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.

The Labour MP questioned about Lord Etherton’s recommendation for a memorial and whether the Government had plans to progress on this matter.

The Conservative MP inquired about the Government's plans to address the issue of next-of-kin eligibility as recommended by Lord Etherton.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Raises concerns about placing a financial cap on compensation and urges the Minister to go further in providing reparations.

Questions the cap on reparations, whether there is a deadline for claims, and how individuals can prove they were dismissed due to LGBT persecution.

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.

Welcomes the Government’s recognition but expresses concerns about the £50 million cap and describes it as a financial award scheme rather than compensation.

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.

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.

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?