Question follow-through · 28188
Veterans: LGBT+ People
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if his Department will consider the potential merits of distributing monies left over in the the £75m LGBT Veterans Financial Recognition Scheme to eligible veterans, amended from the current cap of £50m earmarke
About this written question
A written question asks a government minister for information in writing. Parliament publishes the question and any answer.
- Answering body
- Ministry of Defence
- Tabled
- 8 Sept 2026
- Target answer date
- 10 Sept 2026
- Answer
- 15 Sept 2026 · 7 calendar days after tabling
Elapsed calendar days describe the record timeline, not whether Parliament considers an answer on time.
Votes on this topic
- Opposition Day Motion: Defence spending and readiness - Prime Minister's Amendment · 23 Jun 2026
- Opposition day: Defence spending and readiness · 23 Jun 2026
- Armed Forces Bill Report Stage: Amendment 11 · 22 Jun 2026
These Commons divisions share a topic label. The question did not necessarily lead to a vote.
Recorded timeline
8 Sept 2026
Question tabled
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if his Department will consider the potential merits of distributing monies left over in the the £75m LGBT Veterans Financial Recognition Scheme to eligible veterans, amended from the current cap of £50m earmarke
10 Sept 2026
Target answer date
Date supplied by the official written-questions record.
15 Sept 2026
Answer published
To date, the LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme (FRS) has paid out over £58 million to applicants, exceeding the £50 million minimum payout commitment. Defence continues to maximise awareness of the FRS among eligible veterans and encourage applications be...
Official data retrieved 1 Oct 2026.
Later records
Possible follow-up questions
Strong links require the same MP, department and exact heading. Other same-department questions are shown as unreviewed candidates, not as confirmed follow-ups. No debate link is asserted unless a stable source relationship exists.
No later same-department questions indexed.
This is an absence in covered public data, not evidence that no follow-up occurred elsewhere.