Restitution, recognition and just satisfaction (other than financial compensation) for all LGBT veterans who served at any time between 1967 and 2000, who were or would have been recognised as having served with good conduct had the Ban not been in force.
Apology
R1
The Prime Minister should deliver an apology in the UK Parliament on behalf of the nation to all those LGBT service personnel who served under and suffered from the Ban (whether or not they were dismissed or discharged). The apology delivered in the House of Commons should be repeated in the House of Lords.
R2
There should also be individual letters of apology from the head of each of the services to LGBT veterans who served under and suffered from the Ban and who apply for restitution.
Restoration of status and medals and grant of medals and other entitlement
R3
Commission and rank should be retrospectively restored to what it was immediately before dismissal or discharge where there was a demotion in consequence of dismissal or discharge pursuant to the Ban.
R4
The Armed Forces Veterans’ Badge should be given.
R5
Medals that were required to be handed back on dismissal or discharge should be restored.
R6
Campaign and other medals to which an LGBT service person was entitled but which were withheld during and following investigation and discharge should be awarded.
R7
The wearing of uniforms (especially berets) by LGBT veterans and the use of military ranks should (where otherwise permitted to veterans) be formally reinstated. Where berets were taken away, they should be replaced.
R8
Where officers were struck from Service Retired Lists merely for being LGBT, they should be reinstated where appropriate.
R9
Veterans dismissed or discharged because of the Ban should be issued with a Veteran’s ID card when such cards are made available to pre-2018 veterans. They should be able to claim from relevant providers all discounts and benefits to which a veteran with a good service record is entitled. They should also have all the benefits to which veterans are expressly entitled under the Armed Forces Covenant, such as appropriate education and training, to which they would have been entitled if they had not been dismissed or discharged.
Veteran’s badge for those who suffered under the Ban
R10
There should be designed and granted as soon as possible a special veterans’ badge for all those who served at the time of the Ban.
Procedure for making the restitution and restoration described
R11
If and insofar as my recommendations for non-financial restitution are accepted by the government, any veteran seeking an individual apology or other restitution should apply to the MoD, and any such application should be made within 24 months of the government publishing its acceptance of the recommendations and communicating the method of application.
R12
In the case of a deceased veteran, application should be permitted to be made by the veteran’s next of kin in line with existing MoD policy.
R13
The MoD, working with appropriate partners, should develop and implement a plan of action to encourage affected veterans (or, in the case of deceased veteran, their next of kin) to apply for restoration and restitution (including individual letters of apology).
R14
Restoration and restitution should be accompanied by a written reproduction of the Prime Minister’s apology in Parliament and by a letter of apology from the relevant service chief.
R15
Each service should arrange for one or more ceremonies for restoration and restitution to be made or acknowledged unless the veteran expresses a wish for such restoration and restitution to be conducted privately.
Clarification of Pension Rights
R16
The MoD should use the Review and the publication of this Report as an opportunity to invite LGBT veterans who were dismissed or discharged pursuant to the Ban to seek clarification as to their entitlement to a service pension where the veteran has not received any pension but believes they were entitled to one.
Memorialisation
R17
There should be a public memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum to all LGBT people who have served and continue to serve in the military, possibly including a specific reference to those who suffered the consequences of the Ban on serving homosexuals prior to January 2000. The unveiling or dedication should be at a ceremony to which are invited, among others, all LGBT veterans who served under, and suffered from, the Ban.
R18
The design of the memorial should be a work of collaboration by appropriate organisations, but certainly including one or more of those which have the support and respect of veterans who served under, and suffered from, the Ban and are the subject of this Review.
R19
The government should pay for such a memorial as the Ban, which caused the considerable suffering of affected veterans, was MoD policy.
R20
The MoD and the OVA should on their own or with others, including those organisations who have the support and respect of veterans who served under, and suffered from, the Ban and are the subject of this Review, suggest to one or more appropriate museums, such as the Imperial War Museum and the Queer Museum, that they should have a permanent exhibition devoted to the service of LGBT personnel in the UK’s armed forces, with a particular emphasis on the Ban on homosexuals and those perceived to be homosexuals.
Engagement with Military Services
R21
Effective outreach programmes and other programmes of positive action should be formulated and implemented to encourage LGBT veterans who served under, and suffered from, the Ban to attend service events, whether they be on a national scale, such as Armed Forces Day, Air Force Day and RAF anniversary and milestone events, or more localised, such as Army Regimental events, Naval ship association events, and RAF events at base stations.
R22
Effective programmes should be devised by the individual services, working with other organisations they consider appropriate, to encourage contact between the veterans who served under, and suffered from, the Ban and current services’ LGBT networks.
R23
Funding of service LGBT networks by the MoD should continue, with further efforts made, supported by the Central Diversity and Inclusion Team and Network Coordinators, to encourage engagement of the LGBT networks at the strategic, operational and tactical level and to develop mutual relationships, connect the MoD with society and break down barriers.
R24
Arrangements should be made or enhanced for LGBT veterans, including those who served under, and suffered from, the Ban, to march at Pride events with other veterans and with current LGBT service personnel
Disregards, pardons and alteration of records
R25
If they have not been brought into force by the date of publication of this Report, sections 194 and 195 in Part 12 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 should be brought into force as a matter of urgency.
R26
If the King’s Regulations can be used to nullify or qualify a past administrative
discharge for same sex sexual acts or gay, lesbian or bisexual orientation, the relevant discharge papers should be endorsed with a statement that the discharge “was pursuant to a policy subsequently held by the European Court of Human Rights to be unlawful”
R27
Where a dismissal or discharge is disregarded, pardoned or qualified as unlawful, any red book or its equivalent, with corner cut, should be replaced with new appropriately worded discharge papers given to the veteran.
Financial Award
R28
An appropriate financial award should be made to affected veterans notwithstanding the expiry of litigation time limits. The government’s overall exposure should be capped at £50 million.
R29
There should be a time limit for making a claim for a financial award of 24 months from the time the Government publicises the financial award arrangements
Mental Health and Physical Welfare
The NHS
R30
The training programme which is part of the NHS England/RCGP accreditation scheme for ‘veteran friendly’ GP practices should be LGBT+ inclusive and include an awareness of the Ban and its impact on the mental health and other aspects of life of those who suffered under it.
R31
NHS England, Integrated Care Boards and the RCGP should explore ways to encourage more practices to become ‘veteran friendly’ accredited.
R32
Consideration should be given to promoting the LGBT Foundation’s ‘Pride in Practice’ LGBT scheme or FWP’s ‘Pride in Veterans’ Standard’ or something similar for primary care providers, to be run in conjunction with the RCGP’s accreditation scheme.
R33
NHS England or Integrated Care Boards should consider whether to commission them.
R34
Accreditation to the Veterans’ Covenant Healthcare Alliance (VHCA) should include demonstration of being LGBT+ inclusive and an awareness of the Ban and its impact on the mental health and other aspects of life of those who suffered under it.
R35
All reasonably practicable steps should be taken to achieve 100% of NHS Trusts being VHCA ‘veteran aware’ accredited.
R36
Expansion of the VHCA accreditation scheme to include care homes and hospices should be encouraged.
R37
Consideration should be given to running the NHS Rainbow Badge scheme alongside the VHCA.
R38
Addiction treatment centres providing services in the community need to be aware that, in the case of LGBT+ veterans, addiction may be a manifestation of a particular service history as that may have consequences for the most appropriate treatment.
R39
There should be a greater focus in Op Courage on non-combat mental health issues arising from what took place during military service.
R40
Where there is commissioning of non-NHS organisations to deliver NHS services for Op Courage, it should be ensured that the non-NHS body has the same range and standard of training as the NHS.
R41
Regular training and assessments of those providing care in the NHS, ideally developed and funded by the NHS, should be imposed to identify, root out and educate to prevent any homophobia or prejudice.
R42
Consideration should be given by NHS England to commissioning an appropriate e-training module to be available, not just for Op Courage services, but for all NHS services that provide care to military veterans.
R43
The MoD should take steps to publicise more widely the services VWS can provide to those who served and suffered under the Ban and to provide reassurance that, notwithstanding VWS is an MoD service, it is sensitive to the life history of this particular group of veterans and sympathetic to the adverse life consequences they have suffered as a result of the Ban.
Female Veterans who served under and suffered from the Ban
R44
Due note and weight should be given to the severity and long-term consequences of the Ban on female veterans and to their particular difficulties in accessing support, welfare and other services, whether in the public sector or the private sector, and to the need, in particular, for female only health services.
Research
R45
Insofar as it has not already done so, the government should take note of the recommendations in the research studies and reports of Robert Gordon University, Northumbria University, Forward Assist and the University of Surrey mentioned in the body of this report and decide what action to take in response to them.
R46
In addition, the following further areas of research and the way future research into the armed forces should be conducted merit consideration. The UK Armed Forces Veterans’ Census 2021 in England and Wales, which is to be warmly welcomed, may provide relevant data
- Analysis could be undertaken of the responses to the Call for Evidence in order to understand what might be relevant to LGBT people who are serving in the armed forces today so that that the lessons from what happened before are learned. Put in a different way, this report describes the type of abusive treatment and bigotry endured by service personnel who were or were perceived to be LGBT at the time of the Ban. The MoD and the individual services should assess in a detailed study whether such treatment and bigotry, in all its different forms, still exist and, if so, what is to be done about that.
- A good sized quantitative study of LGBT veterans could be undertaken to understand how their experiences differ from LGBT people who have never served. This would require looking at what measures and approaches major studies of LGBT people have used and using a similar approach with LGBT veterans.
- It would be helpful to ensure that future studies of the armed forces consider whether to enquire whether a person’s orientation is LGBT so that it can be understood how LGBT people within the armed forces are faring compared to those who are not LGBT and to ensure that there are a sufficient number of LGBT personnel to draw conclusions.
- It might be useful to assess in due course what has been the impact of this review on LGBT veterans, and to consider, in the light of that assessment, whether lessons can be learned for future review processes.
Following publication of this Report
R47
Once this Report and the government’s response are published, the MoD and the OVA should use all reasonable means to encourage LGBT veterans who are the subject of this Report to make a timely claim for any benefit to which they are entitled as a result of the Review.
R48
There should be established a website which hosts this Report, the government’s response, information gathered by the Review, including statements provided in response to the Call for Evidence and any other related material.
R49
The government should consider whether LGBT veterans who served under the Ban but who, for whatever reason did not respond to the Call for Evidence, and now wish to tell their story, should be able to do so as part of a historical record of LGBT veterans’ experiences.
Veterans’ organisations and other non-governmental organisations – Suggestions
S1
Veterans’ charities should take action to ensure that their trustees and staff are appropriately trained, diverse and inclusive.
S2
Veterans’ charities should have LGBT+ inclusive policies which create a culture that welcomes, supports and promotes engagement with LGBT+ veterans, including those who served under, and suffered from, the Ban. COBSEO, the Confederation of Service Charities, has an important advisory and leadership role in this respect.
S3
The Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust should consider sympathetically financial support for programmes for effective outreach.
S4
A number of LGBT veterans who replied to the Call for Evidence expressed a wish for social events, a Facebook group and a social and support network for those who served under the Ban. Consideration should be given to by the charitable sector to taking up such initiatives, particularly by organisations such as FWP, if thought appropriate.
S5
The Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust should consider sympathetically financial support for such types of initiative.
S6
COBSEO should consider whether it is necessary or appropriate to create an easily accessible, comprehensive database of services provided by veterans’ charities and what it can do to bring that about in order to address the feeling among some veterans who responded to the Call for Evidence that there is uncertainty as to precisely what services are available from each of the different veterans’ charities.
S7
It is important, if the veterans who are the subject of this Review are to be embraced by the wider veterans’ community and encouraged to take advantage of veterans’ services, that veterans’ organisations demonstrate and publicise that they have diversity and inclusion policies and welcome all LGBT+ veterans. Reassurance requires kitemarking or accreditation both as to the warm welcoming of LGBT+ veterans and as to the standard of care provided. The LGBT Foundation’s ‘Pride in Practice’ scheme and FWP’s ‘Pride in Veterans Standard’ are relevant in this context. Opening Doors’ Pride in Care Quality Standard is also relevant for the over 50s. In addition, the NHS Confederation’s ‘Health and Care LGBTQ+ Framework’ sets out important general principles. COBSEO should consider whether it has a possible role for leadership and encouragement in this area.
S8
COBSEO should consider whether it can and should take under its wing the smaller veterans’ charities so that it can include them within its supervisory and advisory role.
S9
The Royal College of Psychiatrists’ accreditation scheme, the Quality Network for Veterans’ Mental Health Services, is to be welcomed. It ought to include LGBT+ awareness.
S10
Ongoing sources of finance for funding membership of the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Accreditation Scheme, especially for small charities, should be considered and explored.
S11
Due note and weight should be given to the severity and long-term consequences of the Ban on female veterans and to their particular difficulties in accessing support, welfare and other services, whether in the public sector or the private sector, and to the need, in particular, for female only health services.
Housing
S12
There is specialist e-training for housing staff and managers on the Armed Forces Covenant website. Consideration should be given to including in all social housing training and practice guidance reference to the particular mental health and related wellbeing problems faced by the LGBT veterans who served under and suffered from the Ban, and to consequent employment and financial difficulties.
S13
In the case of supported housing, care homes and nursing homes, consideration should be given to accreditation or kitemarking which identifies housing that is free from homophobia. Opening Doors’ Pride in Care quality standard and training programme are relevant in this connection.
Following publication of this Report
S14
Once this Report and the government’s response are published, service associations and benevolent funds, veterans’ charities and service networks, including LGBT+ networks, should use all reasonable means to encourage LGBT veterans who are the subject of this Report to make a timely claim for any benefit to which they are entitled as a result of the Review.
The Devolved Administrations
Northern Ireland
NI1
The OVA, the MoD and the Northern Ireland Office should consider how engagement with LGBT veterans in Northern Ireland, in relation to health, welfare and housing and more generally might be improved.
NI2
There should be policies, whether initiated by public or private or Service organisations, which promote greater inclusion of LGBT+ veterans, including such things as a presence at Pride events, and diversity and inclusion training for staff and volunteers of LGBT+ organisations as to the particular experiences of LGBT+ veterans, and the provision of a welcoming environment for such veterans.
NI3
The Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust should review its policy for the periods it sets for funding and applications for renewal of funding by the NIVSO and the Northern Ireland veterans’ charitable sector generally so that they can operate on the basis of longer periods with an assured income.
NI4
The Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust should consider whether the NIVSO should have a special status as adviser to the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust in relation to veterans’ programmes in Northern Ireland and specifically in relation to the distribution of funds to the providers of care in the Northern Ireland veterans’ charitable sector.
NI5
As elsewhere in the UK, it is necessary for care providers in Northern Ireland to have regard to the particular morbidities of the LGBT veterans who are the subject of this Review and to adapt, so far as necessary and practicable, treatment procedures to take account of their particular service and post-service histories and the impact on the veteran’s mental and physical welfare.
Scotland
SC1
Bearing in mind that the LGBT veterans with which this Review is concerned suffered from homophobic policies, practices and bullying, and in some cases predatory sexual conduct, from other service personnel, it is important that under the future new Veterans’ Mental Health and Wellbeing Service Navigators will all have undergone diversity and inclusivity training and that service providers also have appropriate diversity, especially LGBT friendly, policies and appropriate training. There should be some kind of accreditation or kitemarking to demonstrate publicly that such training has been undertaken and that appropriate inclusivity and diversity, and especially LGBT friendly, policies are in place.
SC2
So far as concerns veterans’ housing in Scotland, my only suggestion is to repeat that the LGBT veterans who are the subject of this review will want to live in circumstances free from the very homophobia they endured while serving in the armed forces. As with healthcare, I suggest that consideration be given to some kind of kitemarking or accreditation to demonstrate publicly inclusivity and freedom from hostile homophobia.
Wales
W1
The Welsh Government should consider whether specialist care for veterans who are the subject of this Review, and who can trace the cause of their ill health to the Ban and its enforcement, such as an all-women’s service for those women who were sexually abused while serving, might be capable of being provided by the Wales Sexual Assault Services Programme and the Traumatic Stress Wales workstream.
W2
The Health Board Armed Forces’ and Veterans’ Champions, who are non-executive board members and are tasked with ensuring that government policies on veterans’ health are promoted and applied should consider the availability and adequacy of health and other services for those LGBT veterans who served under, and suffered from, the Ban.
W3
A subject for discussion at one of the regular meetings at which the champions and others discuss issues with Welsh Government policy leads, share best practice and promote consistency in relation to the armed forces community across Wales, could be the availability and adequacy of health and other services for those LGBT veterans who served under, and suffered from, the Ban.
W4
Guidance provided by Public Health Wales, in collaboration with the Welsh Government, for general practitioners in relation to identifying veterans and their health requirements and the guidance for GP practices in Wales contained in the Welsh Health Circular ‘Armed Forces Covenant – healthcare priority for veterans’ should include reference to the particular health consequences of the Ban for those who experienced and suffered from it.
W5
Consideration should be given to adopting for veterans’ healthcare and welfare services, whether for the delivery of primary care or for NHS Trusts or charitable organisations the types of accreditation and kitemark schemes that exist in England, but supplemented with an awareness of the particular mental health issues endured by those LGBT veterans who served under and suffered from the Ban.
W6
Diversity and inclusion training should be run alongside veterans’ healthcare accreditation and welfare schemes.
W7
Consideration should be given to kitemarking and accreditation of social housing and care homes as being veteran and LGBT+ welcoming.