Question follow-through · 26585
Offensive Weapons: Chinese Embassy
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of the incident involving the alleged use of prohibited weapons that took place at the Chinese Embassy in London on 3 July 2
About this written question
A written question asks a government minister for information in writing. Parliament publishes the question and any answer.
- Answering body
- Home Office
- Tabled
- 2 Sept 2026
- Target answer date
- 9 Sept 2026
- Answer
- 9 Sept 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
2 Sept 2026
Question tabled
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of the incident involving the alleged use of prohibited weapons that took place at the Chinese Embassy in London on 3 July 2
9 Sept 2026
Target answer date
Date supplied by the official written-questions record.
9 Sept 2026
Answer published
The Metropolitan Police has confirmed that their investigation continues as officers review evidence, including video footage supplied by witnesses. It would therefore be inappropriate to comment further at this time.
Official data retrieved 1 Oct 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.