richard desmond wanted to turn it into housing, and as you say, it is worth looking online at all the what little time we have left if we try and explain that. but we can explain this story on the front of the times. as always, there isa front of the times. as always, there is a price to pay. people stuck at home rather than managing to go to work have been buying things online, iadmiti work have been buying things online, i admit i bought some toilet paper online. so many people have been doing it now... retailers can claw back some money... a levy will host... inaudible. high street may not actually see the foot will come back and we may see more and more holes... trying to get back onto the high street to shop in person again. if few holes in your broadband i am afraid, we lost a few words. forgive me for that. i think we got the general drift of the story and your explanation of the green levy,

instead, he texted him to say, nice to meet you and richard desmond gets back in touch and sta rts desmondgo along with that before pulling back. so the first thing we've learned is that the housing secretary chose to stay in touch with richard desmond, the developer. many people would say he should not have done that. the second thing we have learned is that even though his own officials in his own department said to give this project the big thumbs down, he chose to give it the thumbs up, and the third thing we learned is that he wanted to rush approval for the deal through before a new community charge could kick in, potentially costing mr desmond tens of millions of pounds. all of it looks bad. does it prove wrongdoing? maybe not yet, but it certainly has enabled the labour party to revive the old taunt of tory sleaze. albeit this morning the business minister said that no wrongdoing was done here. robert jenrick actually promised a select committee he would publish everything around this decision. he himself has said, look, with the benefit of hindsight he might have done things sligh

in the background of this one, there's robertjenrick, the minister, and in this one, there's richard desmondd some of his property colleagues were also on the table. but there's another picture. here's mr desmond again with the prime minister. borisjohnson has his arm around mr desmond's shoulder. at that dinner in november, richard desmond briefly showed the minister images of the planned development. two months later, robertjenrick gave it planning permission. the timing was crucial. the next day, a new levy was introduced to fund community improvements, but richard desmond already had planning permission, so avoided it. two weeks later, he donated £12,000 to the conservatives, payment for another table at another dinner. faced with a legal challenge, robertjenrick decided to quash his own decision because it looked biased. and at today's debate, that was labour's accusation. the suspicion arises, once again, that the secretary of state was bending over to do favours for his billionaire dinner date. robertjenrick said that was an outrageous suggestion — he had an open mind and a desire to

the developer, richard desmond, subsequently donated £12,000 to the conservative party. let's take a closer look at the timeline of events between robertjenrick and richard desmond. the pair first met after sitting next to each other at a conservative fundraising dinner on the 18th of november last year. robert jenrick admitted they exchanged phone numbers. and in a series of texts mrjenrick said: ‘good to spend time with you tonight richard. see you again soon i hope'. two days later, a meeting was arranged for december. on that same day, mr desmond sent a text in which he referred to a new infrastructure charge that was about to be brought in by the labour—run council of tower hamlets. the charge would have added millions to the cost of the proposed project. mr desmond's text said "we don't want to give marxists loads of dough for nothing". 0n the 15th of december, robertjenrick texted richard desmond to cancel their meeting — as he needed to be in parliament for the queen's speech. 0n january the 9th this year, the housing secretary urged approval of the £1 billion ho

he raised the matter of how he came to sit next to richard desmond at a conservative fundraising dinnernt. my department knew about my attendance at the event before i went to it. they knew about the fact that i had inadvertently sat next to the applicant. i didn't know who i was going to be seated by until i sat at the table. and i discussed and took advice from my officials within the department at all times. he accepts he acted unlawfully in overuling a local authority to grant planning permission to a wealthy tory donor. helping him avoid £40 million in tax. will he now explain to this house how he expects the public to have confidence in planning procedures given his actions and why he thinks it is appropriate for him to remain in post while a police investigation into his behaviour is ongoing? i'm happy to clarify a number of those points. the vast majority which were factually incorrect. i understand that a labour member of the house of lords did make an allegation to the police that was swiftly assessed by members of the metropolitan police and they informed me that there were n

talking about the planning system because the row over the planning decision he made to allow richard desmondmer newspaper magnate and tory donor, to build lots of swanky flats in east london. the row from that will not go away. there were some jaw clenching the, rather than another part of the anatomy, text between him and richard desmond that came out last night. and labour is really convinced that it looks pretty stinky. although those texts, they are just sort of friendly texts, rather than super chummy texts and he does say robertjenrick, to richard desmond, this is a official process and i can't really be touch with you while we were doing this. the thing is, though, it is a good golden rule that if you're texts are printed out and published it is going to be awkward. there are going to be clenching going on north and south, i think, anatomically, so as you say yes, at one point he did say, mrjenrick, he didn't go ahead with the proposed site visit to this patch in tower hamlets, where this proposed set of new swanky apartments were going to be built and of course actually because of wh

the developer, richard desmond, then donated £12,000 to the conservative party.p. today we're joined from nottingham by doctor jamie parker. good by doctorjamie parker. morning, drjamie parker. are good morning, drjamie parker. how are you? good, naga. how are you? very well. actually i think i was out in the sun too much this week because i became really tired and i wondered if i had heatstroke, and that's one of the things doctors like yourself will be warning people about today. yeah, absolutely. it's going to be really hot and you have to be really careful when you go out, not only is it going to be sunny, but be careful and make sure you take water, where a hat and take suntan lotion and follow your mum's advice. mums always say that, as do dads! you're going to be seeing people with the after—effects, it's not often people call their gp to ask what they should be thinking about today in terms of the sun. you're absolutely right, when it's like this normally it gets a bit quieter. it is after the heat that we are going to see the effects, you see people comi

robertjenrick granted planning permission for a company owned by conservative party donor richard desmond he gave his consent to the scheme on the 14th of january in the teeth of opposition from tower hamlet‘s counsel and his own planning inspector — who both considered the scheme oversized and lacking affordable housing. when tower hamlet‘s took out a judicial review to challenge the secretary of state, he took the extraordinary step of admitting his decision was unlawful because of "apparent bias." that meant he avoided publishing all correspondence revealing the true reasons behind his decision in open court. by an astonishing coincidence, just two weeks after the secretary of state took his decision, mr desmond made a generous donation of £12,000 to the conservative party. the sequence of events raises grave concerns about cash for favours. if he wants to restore trust, the secretary of state must immediately publish all documents and all correspondence relating to this decision. the public needs reassurance that the integrity of the planning process cannot be auctioned off at conserv

richard desmond was a conservative, 50 million pounds in tax. did this weeks after connecting to the developer. and and and will he publish all correspondence, for the department. >> i'm happy to have no conversations on the matter. >> the lockdown has seen a rise in antisocial behavior in my area including where a man sadly died, my condolences over family and friends. this incident shows the need for more visible police, can the prime minister confirmed the 147 new police officers promised they will be focused on front-line policing to tackle antisocial behavior? >> yes indeed and that is why the government will get on with the agenda of 20,000 more police officers when we were recruited, thousands already. so she identified - so they haven't already gotten that. they do that very shortly. >> the health secretary missing that covid-19 outbreaks are worse in those areas and the inequality is very serious in session. can you promise me about the council, get the full reimbursement instead of only half of it. on the eleventh of may he promised to

printworks housing scheme in east london 12 days before the developer, the former daily express owner, richard desmondve party. labour says the timing raises "cash for favours" suspicions, but mrjenrick insists he did nothing wrong. at the start of the debate, labour was pushing for a vote to force the release of the paperwork, something the minister had previously refused to do. the westferry case and his secretary of state's role in it has blown up our confidence in the planning system. the only way to put that rate is for the secretary of state to publish the evidence about what really happened. if he's done nothing wrong, then he has got nothing to fear. so i hope he will welcome this opportunity to restore trust in a sector that will be so critical in rebuilding britain after the lockdown. a tory former cabinet minister who had robertjenrick‘s job in the past defended the role of civil servants. would he accept that in my experience, every letter that emanates from the department goes with the consent of officials. ministers can't write in a personal capacity. my experience of those officials is

documents show the cabinet minister was in text contact with the developer, richard desmond, while makingolitical editor norman smith is in westminster. what do you make of the minister's position? when it comes to cabinet ministers surviving the chop, there are two ministers surviving the chop, there a re two rules. ministers surviving the chop, there are two rules. the confidence rule, do they seek out the confidence of their prime minister and fellow mps, and broadly robertjenrick passes that test. but there is also what i call the public aroma test, how does it smell to ordinary people? and there he had already started noses twitching. we had the tory minister in charge of planning giving the go—ahead to a controversial housing development, bitterly opposed, to a developer who happens to be a tory donor. that smell has been made worse by the release of these documents which suggests that two men had a convivial relationship. they had each other‘s mobile number, they shared texts, discussed going ona they shared texts, discussed going on a site visit together. and we learned robertjenr

communities secretary admitted unlawfully overruling his own planning inspection, saving the developer richard desmondh all relevant correspondent between number ten and the department? mr speaker, i am number ten and the department? mr speaker, iam happy number ten and the department? mr speaker, i am happy to tell the honourable lady i have had no conversations on that matter whatever nor any exchanges of any kind. thank you. the lockdown has seen a rise in anti—social behaviour in my area, including a castle where a man sadly died last thursday evening. my sincere condolences are are with his family an friend. this hoe shows the immediate for more visible police in seven oak, can the prime minister promise the extra police will not the delayed. yes, indeed mr speaker, that is why this government will get on with its levelling up, the more police officer, we have recruited thousands already, and i am pleased to say that the 147 that she identified coming to kent, if they haven‘t already got there, i think they have got there, if they haven‘t they are getting there shortly. in view of the health secr

released by mrjenrick — which feature texts and emails between himself and conservative donor richard desmondi also reports on that story. meanwhile, the metro focuses on labour leader sir keir starmer‘s criticism of delays to the roll—out of a national "track and trace" service in england — which has been pushed back from may to the winter. and the mirror looks at the hottest day of the year here, and the huge crowds who rushed to beaches and beauty spots including durdle door in dorset. so let's begin... lovely to see you both as always. we are going to start with the times paper, one of a number which is focusing on the story regarding the housing secretary and robert generally. olivia, talk us through it. so, what's happened is robert generally, who is the housing secretary was at a fundraising party inafew secretary was at a fundraising party in a few months ago and had a short conversation with a tory donor, who is keen to get approval for a development in the east of london. at this party robert said that he said to the stonor that he couldn't talk about it, but it's emerged recently t