Question follow-through · 903
Reserve Forces
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of current entry requirements for the armed forces reserve; and whether his Department plans to review entry requirements for the armed forces reserves.
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
- 13 May 2026
- Target answer date
- 18 May 2026
- Answer
- 20 May 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
13 May 2026
Question tabled
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of current entry requirements for the armed forces reserve; and whether his Department plans to review entry requirements for the armed forces reserves.
18 May 2026
Target answer date
Date supplied by the official written-questions record.
20 May 2026
Answer published
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) continually assesses the entry requirements for Reserve recruitment and is actively streamlining joining processes, along with many other aspects of the Reserves, to ensure they support national resilience. This Government ha...
Official data retrieved 28 Sept 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.