Whatever the UK’s EU membership status is after March I am confident that our Police and Spies will continue to deliver one of the most important duties of Government and will do so with little change.

In his article on Friday in these pages Sir Richard Dearlove, former “C” during Tony Blair’s tenure and subsequent ill-fated venture in Iraq tried to argue against the deal.

I do not doubt, in anyway, Sir Richard’s dedication to our security. Regretfully Sir Richard has failed to see that the PM’s deal is in fact the best way to secure leaving the EU while at the same time as ensuring we maintain the data sharing and partnerships so key to modern day security.

Firstly it may help readers for them to understand that whether we stay or leave intelligence sharing will remain the exclusive preserve of the nation state.

It may have missed Sir Richards attention but all the time he was head of Mi6 we were full members of the EU while at the same time steadfast NATO and “5 eyes” participants.

Being an EU member didn’t detract then from our mission and nothing being proposed now would diminish our participation in the future.

No one, not the EU Commission nor Her Majesty’s Government is proposing giving up NATO or 5 “eyes” activity in exchange for any deal. It is misleading to suggest otherwise.

There has been much hot air spouted about the phrase in the agreement “a new, deep and special relationship.” It is a fundamental mistake to claim that the agreement in any way subordinates us to any EU defence or intelligence structures. Britain is leaving the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy.

It should be no surprise to anyone that a “new” security arrangement with the EU will be needed. Leaving without a deal will mean we lose unlimited access to DNA, Air passenger records, criminal records and some intelligence.

Everybody in the UK Intelligence community and policing recognise the importance of these tools which is why the Government’s aim has been to try and maintain a like for like access and participation where possible.

That will be the “new” relationship because what we have sought and what the PM has achieved is a commitment no one has secured before.

And so let me turn to the “deep” part of the security deal being proposed. We have learnt the hard way in our past that when we failed to spot the signs of a terror attack it was because of a lack of collaboration.

Indeed when Sir Richard was running Mi6, our “US cousins” potentially failed to spot the gathering storm clouds of Al Qaeda that led to 9/11 because of poor working between the FBI and the CIA.

The solution they have found to this problem was in fact a deeper relationship. Fifteen years after Sir Richard left the Service the need to share and collaborate in the new world of the smart phone and end to end encryption ( not around in their day) is vital.

We live in a digital world not the analogue one of Sir Richard. The urgent pace that our police and intelligence services have to work demands collaboration. ISIL and AQ are international. Isolationism would put us all at risk.

As we leave Europe of course our neighbours will compete on trade and we should be robust back but Security is a partnership NOT a competition.

The Current head of Mi5 said last year “European intelligence cooperation today is simply unrecognisable to what it looked like even five years ago”.

I am sure the Kremlin bet on the UK being isolated when the GRU carried out the NOVICHOK attack. How wrong that proved. The pan-European and US response demonstrated what Security partnerships can do.

Perhaps Sir Richard can take comfort from the fact that far from being plucked from thin air by Ministers the UK’s position is based on the needs of today’s Intelligence and law enforcement community.

As the UK Security Minister I would be failing in my duty if I didn’t ensure that their needs are met.

Ben Wallace MP is the Security Minister and a former soldier who was mentioned in despatches on operations fighting the IRA