Q&A - spying claims

MI6 and GCHQ bugging the diplomatic traffic of other countries is one thing, but eavesdropping on the conversations of the UN Secretary General represents the clearest breach of international protocol.

Who would have authorised a British operation of this sort?

The Prime Minister has ultimate responsibility for the security services. In reality, however, politicians are kept at arms' length from such decisions, partly for their own protection. Any such bugging would have been authorised within the services themselves. Raw data is collated by the Joint Intelligence Committee into "assessments" - by no means all of which are shown to ministers.

What would have been behind any decision to bug Mr Annan?

The key here is the desperation of Britain and the US to secure backing for a second resolution from the UN Security Council to authorise military action against Iraq - something they failed to obtain. As well as putting pressure on so-called "wavering nations", London and Washington were doing all they could to influence Mr Annan.

Are Clare Short's allegations part of the same controversy as yesterday's collapse of the Katharine Gun case?

Effectively, yes. Mrs Gun, 29, blew the whistle on a US-led operation to spy on the UN delegations of countries on the Security Council. Ms Short's claims go further, suggesting a concerted effort to bug almost all UN diplomatic activity at the time.
Ms Gun's lawyers claim the case was dropped to prevent the disclosure of the advice by Attorney General Lord Goldsmith on the legality of going to war - a move which would have triggered the sort of political crisis sparked by Ms Short's claims.

What will the Short claims do to Britain's relationship with the US and the UN?

The close relationship between President George Bush and Mr Blair will be put under strain, but far from terminally affected. The UN has already reacted with predictable righteous indignation.

Can we believe Clare Short?

The most crucial question of all. She is known as a maverick who has spared no effort, since resigning from the Cabinet, in trying to embarrass Mr Blair over the war.
However, she appeared to leave no room for doubt in her account of seeing transcripts of Mr Annan's conversations and her claim that British spies were told to bug him. One possibility is that she did not know the exact status of what she was reading - she could have had access to official transcripts of public interviews with Mr Annan, or possibly secret transcripts supplied by the US or by a "mole" in the Secretary General's office.

Could she be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act?

If the former International Development Secretary signed the act - which appears likely - she could technically face prosecution. However, the likelihood of this happening is almost nil, not least because of the unwelcome publicity such proceedings would attract for the Government.