Legal Action by Veterans Over LGBT Compensation Scheme

Two British veterans, Steven Stewart and Mark Shephard, have initiated legal action against the Ministry of Defence (MoD) regarding the LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme. This scheme was established to compensate individuals who were forced to resign from the military due to their sexual orientation prior to the ban's repeal in 2000. Stewart and Shephard argue that the scheme is "structurally unfair," as it does not adequately compensate those who were "constructively dismissed"—those who felt compelled to resign rather than face formal discharge.

The Guardian

Until 2000, gay men and lesbian women were prohibited from serving in the British armed forces. During this period, it is estimated that between 200 and 250 personnel were discharged annually due to their sexuality, although precise figures are unavailable due to inadequate record-keeping. In 2024, the Labour government approved a £75 million compensation scheme following recommendations from Lord Etherton’s independent review, which addressed the injustices faced by these veterans.

The Guardian

The LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme offers two types of payments: a flat rate of £50,000 for those who were formally dismissed or discharged, and "impact payments" of up to £20,000 for those affected by the ban. However, Stewart and Shephard received significantly lower impact payments of £7,000 and £5,000, respectively, after their applications for the larger payment were denied. Their legal representatives argue that this exclusion is unjust, as it leaves veterans who were forced to resign with substantially less compensation than their formally discharged counterparts.

The Guardian

An MoD spokesperson expressed regret over the treatment of LGBT personnel from 1967 to 2000, stating, “We deeply regret the treatment of LGBT serving personnel... which was wholly unacceptable.” They emphasized that the compensation scheme was designed to recognize those who were dishonorably removed from service, implying that the payments were structured to reflect the nature of the discharge rather than the circumstances of resignation.

The Guardian

The legal action has drawn attention to the perceived inequities within the compensation framework. Barrister Kate Gallafent, representing Stewart and Shephard, highlighted that veterans who were compelled to resign under duress are receiving tens of thousands of pounds less than those who were formally discharged. This disparity has raised concerns about the fairness of the MoD's compensation approach.

The Guardian

• “Leaving under those circumstances was devastating. My military career ended overnight. The impact of that decision has stayed with me ever since.” — Steven Stewart, Veteran

The Guardian

• “An MoD spokesperson said: “We deeply regret the treatment of LGBT serving personnel between 1967 and 2000, which was wholly unacceptable and this is not representative of defence today.” — MoD Spokesperson

The Guardian

The legal claim has been filed, but no hearing date has been set. The outcome of this case may have significant implications for how the MoD addresses historical injustices faced by LGBT veterans and could prompt a reevaluation of the compensation scheme's criteria.

The Guardian