Disclosure note: John Sawers and I have known each other since we worked together in South Africa in the twlight years of apartheid.

* * * * *

Here on the SIS website is the full (and presumably authorised) text of Sir John Sawers’ speech this morning.

The very fact that he has spoken at all will dismay different intelligence and other purists. But modern life in the Western world appears to require some sort of public face for all government bodies, even (or maybe especially) those engaged in the darker arts.

Some noteworthy passages:

A report’s value can be over-played if it tells us what we want to hear, or it can be underplayed if it contains unwelcome news or runs against received wisdom.

It is a part of the picture, and may not be even wholly accurate, even if the trusted agent who gave it to us is sure that it is.

A key point. Politicians! When someone slides in with a bundle of papers in bright red folders marked TOP SECRET OMEGA EPSILON SIGMA UK EYES A with all sorts of juicy stuff in them about what foreign governments are up to, don’t lose your mind in all the excitement. It all simply may not be true.

You and millions of people like you go about your business in our cities and towns free of fear because the British government works tirelessly, out of the public eye, to stop terrorists and would-be terrorists in their tracks.

The most draining aspect of my job is reading, every day, intelligence reports describing the plotting of terrorists who are bent on maiming and murdering people in this country.

It’s an enormous tribute to the men and women of our intelligence and security agencies, and to our cooperation with partner services around the world, that so few of these appalling plots develop into real terrorist attacks.

It’s easy to assume as you bustle along the High Street that the absence of explosions and shattered dead bodies (including your own) is down to the fact that terrorists are an exaggerated problem or are far away.

In fact it’s because small numbers of dedicated people work stunningly hard in the UK and round the world to keep you safe from all sorts of lunatics. Be grateful. Be very grateful.

I’ve worked a lot in the Islamic World. I agree with those who say we need to be steady and stand by our friends.

Over time, moving to a more open system of government in these countries, one more responsive to people’s grievances, will help. But if we demand an abrupt move to the pluralism that we in the West enjoy, we may undermine the controls that are now in place and terrorists would end up with new opportunities.

An important argument in favour of realistic but purposeful foreign policy gradualism, in effect a rebuke to over-hasty Americans as per President G W Bush. Not quite sure I agree with it – we probably have been too gradual to make any impact – but it’s a coherent view. In any case, ‘demanding’ anything gets us nowhere these days in foreign policy terms.

SIS officers round the world make judgements at short notice with potentially life or death consequences.

Say an agent warns us of a planned attack. We may need to meet that agent fast and securely, to understand his intelligence more fully. To work with GCHQ who look for other signs. To work with MI5 and the police to act on that intelligence here in the UK.

Ministers and lawyers need to be briefed, and consulted on next steps. We need partner agencies abroad to pool information, to monitor individuals or to detain them where there are clear, specific concerns.

Disrupting the terrorists is a painstaking process with much careful preparation, and then sudden rapid activity. Details have to be got right. It all has to be tackled fast and securely. There is little margin for error.

All this goes on 24 hours a day, every day of the year. And it keeps us far safer than we would be without it.

Welcome to the adult world, you media folk in the audience. It’s bloody difficult.

We work with over 200 partner services around the World, with hugely constructive results. And our intelligence partnership with the United States is an especially powerful contributor to UK security.

No intelligence service risks compromising its sources. So we have a rule called the Control Principle; the service who first obtains the intelligence has the right to control how it is used; who else it can be shared with, and what action can be taken on it.

It’s Rule Number One of intelligence sharing. We insist on it with our partners, and they insist on it with us. Because whenever intelligence is revealed, others try to hunt down the source. Agents can get identified, arrested, tortured and killed by the very organisations who are working against us.

So if the Control Principle is not respected, the intelligence dries up. That’s why we have been so concerned about the possible release of intelligence material in recent court cases.

Vital point. The chattering classes smirk when the wonderful courts uphold the rights of a terrorist suspect and compel vital intelligence information to be disclosed. Freedom! Take that, you nasty oppressive government! 

What we all don’t see is what that may cost us later. in terms of the rights of victims of terrorism here or elsewhere. 

It is simply dishonest to pretend that there is no cost, especially if we are compelled to release material supplied by other services who will not bother to send us key information again. When it comes to dealing with globalised terrorists, we all need to maintain the effectiveness of the global networks of cooperation working against them.

Suppose we receive credible intelligence that might save lives, here or abroad. We have a professional and moral duty to act on it. We will normally want to share it with those who can save those lives.

We also have a duty to do what we can to ensure that a partner service will respect human rights. That is not always straightforward.

Yet if we hold back, and don’t pass that intelligence, out of concern that a suspect terrorist may be badly treated, innocent lives may be lost that we could have saved.

These are not abstract questions for philosophy courses or searching editorials. They are real, constant, operational dilemmas.

Sometimes there is no clear way forward. The more finely-balanced judgments have to be made by Ministers themselves…

Torture is illegal and abhorrent under any circumstances, and we have nothing whatsoever to do with it. If we know or believe action by us will lead to torture taking place, we’re required by UK and international law to avoid that action. And we do, even though that allows the terrorist activity to go ahead.

Some may question this, but we are clear that it’s the right thing to do. It makes us strive all the harder to find different ways, consistent with human rights, to get the outcome we want.

A powerful passage. It makes explicit that walking back from certain categories of information may directly raise the risk to the public. This is like the presumption of innocence in criminal trials. It allows many guilty people to be acquitted, a price we pay for protecting the innocent as best we can. Principles do not come free.

Secrecy is not a dirty word. Secrecy is not there as a cover up. Secrecy plays a crucial part in keeping Britain safe and secure.

And without secrecy, there would be no intelligence services, or indeed other national assets like our Special Forces. Our nation would be more exposed as a result.

Without secrecy, we can’t tackle threats at source. We would be forced to defend ourselves on the goal-line, on our borders. And it’s more than obvious that the dangers of terrorism, nuclear proliferation and cyber attack are not much impressed by international borders.

Anyone arguing with that?

* * * * *

It’s not every day that we get the first ever speech by a serving member of MI6. When it happens we are entitled to expect a good, strong, thoughtful one. John Sawers today delivered just that.