David Davis
Win VIP tickets
The mayhem aimed at innocent shoppers and nightclubbers by Omar Khyam, Jawad Akbar, Salahuddin Amin, Waheed Mahmood and Anthony Garcia is alarming enough. But even more disturbing is the light that this terror case sheds on the operations of the security service in the months and years before the London suicide bombings on the July 7, 2005.
The day before those bombings, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the head of MI5, told government whips that there was no specific threat on the horizon. Shortly before this, the terror level had been reduced from severe to substantial. That was despite July 7 being the first day of Abu Hamza’s trial and, therefore, a high-risk date. After the bombing, the public were told by the Home Secretary that the attacks came “out of the blue”. The security agencies briefed the press that the suicide bombers were “clean skins”, agency parlance for people not previously known to them.
Now we know differently. In the interests of a fair trial, for the last year the British media has been prevented from reporting that Khyam, the head of the terrorist ring convicted yesterday, was a close associate of Mohammad Sidique Khan, the 7/7 ringleader. They met on at least four occasions in England while under MI5 surveillance. We also know that they were recorded by Security Service agents talking about plans for future attacks. We now also know that Khyam met Shehzad Tanweer, another 7/7 bomber, while under MI5 surveillance. We can now also say that both Khan and Tanweer were monitored for more than a year before the suicide attack. In the case of Khan, this surveillance extended back to 2003 and more than a year before they killed 52 people, Khan was considered a “desirable suspect” by the security service.
Yet MI5 dropped the surveillance on both Khan and Tanweer, allowing them to go on to visit training camps in Pakistan, and return to commit their atrocity. MI5 claim that this was an unavoidable decision, based on the surveillance resources available to them. This prompts several questions.
First, why, years after 9/11, was the agency so starved of resources? Was the Government too slow to increase the funding after 9/11? And does it really take three years to build a surveillance team, as the Government claims? It did not take that long in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, so why does it today?
Secondly, did MI5 use its resources properly? Did it make the right decisions? Clearly, given the outcome, it was the wrong decision to take Khan off surveillance. Was that mistake avoidable?
Thirdly, did MI5, the police and Special Branch coordinate their efforts properly? We now know that Khan was followed in an identified car to Yorkshire, to clearly identified addresses. Were the local Special Branch notified, asked to check their records on the car and addresses and set up surveillance on Khan and Tanweer, which would be a normal part of their job? The Panorama programme last night suggested that this basic action was not taken. If not, why not? Is there any truth in the stories of tensions between the agencies, at a time of enhanced threat and stretched resources?
Fourthly, a photograph was taken of Khan and shown to a number of terrorists and suspected terrorists held in custody by our allies in early 2005. Yet it was not shown to the one prisoner who could have identified him before the attack. The excuse, we are told, is that it was not a very good photograph. If so, why was it circulated at all?
There may be reasons for all of these apparent errors. But public safety demands that we assess any shortcomings and put them right as a matter of urgency.
It is not even clear how much detail is known by the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC). The people on this committee are good and patriotic MPs. But they report to the Prime Minister, not Parliament. They have no independent investigative capacity of their own so, it is revealing that only MI5, and not Special Branch, gave the ISC evidence after the attacks of July 2005.
We need to beef up this committee, select its membership from Privy Counsellors, give it the ability to pursue its own lines of inquiry. It should be a body that keeps secrets, but at the same time holds the secret services to account.
More immediately, we need an independent inquiry into the attacks of July 7 and 21, and their implications for our security strategy. This inquiry should have a wide remit. The Prime Minister’s own unit described Operation Contest, the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy, as “immature”. It added: “Forward planning is disjointed or has yet to occur. Accountability for delivery is weak. Real world impact is seldom measured.” Yet the Government continues to use a discredited strategy that even it has no faith in.
Throughout Britain’s postwar history it was the norm for big security failures to be followed by an independent inquiry. Typically, the inquiries were led by a senior judge or Privy Counsellor. They ranged from the Radcliffe inquiry into the infiltration of British intelligence by the Soviets to the Franks inquiry into the Falklands conflict. In each case, the outcome was a public report that informed people, impartially and authoritatively, what went wrong and forced the Government to make the required changes.
John Reid has refused to allow a “public inquiry”. We do not want a public inquiry, we want an independent inquiry, which, far from being a distraction, will be an essential tool in improving our security services. At a time when the head of MI5 has publicly cautioned that we face an unprecedented threat from 30 terrorist plots, 200 terrorist groups and 1,600 suspects, the British public especially the bereaved and the survivors of 7/7 deserve no less.
Win a luxury weekend to Newcastle and its neighbour Gateshead, find out more here
Risk, resilience and embracing new technology
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
Discover the power of collective thinking. Submit a solution and be in with a chance to win a Media Hub Home Entertainment System
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Make the most of the summer and enter our fabulous photographic competition, you could win a £5000 holiday
Corsica is an island of beauty and contrast, an ideal holiday destination
Enjoy further reading from Travel to Fashion, Business to Sport, discover more
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
The clever way to lease a new car is with Car leasing made simple™
2009
per month on 36-month
Personal Contract Hire (PCH)
2008
42850
Car Insurance
£23,093 - £56,211
The Office for National Statistics
Newport, South Wales
£60,000
The Environment Agency
Bristol
Up to £90K
Boots
Midlands
OTE £85k
Credit Protection Association
Nationwide Opportunities
Completely London
Luxury Condo's in Manhattan with NYC views
The best new homes in Wimbledon?
Nationwide
Fabulous Cruise And Cruise & Stay Offers Including Virgin Atlantic Flights Prices Start From Only £699pp!
Last Minute Cruise And Cruise & Stay Offers. Med From £499pp, Caribbean From £699pp!
5 star quality at a 3 star price.
8 fabulous Canadian cities ...you won’t find cheaper
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths | Subscriptions | E-paper
News International associated websites: Globrix Property Search | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
Don't waste your time calling for a full, independent public enquiry into the 7/7 bombings, because from now on, no enquiry will be either independent or public. Thanks to the Enquiries Act enacted on 7 June 2005, the relevant government minister has power to intervene at any stage, so any enquiry is controlled by the executive, the very organisation it was set up to investigate. Described as "an Alice in Wonderland" situation by Canadian judge Peter Cory. So something of a mystery why Control Freak Blair won't allow a 7/7 enquiry. The last public enquiry was to investigate the death of Dr. David Kelly, and Blair managed to whitewash that away.
Bottom line; you risk-adverse losers still resident in UK are screwed. You have exchanged your freedoms for a mess of pottage; namely the illusion of greater security. To remain in UK is passive support of a government that is trampling over your civil rights, so if you hate it then leave it.
Andrew Milner, Yokohama, Japan
David lets get real here there are 2000+ mosques in the
uk 7/7 had to happen sometime these kids get brainwashed into doing stupid acts of terrorism is not a new
ideal or craze young Islamic people are not all stupid they
know the problems just like we do ,but together we can
solve it ,Asian people are here to stay its there country as well as ours so why not try new ideas Islamic football
league maybe get a think tank going your in goverment
start solving the problems instead of just talking about them .we need new jobs for our young people.
george william taylor, hull, uk
its no use asking for an independant enquiry. you will only ever get one when blair is certain he has nothing to hide.
draw your own conclusions.
james avery, saffron walden, england
I think that there should be an inquirey into why the Tories jump on to any bandwagon and political stunt going so long as it appears to support the views of the public, fuelled by the media.
Do they have any honest opinions of their own other than turning over the ban on fox hunting when they get back in to power? (pathetic David). I think that one definite policy alone and the constant weedy opportunism sums up all we need to know about Camerons conservatives. New Conservative, old hypocrisy, old opportunism. oh dear.
They remain, unsurprisingly, shameless. No change there then.
Malcolm Reed, Tunbridge Wells,
Mr Blair rejects calls for an independant enquiry as to allow one would distract the security services during a time of intense activity.
Wasn't that exactly the same phrase that Ian Blair used when he tried to stop an IPC enquiry into the shooting of Jean Charles DeMenez?
A. Williamson, London, UK
Of course we need/want/deserve an independent inquiry......Of course we won't get one, but don't be a hypocrite. If the Tories had been in power at the time and your good self Home Secretary, we still wouldn't get one!!
It doesn't matter who you vote for....The Government always gets in!!
TERRY FREEMAN, LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND
Frankly, I worry more about the huge amount of information given out my the media about the activities and methods used by our surveillance teams - that future terrorists will now know exactly how to avoid detection as they go about planning and executing their next atrocity.
sean dunne, louth,
Lets face it; the security services are a can of worms. In a covert environment anything goes that you can get away with, so that you can get away with anything that doesnt run counter to whatever body has oversight, and their connivance can merely be tacit. You are never going to expose this level of operation by any enquiry, but if we have real security problems in this country they will be of that nature. MI6 dwarfs all these hill-billy organisations, like Al-Quaeda, in subversive operations, both in manpower, finance, and influence. It follows that if we are getting terrorists threats in this country, they can be seen as the response to MI6 operations elsewhere in the world. There is not a lot of point in getting over-excited about terrorist operations in this country if they are a function of MI6 operations abroad - and who is to say that they arent?. You either cut down on MI6 or you put up with them.
Henry Percy, London, UK
The fist casualty of war is truth. When some idiot politician dubbed this scenario a war he played into the hands of the liars.
Hang on - politician, liar - isn't that a synonym?
KR, Stockport,
Five will get you ten that a government that won't allow an independent inquiry is a government that would be embarrassed, not by the blunders you list, but by some issue or issue that you don't list.
This could be as benign as an ongoing security project that needs to be kept quiet, or it could be as damaging as a revelation that the security services have been penetrated once again.
It's worth recalling that Soviet infiltration was revealed layer by layer, over several years, with third men, fourth men and fifth men uncovered in turn. Initial inquiries really don't get all the truth. One thing is certain, which is that this government doesn't want yet another brand-new scandal on its record. It prefers the scandals we already know about to slowly fade away.
jon livesey, Sunnyvale, CA/US
It seems incredible, does it not, that members of the 7/7 gang were thought to be travelling from Yorkshire to the South East and back on several occasions for a chit-chat about low-level fraud. The arrested bomb-makers talked on many occasions about supplementary attacks. As soon as arrests were made in March 2004 one expects that the MI5 team were then tasked to chase down possible related gangs. And we are expected to believe that they did not make the Yorkshire connection. I struggle to accept this. An inquiry is needed to examine the extent to which MI5 (or related intelligence services) undertook surveillance of the 7/7 gang after March 2004.
This is a profoundly important issue because it is indicative that this type of terrorism may be fulfilling the role of a 'full order book' for the intelligence community and the judiciary (look at the investigation and court costs for evidence of this). We need to be assured that we can win this struggle and the end is in sight.
Charles, London, England
The security services clearly need even more funding for operations and manpower than they have at present. The country neeeds to wake up to the fact that the frontline of the war is here, not in Afghanistan, and the enemy, sadly, are deranged Britons who imagine that terror advances their cause.
michael clarke, london, uk
Reid on TV yesterday said the police were to be congratulated on a job well done - yes, I know he wasn't Home Sec. at the time but he is defending the office who's behaviour has been indefensible.
If I were a family member of the victims I would be looking to sue the Home office mandarin/s responsible and the police and the desk bound incompetents who run it all. An open full and unrestricted indedendent public enquiry is the very least we can expect. Then the goverment can step in with the usual bucket of whitewash.
Victor Cowen, Malaga, Spain
They still don't know how many illegals there are or who they are. The only way to sort it out is to stop all immigration and force everyone else to carry ID cards with random stop and search available all the time. If you don't like it, stop screaming about it and leave. I live in France and if my car is stopped I have to produve my ID, car log book and insurance on the spot. If I do not have it, I get an immediate fine. It is no problem at all.
m wilson, bidache, France
"Tell us the truth about those 7/7 blunders"
It seems by the headline that David Davies has already made up his mind.
David Dunn, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
Just watching Paxman interviewing the Chairman(Murphy) about the last inquiry tells us that an independant inquiry is paramount to the future of British intelligence.
We are told ad nauseum by John Reid of the threat posed and yet again in this governments history the people who make the mistakes in high office will escape censure!!
lovett, malaga, spain