It is security, not secrecy, that we must ensure But when intelligence is involved, the government cannot defend itself in open court. We cannot say whether Britain was involved in a particular case; we cannot reveal whether we know anything about the individual involved; and we cannot comment on the exchange of information with other countries. To do any of these things would disclose sources, threaten the people who put their lives at risk to gather information, and endanger our intelligence relationships with other governments. The Government currently has no mechanism to defend itself while protecting intelligence relationships. So there is no choice but to settle out of court, often involving large sums of public money and leaving an allegation hanging. The genuine claimant does not get justice, the public is none the wiser as to the truth of the allegation, and the reputation of our intelligence agencies is besmirched. The number of civil damages claims against the Government is rising. And our partners overseas look on with deepening worry. In some specific cases, intelligence-sharing has been restricted because of a fear that secrets may be made public, potentially endangering agents. A responsible government cannot let this situation stand. The Justice and Security Bill proposes a solution that allows for justice while protecting critical relationships through closed material procedures in specific cases. These will only be available where it is necessary to protect material that would damage national security if disclosed in open court. It is simply untrue that these would be "secret courts." Rather, it allows the courts to hold closed sessions in which sensitive material relevant to the case can be heard. Material that is not sensitive to security will still be dealt with in the open. Some people argue that this change is not necessary and that a claim of Public Interest Immunity (PII) can be used instead. This allows the Government to claim that material is so sensitive that it should not be used in court. But if a PII claim is successful, the Government may well have excluded the material it needs to rely on, and that can mean no case being heard at all, and - once again - an allegation will be left answered. It is untrue to say the Government wants to extend closed material procedures to cover up wrongdoing. I have the greatest admiration for the Security Service, Secret Intelligence Service and for GCHQ, and for the work they do, which is vital to the safety and security of our country. But it is essential that they can be properly held to account when faced with allegations of wrongdoing. I know the heads of the agencies share this view. But the current situation allows for no accountability at all. The Bill will allow courts to probe and push any government defence. It will ensure accountability. And it will enable us to retain the trust of partners and agents. I know that today that trust is being eroded and that the risks to our security are real. We are seeking to put this right, so that we protect the relationships that help keep Britain safe while remaining true to Britain's values. William Hague is Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs