Paul Lewis

He, the following day, on Wednesday, did PMQs and did not correct the record.

Now, the argument may be that he was seeking to establish the facts before he fully appraised Parliament of what was going on.

But what further facts did he need to establish?

He was told, he says on Tuesday, that Peter Mandelson had failed security vetting.

So the question is, should he not have right away or at the earliest opportunity told Parliament that that was the fact?

I mean, I'm not a Westminster reporter, right?

But I hear from colleagues who are that, you know, there were government ministers, senior cabinet ministers who were learning about this for the first time, you know, when they read it in the Guardian on Thursday.

So, you know, honestly, what's really interesting to me, I'm not a political hound.

You know, there are lots of people talking about, you know, what does it mean to Starmer?

What will it mean for the elections?

But really what's curious to me is what does this tell you about where power resides in the state?

You know, the notion that senior officials could make a decision of this magnitude and not inform a minister, let alone the prime minister, any government minister, I think will strike many people as extraordinary.

So too will the idea that officials have been considering withholding, disclosing information that they've been compelled to reveal,

by Parliament.

I mean, all of this just raises the question about, you know, who is in charge?

Is it the people we elect to government, to Parliament?

Or is it, you know, officialdom, the state, the national security establishment?

I mean, for me, that's the heart of this question.

This is The Guardian.