Thomas Legg's report into the expenses debacle is published today. This is the Executive Summary. The full report can be read here.

I have carried out this review in accordance with my terms of reference, and as fairly as I can to the public purse on the one hand and to the 752 MPs and former MPs concerned on the other.

The ACA system was deeply flawed. In particular, the rules were vague, and MPs were themselves self-certifying as to the propriety of their use of the allowance. Taken with the prevailing lack of transparency and the ‘culture of deference’, this meant that the Fees Office’s decisions lacked legitimacy; and many of them were in fact mistaken.

My remit calls for objective decisions on the validity of ACA payments. My conclusions and recommendations imply no reflection on the conduct or motives of individual MPs. By the same token, where I have judged ACA payments invalid, I have recommended that the MPs who received them should repay them in full. In his separate review, Sir Paul Kennedy has decided appeals from MPs claiming special reasons why repayments recommended by me should be remitted.

An MP’s overall expenditure of the ACA was irrelevant to the validity or otherwise of the individual payments that he or she actually received. If invalid, such payments could not be legitimated by the fact that the MP receiving them did not claim up to the limit of
the whole annual allowance.
 
The ACA was and is an annual allowance based on financial years. There was no scope for carry-over, and under-claims in one year could not off-set over-claims in another. Nor could the ACA be used for expenditure only payable under other Parliamentary
allowances.
 
My remit requires me to apply the rules and standards governing the ACA during the review period. It is not open to me to question the main structure of the ACA, however questionable some aspects of it may now appear. Examples were the MP’s option to
designate and re-designate his or her second home, the size of mortgages, and whether a second home was needed at all. These aspects will fall for decision by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority as part of the future system, in light of the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. During my review period, they were plainly permitted.

My review was excluded from dealing with issues under investigation before 20 July 2009 by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards or at any stage by the Police; nor has it dealt with tax aspects, which fall to HM Customs and Revenue.

A particular challenge has proved to be the widespread lack of proper evidence on the record from MPs to support substantial payments, especially of mortgage interest, even though this was expressly required by the rules.
 
The interpretation of the rules and standards in force at the time is not straightforward. However, it is clear that, as well as the specific provisions of the Green Book, the rules and standards included fundamental principles which were also laid down and published by the House and its authorities at the time. These principles, taken together, amounted to the same general requirement of propriety in the use of public money which the House of Commons itself requires across government and the public sector.
 
It followed, among other things, that the ACA could never be properly used as a supplementary source of income. It could only be used as reimbursement for specific and proportionate expenditure on accommodation needed for the performance of
Parliamentary duties.
 
Payments by the Fees Office which contravened these requirements breached the published rules and standards in force at the time. To hold such payments invalid is not to impose new rules retrospectively, but to apply now the rules that were properly in
force then, but were overlooked or misunderstood at the time. For this reason, the fact that in some cases the Fees Office and MPs acted in apparent ignorance of the rules and standards then in force cannot cure the invalidity of the payments. Suggestions that MPs necessarily acted ‘in accordance with the rules’ simply because the Fees Office made payments to them, and even encouraged and endorsed their claims, are therefore misconceived.
 
Against this background, while most ACA payments appear to have been valid, a considerable number of them (a) could not initially be judged valid or invalid, in the absence of the necessary supporting evidence; or (b) were invalid because they breached
specific Green Book rules; or (c) were invalid because they breached the essential requirement of propriety.
 
Where essential evidence to support significant payments was lacking, MPs were requested to provide it. Most of those concerned have done so.  In the few cases where they failed to do so on reasonable notice, and in the absence of special reasons to the contrary, the ACA payments involved have been determined to be invalid, and the whole allowance recommended to be repaid.
 
However, MPs have not been requested to provide evidence which was not required at the time, or which it would be unreasonably disproportionate to request now. Where ACA payments were clearly in breach of specific Green Book requirements, those payments have been judged invalid and the MPs who received them have been recommended to repay them. Many have already done so. Certain de minimis exceptions have been made for relatively insignificant payments.

Where ACA payments were clearly in breach of the requirement of propriety, those payments have also been judged invalid, and the MPs who received them have been recommended to repay them. Many have already done so. Payments of disproportionate amounts for purposes secondary to the defined scope and purpose of the allowance thereby breached the requirement of propriety. Although the Fees Office applied acceptable limits in some such cases, such as the costs of furniture and household equipment, it failed to do so consistently in others, notably the costs of cleaning and garden maintenance.
 
Proportionate limits on such expenditure must be taken to have been in force. Accordingly, payments in excess of £2,000 and £1,000 a year for cleaning and garden maintenance respectively in MPs’ second homes have been judged disproportionate and
therefore invalid.  A small number of cases involved conflicted transactions, where MPs used the ACA to buy or rent a second home from, or have works to it done by, a relative, business associate or employee. The use of the ACA in such circumstances also breached the requirement of propriety, and the view has been taken that in such cases the whole allowance ought to be repaid.

The broad picture that emerges from the review is that, out of the £55.5m. spent on the ACA during the review period, just over £1.3m. has been recommended for repayment and almost £800,000 has already been repaid, although this includes some excess repayments. 48% of the 752 MPs and former MPs concerned have no issues arising from the review and 52% have been recommended to make repayments.

Three MPs have been recommended to repay sums over £40,000, the highest being just under £65,000; 56 MPs have been recommended to repay sums between £40,000 and £5,000; 182 MPs have been recommended to repay sums between £5,000 and £1,000; and 149 MPs have been recommended to repay sums between £1,000 and £100. The overall effect of Sir Paul Kennedy’s decisions to remit repayments will be to reduce the total amount repayable under my recommendations by just under £185,000 to £1.12m., and will bring the highest single recommended repayment down to £42,458.