Laura

The second thing that's really important that you and I have talked about on Newscast a lot, and we reported on it when this all blew up back in September 2005,

is this vetting took place after the cabinet office had already done its own process.

And then Keir Starmer had asked his own questions of Peter Mandelson via his chief of staff, Morgan Sweeney, after that process had completed.

So the context for Ollie Robbins here is he knows that the prime minister wants the job.

That's out there in public.

That's not even a question of, oh, private push inside government.

Point two, Ollie Robbins knows that there's already been a process carried out by the Cabinet Office Ethics and Propriety Department, the PET report, as it's rather ridiculously called.

He knows both of those things and both of those things.

have led the Prime Minister to conclude that Peter Mandelson should be the man in Washington.

So therefore, some people might suggest it would be pretty difficult for Ollie Robbins to have put the brake on that process.

Now, we don't know what Ollie Robbins saw.

We don't know what the vetting agency's report threw up.

We don't know if it raised issues that were very different to what had been in the original vetting report.

But both those two bits of context are very, very important when it comes to this.

But it will be absolutely fascinating box office next week when first Keir Starmer on Monday is going to have to answer questions about this.

And then Ollie Robbins has been summoned to speak to MPs about exactly what happened next week too on Tuesday.

The Prime Minister said things that, given what we know now, definitely gave us a misleading picture about Peter Mandelson's suitability and clearance for the job.

And the specific charge there lies actually to an answer that the Prime Minister gave to a question from a journalist when he said that Peter Mandelson had been cleared by the security vetting process.

But did he give a misleading picture?

Yes, he did.