Question follow-through · 87177
Liquefied Natural Gas: Mozambique
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, pursuant to the Answer of 18 June 2025 to Question 59033 on Liquefied Natural Gas: Mozambique, whether the UK Export Finance due diligence in relation to UK support for the Mozambique liquefied natural
About this written question
A written question asks a government minister for information in writing. Parliament publishes the question and any answer.
- Answering body
- Department for Business and Trade
- Tabled
- 31 Oct 2025
- Target answer date
- 4 Nov 2025
- Answer
- 6 Nov 2025 · 6 calendar days after tabling
Elapsed calendar days describe the record timeline, not whether Parliament considers an answer on time.
Votes on this topic
- Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for Statutory Trade Union Ballots · 15 Jul 2026
- Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026 · 15 Jul 2026
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 5 · 1 Jul 2026
These Commons divisions share a topic label. The question did not necessarily lead to a vote.
Recorded timeline
31 Oct 2025
Question tabled
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, pursuant to the Answer of 18 June 2025 to Question 59033 on Liquefied Natural Gas: Mozambique, whether the UK Export Finance due diligence in relation to UK support for the Mozambique liquefied natural
4 Nov 2025
Target answer date
Date supplied by the official written-questions record.
6 Nov 2025
Answer published
UK Export Finance is currently in talks with project sponsors and other lenders, including export credit agencies, and other stakeholders, regarding the latest status of the Mozambique LNG project. I am unable to comment further during these talks for rea...
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.