Question follow-through · 97281
Cluster Munitions: Procurement
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that contracts awarded to Elbit Systems UK are fully compliant with the United Kingdom's obligations under the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
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
- 4 Dec 2025
- Target answer date
- 8 Dec 2025
- Answer
- 12 Dec 2025 · 8 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
4 Dec 2025
Question tabled
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that contracts awarded to Elbit Systems UK are fully compliant with the United Kingdom's obligations under the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
8 Dec 2025
Target answer date
Date supplied by the official written-questions record.
12 Dec 2025
Answer published
In line with Public Procurement Regulations, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) conducts due diligence checks on its contractors. These include verification of a supplier's financial stability, operational capabilities, and regulatory compliance. Furthermore, ...
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.