Highgrove: never on Her Majesty's Secret Service

The author served in the Parachute Regiment for six years and later worked as a security consultant.

'Even the Queen is bugged' it was alleged yesterday, as a row erupted over charges that MI5 had recorded conversations between the Prince and Princess of Wales. In all the ensuing discussion about the MI5 and bugging, however, two things need to be made clear.

First, individuals who are bugged by the security services will not know that their private telephone conversations are being recorded unless the security services want them to know. Second, it is quite inconceivable that the security services, or MI5 as they are frequently referred to, would lose such sensitive material as the so-called Discarded Information - the transcript of an alleged conversation between the Prince and Princess at Highgrove.

Yesterday's denials by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary that the security services were involved are echoed by the specialist security industry and people who have worked alongside the security services in Northern Ireland - perhaps the leading edge of electronic surveillance in the UK. The consensus is that the allegations cannot be taken seriously.

Some insiders have expressed concern that the security services themselves may be the victims of finger-pointing and professional point- scoring. There has been much resentment since they took over responsibility for collecting intelligence on the IRA on the mainland - a prestige task that was formerly the prerogative of the police Special Branch and the anti-terrorist squad. As one security specialist pointed out: 'It seems funny that since the security services took over this role from the police, their professionalism has been so often called into question. I and many others cannot help wondering whether the security services are not being deliberately undermined.'

True, the security services have had their critics ever since their formation in 1909, when they were referred to as the Secret Service Bureau. Being an organisation shrouded in secrecy, entry into whose ranks is by invitation only, the service is not only open to criticism, but anything written about it is bound to whet the appetite of the general public just because the organisation is secret and shuns publicity.

When it comes down to it, it seems that the only reason the security services have been accused of bugging the royal residence is because they have the specialist equipment and personnel to conduct electronic surveillance. However, members of the specialist security industry are well aware that anyone can purchase and use sophisticated electronic equipment. They also know that this equipment is capable of recording conversations inside rooms, as well as bugging telephones, fax machines, computers and mobile telephones. According to people in the industry, the equipment is sophisticated, but you do not need any specialist training to use it.

The wide availability of such equipment means that there is no such thing as 100 per cent security. The London-based Hunter Chase Ltd, whose services include 'sweeping' boardrooms, offices and private residences for concealed transmitters, have on a number of occasions found such devices inside offices with strict security 24 hours a day. According to Hunter Chase, more than pounds 4m a year is spent in the UK alone on the purchase of electronic surveillance equipment. One company, which it prefers not to name, spends in excess of pounds 12,000 a month advertising its equipment.

Critics of the security services have been quick to point out that there is a great amount of money to be made from recordings made with such equipment. Those with experience of the security industry are convinced that if the right money is offered, you will find someone prepared to bug royal residences.

Keith Stowell, who has been in the private investigation field for more than 25 years, said: 'If you take, for example, a bug which has been built into a two-way adapter - and you can buy these for around pounds 60 - you can bug a room in the time it takes to plug it into the power socket. Because it uses power from the electric circuit of the building, it can be left there for years, broadcasting every conversation within the room. A cleaner, tradesman or anyone who has access can, in effect, bug a room in just a few seconds.'

He notes that most forms of bugging have been carried out with inside assistance, but suggests that in the case of the Prince and Princess of Wales 'it would appear that this fact has not been taken into consideration'.

The consensus among those who have knowledge of the workings of British intelligence is that anything written about the security services, however incredible, inevitably attracts attention because so little is known about how they work. Anything written about them easily descends into sensationalism for exactly the same reason.

Those familiar with the world of British intelligence also believe that Stella Rimington, the recently appointed director-general of the security services, would be committing professional suicide if she were to condone surveillance of this kind, especially at a time when there is constant criticism of the security services' response to the IRA campaign on the mainland.

Dave Mullings, who served in an intelligence-gathering capacity in Northern Ireland for two years and has seen the way in which electronic surveillance is carried out there, is adamant that if the security services were to deploy their skills on the Royal Family no one would be any the wiser.

But he is probably voicing the widespread view of the experts when he says of the alleged royal bugging: 'This is the work of a private individual who has recognised how much can be made from selling recordings of the royals to the tabloid press.'