Question follow-through · 8841
Prince William of Gloucester Barracks
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to the Answer of 9 June 2026 to Question 5724, whether the decision that Prince William of Gloucester Barracks is surplus to military requirement has been reviewed by Ministers since 2016.
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
- 10 Jun 2026
- Target answer date
- 16 Jun 2026
- Answer
- 17 Jun 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
10 Jun 2026
Question tabled
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to the Answer of 9 June 2026 to Question 5724, whether the decision that Prince William of Gloucester Barracks is surplus to military requirement has been reviewed by Ministers since 2016.
16 Jun 2026
Target answer date
Date supplied by the official written-questions record.
17 Jun 2026
Answer published
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 4 June 2026, to Question 5468. No alternative military requirement has been identified for Prince William of Gloucester Barracks. https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/20...
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.