Beijing’s threat to the UK includes in the arena of cybersecurity and its relationship with Russia, Hamish Falconer said.
Charges against Christopher Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, and Christopher Berry, a teacher, were dropped last month, prompting consternation across the political divide.
The Sunday Times reported that the Treasury and national security adviser Jonathan Powell had pushed for the case to be withdrawn, for fear it could prompt economic giant China to withdraw investment in the UK.
The Government has denied Mr Powell was involved in the substance or evidence of the case.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has meanwhile blamed its collapse on evidence provided by the previous Tory administration, which was in power when the alleged spying offences took place.
On Monday morning, Mr Falconer was frank in signalling that the Government does consider China a threat to the UK in certain areas.
He told Times Radio: “They do pose national security threats to the UK, whether that’s in relation to cybersecurity, transnational repression, their relationship with Russia, in relation to the conflict in Ukraine; but there are also, of course, areas where we have to co-operate.”
Mr Falconer insisted the trial collapsed last month because of the “ropey” and “archaic” Official Secrets Act.
Ministers will follow the “normal” process when it comes to settling a decision about whether China can build its so-called “super embassy” in London, Mr Falconer added.
Reports overnight in The Times suggested the Government has given Beijing assurances about the future of the embassy site.
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch has written to the Prime Minister asking him to address “unanswered questions” in Parliament over the case when MPs return to Westminster on Monday.
The Conservative Opposition is seeking an urgent question on the case, while Tory grandee and China hawk Sir Iain Duncan Smith was understood to have put in for an emergency parliamentary debate.
In a letter to the Prime Minister, who on Monday will be in Egypt attending a summit of world leaders on the Gaza peace plan, Mrs Badenoch said: “Your Government’s account of what has happened has changed repeatedly.
“Instead of setting out the full facts before the House of Commons today, you are planning to travel to the Middle East.
“If you will not make a statement yourself, will you instruct a senior minister to clear things up once and for all through a full parliamentary statement? The public and Parliament deserve answers and transparency.”
Britain’s most senior prosecutor has since said the case collapsed because evidence describing Beijing as a national security threat could not be obtained from Sir Keir’s administration.
Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson said last week that the Crown Prosecution Service tried for “many months” to obtain the evidence it needed, but it had not been forthcoming from the Government.
Mrs Badenoch said ministers must say whether it was “still your Government’s position to claim that it would have been impossible to argue that China was a threat in court”.
The Conservative leader also demanded answers to claims that Mr Powell had discussed the case in a meeting last month.
The Sunday Times reported that the senior aide had revealed the Government’s evidence would be based on the national security strategy, which was published in June and does not refer to China as an “enemy”.
The paper also quoted a source saying a minister was told during a call with a Cabinet minister around six weeks ago that the case was about to fall, with the accusation being “that Jonathan Powell in cahoots with the Treasury had been driving through that decision”.
The White House is said to have concerns about the UK’s reliability following the dropping of charges, while two former senior civil servants, Lord Mark Sedwill and Lord Simon Case, have also questioned Sir Keir’s explanation of how the case collapsed.
The Prime Minister has blamed the Conservative administration in power at the time of the alleged offences between December 2021 and February 2023, suggesting “the only relevant evidence” would relate to this period.
