This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk_politics/6456255.stm

The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Inquiry demanded into 7/7 attacks Inquiry demanded into 7/7 attacks
(40 minutes later)
Opposition parties say the case for a public inquiry into the London bombings is "overwhelming" after new revelations about the intelligence on the bombers.Opposition parties say the case for a public inquiry into the London bombings is "overwhelming" after new revelations about the intelligence on the bombers.
Tory David Davis said ministers had not told the "whole truth". The Lib Dems said briefings saying the bombers were "clean skins" had not proved true. Tory David Davis said ministers had not told the "whole truth". The Lib Dems said briefings suggesting the bombers were "clean skins" had not proved true.
At a trial into a separate UK bomb plot details were given of MI5 monitoring two bombers the year before 7/7. They spoke after it emerged at a trial into another UK bomb plot that MI5 had monitored two 7 July bombers in 2004.
Ministers say an inquiry is not needed and could divert security resources.Ministers say an inquiry is not needed and could divert security resources.
Instead, last year the Home Office published a "narrative" of events, along with a report from Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) - which reports directly to the prime minister rather than MPs.Instead, last year the Home Office published a "narrative" of events, along with a report from Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) - which reports directly to the prime minister rather than MPs.
While the security service has a difficult role to play and cannot be expected to succeed every time, serious questions must be asked about key operational decisions Sir Menzies CampbellLiberal Democrat leader
Previously, MI5 has only said that Mohammed Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, two of the London suicide bombers, had appeared on the "periphery" of the other investigation but had not been identified and listed as potential terrorists.
Mr Davis said it was obvious that MI5 knew about the London bombers yet "did not pursue the matter".
"Two facts are now crystal clear. First, our intelligence services were monitoring two of the London bombers, but stopped before July 2005.
"Second, whether deliberately or not, the government have not told the British public the whole truth about the circumstances and mistakes leading up to the July 7 attacks."
He said because those facts had only just been publicly revealed nearly two years after the bombings, "we still can't learn the lessons from those tragic events".
"The case for an independent inquiry into the attacks of July 2005 is now overwhelming," Mr Davis said.
Public concern
The Liberal Democrats have tabled an urgent question in Parliament, asking for Home Secretary John Reid to tell MPs about the 7 July links.
Sir Menzies Campbell said: "The information revealed in this trial will spark widespread public concern and debate about the operational capabilities of the security service, and the reliability of government information in the aftermath of the 7 July bombings."
He "questioned" government briefings in the aftermath of the bombings suggesting that the bombers were "clean skins" - meaning unknown - to security services.
He said: "While the security service has a difficult role to play and cannot be expected to succeed every time, serious questions must be asked about key operational decisions.
"Those questions would be best answered if a full and independent inquiry consisting of privy counsellors were to be established as soon as possible by the government."
Mr Reid, speaking after the conviction of five men for plotting to set off a huge fertiliser bomb in the UK, thanked security services for working hard to ensure five "dangerous terrorists" were now behind bars.
He said the case was a reminder that "the terrorist threat we face is real and severe", and reiterated his stance that "100% commitment could not guarantee 100% success".
He did not comment on calls for an inquiry into the London bombings.
Blunkett's defence
But David Blunkett, who was home secretary when the London bombers were briefly monitored by the security services, defended MI5's handling of the situation.
He said it was impossible to follow every lead and a public inquiry would not help.
The fertiliser bomb plotters, part of an international network which investigators have linked to senior al-Qaeda figures, had assembled ingredients for a 600kg fertiliser bomb.
In material placed before the judge, but not shown to the jury for legal reasons, the court heard that the plot's ringleader Omar Khyam had met London bomber Khan four times in early 2004.
MI5 monitored these meetings and followed Khan all the way home to Leeds, secretly photographing him and later learning his surname.
'Doubled expenditure'
Mr Blunkett cautioned against claims that MI5 could have done more to stop the 2005 bombings.
"The truth was we'd literally doubled the expenditure [for MI5]. We'd expanded rapidly by 50% the ability to actually recruit," Mr Blunkett told the BBC.
"And to switch from the Northern Ireland situation into the new form of counter-terrorism was very difficult. I think the security and intelligence services did everything they could at that time to ensure we were protected."
Mr Blunkett said questions had been asked at the time about how much work could be undertaken.
"And the answer was very clear and honest. Yes, we cannot follow everything up and if you gave us three times as much money tomorrow we still wouldn't be able to so because we have to build the capacity and backfill as we actually put people who have been on other duties onto the frontline of surveillance."
Mr Blunkett said: "Public inquiries are valuable when they are able to reveal something that isn't known. In this case we know, for good and ill, what happened, what went wrong, where things went right."