Fighters for justice

Politicians have changed their tune on gay troops

The government has accepted the “vast majority” of recommendations made by Lord Etherton in his review of the service and experience of LGBT veterans who served in the armed forces before 2000. But minsters have reserved the right to deliver some of his proposed reforms in a different way.

Etherton, who as master of the rolls from 2016 to 2021 was the second most senior judge in England and Wales, devotes some 90 pages of his report to responses from those who were affected by the ban on gay service personnel. As he says, it amounts to a “unique body of evidence describing a shameful policy and its devastating impact on those who had signed up to serve in the armed forces for the good of the nation, and to lay down their lives if need be”.

Etherton’s first recommendation — accepted as soon as his report was published last Wednesday — was that there should be an apology by the prime minister.

Rishi Sunak told MPs:

The ban on LGBT people serving in our military until the year 2000 was an appalling failure of the British state — it was decades behind the law of this land. As today’s report makes clear, in that period many endured the most horrific sexual abuse and violence, homophobic bullying and harassment, all while bravely serving this country. Today, on behalf of the British state, I apologise, and I hope that all those affected will be able to feel proud parts of the veteran community, which has done so much to keep our country safe.

Sunak’s sentiments are rightly shared across the political spectrum. But anyone who reported the legal challenges that led to the ban being lifted will notice some re-writing of political history.

From the BBC News website, 27 September 1999: (L-R) Duncan Lustig-Prean, Jeanette Smith, Graeme Grady, John Beckett

Sir Keir Starmer said last week that “Labour in government was proud to repeal the ban on LGBT+ people serving in our armed forces”. He was referring to an announcement by the defence secretary Geoff Hoon in January 2000. But, just a few months earlier, the Labour government had tried to persuade the human rights court that the ban was justified and necessary.