Question follow-through · 20865
Defence: Finance
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether he has made an assessment of the potential impact of ESG policies against investment and financing of defence companies on the cost of defence procurement, including Trident replacement.
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
- 28 Aug 2026
- Target answer date
- 2 Sept 2026
- Answer
- 8 Sept 2026 · 11 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
28 Aug 2026
Question tabled
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether he has made an assessment of the potential impact of ESG policies against investment and financing of defence companies on the cost of defence procurement, including Trident replacement.
2 Sept 2026
Target answer date
Date supplied by the official written-questions record.
8 Sept 2026
Answer published
As set out in the Defence Investment Plan, the Defence Finance and Investment Strategy (DFIS) is set to be published this year. The DFIS will address barriers to financing and investment in the sector – including supporting businesses access finance, in p...
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.