BRITAIN STORIES/UPDATE

One of the UK's three security services, alongside the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ. MI5 is tasked with the job of maintaining Britain's internal security, and as such it falls under the jurisdiction of the Home Office. The forerunner of this organisation, Secret Service Bureau, started in 1909, in order to protect Britain from its then principal enemy, Germany. In 1916 it became known as Military Intelligence. Over the decades MI5 has sought to protect the UK during two world wars and the cold war, and from internal communist and fascist subversion. From the 1990s, and especially following the September 11 attacks, MI5 has spent more and more of its resources targeting terrorism.

The DIS is part of the Ministry of Defence, and has existed in its present form since the 1960s. It has about 4,500 staff, whose primary function is to provide information on possible threats to the UK, and to assess intelligence material. More recently the DIS's profile was raised during the Hutton Inquiry. Brian Jones, now retired, was a senior member of the DIS who has raised concerns that the 2002 Iraq dossier removed essential caveats when describing Iraq's chemical and biological weapons.

The role of JIC is to advise ministers on priorities for intelligence gathering, as well as analysing information produced by MI5, MI6, the Defence Intelligence staff and GCHQ. The JIC is part of the Cabinet Office. The committee's chief, John Scarlett, was in charge of the dossier's production. During the Hutton inquiry he strongly denied claims that Downing Street had insisted on including intelligence in the dossier on Iraq's ability to launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes.

Tony Blair looked just as relaxed, confident and certain of himself as he did when he last appeared before this Commons committee six months ago.

He adopted his now traditional, shirt-sleeves, first-names, we're all jolly good chaps together attitude to the liaison committee. He even somehow managed to arrange for the delivery of a personal tea tray part way through the proceedings to add to his laid back, commanding image. And, just as in July of last year, he showed no sign whatsoever that he ever entertained a scintilla of doubt over his decision to take Britain to war on Iraq. This time, however, he had to make concessions.

Position shift

He said he had to accept that the head of the Iraq Survey Group searching for Iraq's WMD had not found any actual weapons, and now believed none would be found. And he now believed it was right to have an inquiry into the intelligence which formed the basis of the justification for the war. These are two pretty big concessions to his critics. They represent fundamental shifts of position from the prime minister who, before the war, insisted Saddam had chemical and biological weapons he was able to activate within 45 minutes and, after the war, insisted no inquiry was necessary and the intelligence was sound. Now he appears to accept there might not have been weapons, only "programmes" - a position which he has been working towards for some time - and that the intelligence may have been flawed. He did not say so in as many words. But that is the conclusion many will draw from his performance before the MPs. What will dismay his critics, however, was his statement that: "We can't end up having an inquiry into whether the war was right or wrong. That is something that we have got to decide. We are the politicians."

Political judgments

And it is clear that is one of the points of dispute with the Liberal Democrats over the terms of reference for the inquiry. The Lib Dems wanted the inquiry - likely to echo the post-Falklands Franks inquiry with senior civil servants and members of each political party - to consider the political judgments in the run up to war. Nor will his critics be happy with his claim he went to war to uphold UN resolutions, despite the UN's refusal to back war, or that the justification was the risk posed by an unstable state with a WMD "capability." But, as he said himself, no matter what is discovered to vindicate him, those critics will still insist he was wrong to go to war. And he mapped out what is now his regular line that: "Whatever is discovered as a result of that inquiry, I do not accept that it was wrong to remove Saddam Hussein or the world is not a safer or better place for that." Committee member Tony Wright probably put his finger on the question near the front of many people's minds when he asked the prime minister if he believed MPs would still have voted for war if they had known then what they know now about WMD. There was no hesitation from Mr. Blair: "Yes." -N. Asinder/BBCWorldNews-Wire.