their sexuality was clearly the reason for discharge.
Minister reply
Confirms that such cases will be considered in restitution efforts as per Lord Etherton's recommendations.
-
Question
Raises concerns about placing a financial cap on compensation and urges the Minister to go further in providing reparations.
Minister reply
Confirms that £50 million has been allocated as per Lord Etherton's recommendation, but details of the scheme will be finalized over the next few months.
-
Question
Questions the cap on reparations, whether there is a deadline for claims, and how individuals can prove they were dismissed due to LGBT persecution.
Minister reply
Admits that proving such cases will be difficult due to lack of specific records but assures ongoing work to design an appropriate compensation scheme.
-
Question
Discusses the case of Carl Austin-Behan, who was dismissed from the RAF in 1997 for being gay, and asks about the assessment of such sackings on current recruitment.
Minister reply
Reiterates that Defence welcomes individuals regardless of their sexual orientation, emphasising inclusivity and welcoming gay personnel.
-
Question
Welcomes the Government’s recognition but expresses concerns about the £50 million cap and describes it as a financial award scheme rather than compensation.
Minister reply
Points to the Canadian scheme as an example, stating that while not directly comparable, it provides context for determining appropriate compensation.
-
Question
Stresses the importance of hearing LGBT veterans' voices in Parliament and highlights concerns about the structure of the scheme, specifically the front door remaining open.
Minister reply
Confirms that the front door will remain open and assures ongoing stakeholder engagement to ensure proper data collection for compensation.
-
Question
This is an issue I raised many times over the five years that I was the armed forces spokesperson for the SNP, so I very much welcome Lord Etherton’s review. We have mentioned the spurious reasons for which many LGBT veterans were dismissed. Of course, the other thing is that the colleagues they served with were encouraged to report their supposed misdemeanours. I do think one of the difficulties for the Government will be tracking down all those who have been affected and impacted by this, but it will not just be in their own records. I am sure there must be things in other people’s records that can be tied into this as well. I want to mention the £50 million. If the 1,120 people who responded each got a share, it would be £44,000 each, which is an absolute pittance for a lost career, a lost pension, loss of earnings and the loss of a reference to go on to a new career outside the armed forces.
Minister reply
The Canadian scheme offered sums ranging from 100,000 Canadian dollars to 5,000 Canadian dollars depending on what happened. It was tiered in a way that gave a range of awards depending on the experience evidenced, and it was evidenced. It is more difficult when we come to a scheme where evidence is difficult to come by. I think the hon. Member would accept that, for some of the higher level awards, we do have to have some form of evidence that people were forcibly ejected from the armed forces. Now, £50 million is a great deal of money. It is a recommendation in the Etherton report, which we have accepted. We will use that as our guiding star in designing the scheme that we have in mind for financial awards. I am not going to promise her or indeed give her any hope that we will breach the £50 million. It is the Government’s intent that we should stick at that figure.
-
Question
I want to add my gratitude for the work done by Fighting With Pride and to those affected veterans who gave evidence to the review, including a constituent of mine. In response to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who is no longer in his place, the Minister mentioned—I hope it was a slip of the tongue—the debate today. I do hope that the debate will be soon in the new year in this Chamber and in Government time. It is being reported that an earlier draft of the Etherton review recommended double the compensation offer for LGBT veterans than has come out in the final version. Can the Minister tell the House if that was the case and, if so, why the compensation offered has been halved?
Minister reply
I am certainly not aware of that. Lord Etherton is known for his independence, and his report was independent. Lord Etherton said £50 million, and I will leave it at that.