Calls for adequate compensation for veterans who suffered under ‘gay ban’
The letter published on Wednesday argues that the cap on compensation could lead to ‘inadequate and unacceptably low’ payments.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Charities have called for LGBT veterans who suffered historical mistreatment in the armed forces to receive adequate compensation, in an open letter to the Prime Minister.
This comes after veterans minister Al Carns vowed that a financial redress scheme for those who suffered under the “gay ban” would be launched at the start of next year.
Survivors of the scandal suffered days of sometimes brutal interrogation when it was discovered they were gay; many were dismissed from the forces, lost out on job opportunities and were shunned by families and friends.
An independent review into the service and experience of LGBT veterans who served prior to 2000, led by Lord Etherton, recommended a £50 million cap on the total sum of compensation.
We must not miss the opportunity to extend the modern values of the armed forces to veterans who were shamed for decades
The letter published on Wednesday argues that the cap on compensation could lead to “inadequate and unacceptably low” payments, with suggestions the average payout would be £12,500.
Signatories of the open letter addressed to Sir Keir Starmer include the chief executives of Fighting with Pride, Help for Heroes, the Royal British Legion, Stonewall and Age UK.
Fighting with Pride’s campaign director and Royal Navy veteran Craig Jones said: “The funding intended for this scheme is inadequate and fails to take account of the shocking treatment inflicted upon a community of veterans who defended our peace and freedom but were treated in a way which the Prime Minister said had brought dishonour on our nation.
“This is the moment for the Government to do the right thing.
“We are aware that veterans minister Al Carns is working hard to find greater funding for this scheme, but more must be done to achieve payments that bring a sense of justice for LGBT Veterans affected by this awful policy.
“We must not miss the opportunity to extend the modern values of the armed forces to veterans who were shamed for decades.”
Earlier this month, Mr Carns told the Commons that the treatment of LGBT veterans was “completely and utterly unacceptable”, adding the Government “will meet the financial redress scheme by the end of this year with the launch in January next year”.
The National Audit Office reported that up to 4,000 veterans are expected to be eligible for compensation.
Chief executive of Help for Heroes James Needham, said: “LGBT+ veterans, both before and immediately after the lifting of the ban in 2000, experienced an almost unique set of injuries due to this discriminatory policy, including wrongful imprisonment, loss of careers and pensions and exclusion from the veteran community.
“While progress has been made since then, we are concerned by the proposed compensation. Based on the Government’s estimates, veterans affected by the ban would receive an average payment of just £12,500, which isn’t enough to make up for the damage done to their lives.
“We’re also disappointed that a promised debate in Parliament may not happen before the compensation scheme starts, which would be a missed opportunity for MPs to discuss and ensure fairness for those impacted.”