LGBT veterans who suffered because of ‘homosexual ban’ concern authorities will break guarantees

LGBT veterans who experienced historical mistreatment in the armed forces fear the new Labour Government may not fulfil promises of restitution.

While in opposition, Labour pledged to hold a parliamentary debate on reparations for military personnel who suffered mistreatment prior to the lifting of the “gay ban” in 2000. The party also seemed open to re-evaluating the £50m limit on a compensation scheme initiated by the Tories, according to Fighting With Pride, a charity.

However, Craig Jones, the campaign director of the group and a former Royal Navy officer, now fears that Labour might break these promises. Those affected by the scandal underwent days of sometimes brutal interrogation upon discovery of their sexuality; many were dismissed from the forces, missed job opportunities, and were ostracised by family and friends.

An independent review into the historical mistreatment of LGBT veterans concluded last year, following several high-profile inquiries into the Grenfell Tower fire, the infected blood and Post Office Horizon scandals where compensation packages were also promised.

Mr Jones argued that LGBT veterans were a “poor relation” to the victims of these other scandals, deserving the same level of public awareness and remuneration. He said: “My principal concern at the moment is that there has been a wind change in Labour since they came to power, and… they seem determined to not deliver in government the promises that they made in opposition.”

Fighting with Pride, which campaigns for individuals impacted by the military’s historical ban, aims to collaborate with the Government on the specifics of the compensation package. Nevertheless, Mr Jones pointed out that officials have ceased sharing updates about the plan with the charity.

He also highlighted that the £50m cap set on the total payouts might leave some wronged veterans receiving only a “derisory” sum. Based on its data, the organization predicts around 2,500 ex-servicemen and women would apply – a tally it believes to be more accurate than the Government’s projection of 4,000 claimants.

With the maximum threshold currently in place, each person affected could expect to receive an average lump sum of £12,500. This figure has sparked concerns among Members of Parliament, sentiments that have been echoed on the floor of the Commons. Mr Jones supports the notion that a six-figure compensation would be more appropriate as restitution for those who have “people who have lost so much”, despite not all the qualified recipients needing such a large amount.

He emphasized that the funding would alleviate the burden for many, allowing them to exit costly rental situations, guarantee a “sufficient income” during retirement, and even assist some without any savings to afford their funeral expenses.

Mr Jones said: “The payments that they intend for LGBT plus veterans are of a totally different and lower magnitude to Horizon, and tainted blood, and Grenfell. There are four schemes that are being monitored by the National Audit Office. We are one of them, but we are by a long way the poor relations, in fact, by a factor of at least 10.”

“But the circumstances when compared, particularly to Horizon, are incredibly similar. People lost their careers, their homes, they were vilified in their communities, they served prison sentences, and they’ve lived their lives amidst the ashes of the lives that they had before. I don’t want to be competitive with Horizon, but this began for some of our people in the late 1960s.”

After the investigation into the scandal concluded in 2023, then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak issued a public apology in the House of Commons. Ben W allace, who was Defence Secretary at the time, stated there would be a parliamentary debate on financial redress for the veterans so MPs could scrutinise the plans, however, this did not happen as anticipated.

John Healey, Labour’s Defence Secretary, engaged in “a number of conversations” with the charity while in opposition, including discussions about holding the debate, according to Mr Jones. He continued, saying: “At the time, he was extremely supportive and ridiculed the then-Conservative government’s plans for compensation to LGBT plus veterans.”

“It is incredibly disappointing that he has not made time to meet with Fighting with Pride during his tenure as Secretary of State, and it is particularly disappointing that from what we can see, the Labour Government intends to persist with plans that in private they told us were unacceptable to them.”

A Ministry of Defence official reportedly indicated at a recent gathering of over 100 veterans convened by Fighting With Pride that a parliamentary debate on monetary compensation isn’t expected before the introduction of the compensation scheme. “They are therefore, in our view, deliberately avoiding parliamentary scrutiny at the point of delivering the scheme,” stated Mr Jones.

“Given that the Secretary of State, John Healey, on December 12, gave his predecessor a hard time on this exact same subject, it’s a bit rich. It’s a breach of a promise, and this scheme should go no further until Parliament has had the opportunity to offer opinion,” he insisted.

“If we have values as a nation, if we support our armed forces, if we believe in the covenant, the nation’s promise to our armed forces, then there needs to be a watershed moment for LGBT veterans, after which we can look back and say bad things were done in their time, but eventually we did the right thing.”

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Defence acknowledged past mistakes, saying: “We deeply regret the treatment of LGBT serving personnel between 1967 and 2000, which was wholly unacceptable and does not reflect today’s Armed Forces. We are fully committed to ensuring this issue receives parliamentary scrutiny.”

They also highlighted ongoing reforms: “We have already implemented 32 of the 49 recommendations from the LGBT veterans review and we are working with experts across Government to establish an appropriate financial redress scheme and will provide more details later this year.”