BBC News - MPs told to repay expense claims MPs told to repay expense claims John Lyons has been told he must repay more than ï¿½18,000 Scottish MPs have been ordered to pay back tens of thousands of pounds of Commons expenses following a report by Sir Thomas Legg. Among those who over claimed are former Strathkelvin and Bearsden MP John Lyons who has been told to repay £18,780 in mortgage interest payments. However, the former Labour politician said he did not "owe a penny". Also named in the report is Baroness Irene Adams, the former MP for Paisley North and Falkirk West MP Eric Joyce. Sir Thomas has recommended that 390 MPs should repay a total of £1.3m. His report follows an audit of second homes expenses dating back to 2004. Following the review, he described the system as "deeply flawed", said the rules were "vague" and that it had been up to MPs to "self certify" the propriety of their claims.

WHAT MPs MUST REPAY Key points: MP expense repayments MPs had to sign a declaration with each claim saying "that I incurred these costs wholly, exclusively and necessarily to enable me to stay overnight away from my only or main home for the purpose of performing my duties as a Member of Parliament". In his report he pointed out there had been "no audit of any kind" of second homes expenses during the period he covered adding: "Neither internal nor external auditors could 'go behind the member's signature'." In the report Mr Lyons, who is accused of over claiming £18,000, was said to have so far failed to respond to a series of letters on the matter. However, he told BBC Scotland he had not received any correspondence about his expenses. He has also requested an "urgent meeting" with Sir Thomas along with a full written apology. Sir Thomas' report also found Baroness Irene Adams, the former Labour member for Paisley north, should pay back £5,050. It also recommends that the present Labour MP for Falkirk West, Eric Joyce repay £8602.56 for mortgage interest and council tax claims.

John Lyon's name was listed on page 161 of the report Alistair Carmichael, the Liberal Democrat MP for Orkney and Shetland, has been told to pay back £480, while Jimmy Hood, the Labour member for Lanark and Hamilton East, has been asked to repay a total of £5,413.49. John Robertson, the Labour MP for Glasgow North West, will be required to pay back almost £3,000. The former Linlithgow MP Tam Dalyell has paid back more than £8,000 since April last year In total, 390 MPs, more than half of the House of Commons, have been asked to repay a portion of their expense claims. The report said £800,000 had been repaid already - some voluntarily, unconnected to Sir Thomas's demands - since April 2009, the month before the MPs expenses scandal broke. 'Traumatic and painful' MPs were given the option of appealing against Sir Thomas's recommendations and about 70 are known to have done so - 44 were successful in getting the demands either reduced or overturned.

Many MPs complained that Sir Thomas had retrospectively applied limits to claims for gardening and cleaning that were not in place at the time - and demanded they pay back the difference. But Sir Thomas rejected that criticism, saying the rules stated the expense could "only be used as reimbursement for specific and proportionate expenditure... needed for the performance of parliamentary duties". He said the fact that the fees office and MPs at the time "acted in apparent ignorance of the rules and standards then in force cannot cure the invalidity of the payments". Many MPs have announced they will retire since the scandal broke He also criticised a "widespread lack of proper evidence on the record from MPs to support substantial payments" - including mortgage claims which were "expressly required by the rules". Sir Thomas criticised the "deeply flawed" expenses system adding: "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 [Commons] fees office's decisions lacked legitimacy; and many of them were in fact mistaken." The expenses saga had been "traumatic and painful" he said but the response to it had shown that "when things do go wrong, we have together the will and the means to put matters right". MPs who still have their seats and refuse to pay may have the money docked from their pay or allowances. MPs’ expenses: some still refusing to return questionable claims - Telegraph MPs' expenses MPs’ expenses: some still refusing to return questionable claims A number of former and current MPs are reported to be still refusing to return funds which they were asked to repay following the audit of Commons' expenses. By Rosa Prince , Political Correspondent 2:20PM GMT 19 Feb 2010 Follow They have until Monday to give back overclaims identified during the audit of allowances dating back five years carried out by Sir Thomas Legg, which was ordered by Gordon Brown following The Daily Telegraph’s disclosures of widespread abuse of the system.

Serving MPs who ignore the deadline will almost certainly be forced to give back overclaims, with the Commons expected to vote to dock money from salaries or “golden goodbye” retirement funds. But there is concern that former MPs who simply refuse to respond to the repayment demands will be able to avoid giving any money back. Ivor Caplin, a former Labour defence minister, is said to be among those who have failed to respond to repeated requests from the House of Commons authorities in the form of letters and phone calls. Sir Thomas asked him to repay £17,865 when he did not provide evidence to support expenses claims for mortgage interest. Related Articles MPs’ expenses: Barbara Follett heads list of five-figure repayers 05 Feb 2010 A Westminster source told the Evening Standard: “Officials have made strenuous efforts to discuss this with him, but without success. The vast majority of MPs very quickly agreed to make repayments but there is a small handful of retiring MPs who are refusing to agree.” More than half of current and former MPs were ordered to repay overclaims by Sir Thomas, with all but 80 returning the money before he produced his audit this month.

Most of them are now thought to have paid up, leaving a rump of around 10 who are continuing to defy the requests. Meanwhile, Bruce George, a veteran Labour backbencher, became the latest MP to announce that he would stand down at the general election, taking to 140 the number who will be quitting Parliament. They include 75 who have decided to depart since the expenses scandal began in May. BBC NEWS | Have Your Say | Is the row over MPs' expenses now over? This debate is now closed. Is the row over MPs' expenses now over? Sir Thomas Legg has completed his audit of MPs' expenses and the Director of Public Prosecutions has announced that three MPs and one peer will face criminal charges over their expense claims. How should MPs' expenses be reformed? Sir Thomas Legg has ordered 373 MPs to repay more than £1.1m related to second home expense claims since 2004. The highest amount recommended for repayment, following an appeals process, is £42,458 which the BBC understands matches the repayment demanded of junior minister Barbara Follett. Are you happy with the findings of the audit? Will the audit bring an end to the expenses saga?

Should an alternative method of payments and expenses be developed? BBC NEWS | Have Your Say | Is the row over MPs' expenses now over? This debate is now closed. Is the row over MPs' expenses now over? Sir Thomas Legg has completed his audit of MPs' expenses and the Director of Public Prosecutions has announced that three MPs and one peer will face criminal charges over their expense claims. How should MPs' expenses be reformed? Sir Thomas Legg has ordered 373 MPs to repay more than £1.1m related to second home expense claims since 2004. The highest amount recommended for repayment, following an appeals process, is £42,458 which the BBC understands matches the repayment demanded of junior minister Barbara Follett. Are you happy with the findings of the audit? Will the audit bring an end to the expenses saga? Should an alternative method of payments and expenses be developed? MPs' expenses: CPS to announce whether MPs and peers will face criminal charges - Telegraph MPs' expenses MPs' expenses: CPS to announce whether MPs and peers will face criminal charges The Crown Prosecution Service will announce today whether any MPs or peers will be charged with fraud following investigations into their expense claims.

Clockwise from top left: Lord Clarke of Hampstead, Baroness Uddin, Lord Hanningfield, Elliot Morley, David Chaytor, Jim Devine By Robert Winnett, Deputy Political Editor 7:00AM GMT 05 Feb 2010 Files on six parliamentarians accused of the worst excesses in the second homes expenses scandal were passed to prosecutors in November and December. Although they have not been officially named, it is known that Scotland Yard investigated Labour MPs David Chaytor, Elliot Morley and Jim Devine. From the House of Lords, Labour's Baroness Uddin and Lord Clarke of Hampstead, as well as Tory peer Lord Hanningfield, have also been probed. It is understood that police are confident that charges will be brought against the Mr Morley and Mr Chaytor. Today's announcements by the CPS follow yesterday's damning verdict on MPs' expenses by Sir Thomas Legg, who conducted an audit of all claims made in recent years.

Related Articles MPs' expenses: How the scandal unfolded 05 Feb 2010 His report showed that abuse of the system was far more widespread than the few "bad apples" blamed initially for the scandal, with more than half of MPs guilty of over-claiming on their parliamentary expenses. A total of 381 MPs will be forced to pay back an average of £3,000 after the review criticised politicians for putting personal gain before protecting public money. More than £1million will be repaid in the wake of the expenses scandal uncovered by The Daily Telegraph. Barbara Follett, the Local Government Minister, faced the highest demand for repayment — more than £40,000. Andrew MacKay, David Heathcoat-Amory, Douglas Hogg and Alan Milburn were all also forced to make five-figure repayments. Senior MPs said yesterday that a general election was now needed to rid Parliament of dozens of politicians found to have abused their expenses. Up to half of the 646 MPs were expected to be replaced amid widespread public disgust.

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, said he hoped the report would be the "final chapter" in this "rotten Parliament", while Sir Christopher Kelly, the Whitehall sleaze watchdog, criticised MPs for failing to tackle the widespread abuse earlier. After an eight-month inquiry into claims for second homes, it emerged that: A total of 392 former and current MPs were ordered to repay money by Sir Thomas after he found that they had over-claimed on their expenses. However, 75 MPs appealed to Sir Paul Kennedy, a former High Court judge, over their repayments and he ruled that 26 did not have to pay up. Another 18 had repayments cut. Sir Paul criticised many of Sir Thomas’s decisions. Sir Thomas found that almost one third of MPs wrongly claimed for mortgage interest, improperly receiving more than £700,000. More than a dozen former MPs failed to meet demands for repayments running into tens of thousands of pounds — and the money might never be recovered. Despite the widespread repayments demanded following the Legg report, many of the worst abuses were not scrutinised.

MPs who "flipped" their designated second home or avoided capital gains tax were not investigated, leaving some able to tell voters that they were "in the clear" despite their dubious claims being beyond the remit of the inquiry. In his report, Sir Thomas attacked the entire expenses system, describing the rules as "vague", with MPs "self-certifying as to the propriety of their use of the allowance". There was a "prevailing lack of transparency" and officials had a "culture of deference" to MPs. He criticised politicians for failing to produce documents to support their claims. "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," he said. Sir Thomas also said that between 2004 and 2009 senior figures in the Commons had been more focused on furthering the "immediate interests of MPs" than "propriety in public expenditure". He added that MPs’ attempts to justify their claims by claiming that they had been allowed by staff in the parliamentary fees office were "misconceived".

"All of you are guilty of having gone along with a system which you must have known was flawed, even if you were not personally guilty," Sir Christopher told a committee of MPs. "I suspect that most of you were as unaware, as everybody else was until The Daily Telegraph revelations, of the extent to which people were manipulating the system." Yesterday, the parliamentary authorities also published hundreds of pages of documents that disclosed new details of MPs’ expenses. They claimed more than £95 million during the 2008-09 financial year, with 49 claiming the maximum £24,006 for their second homes. Eric Joyce, a Labour MP, claimed £38,550 in travel expenses. The House of Commons also disclosed that dozens of MPs had booked dining rooms in Parliament to allow lobbyists and private firms to host receptions and dinners. The disclosure was embarrassing as it demonstrated the growing influence of lobbyists on some MPs. A spokesman for Gordon Brown said the Prime Minister regarded the Legg report as "a very significant step forward". "The PM said from the outset that this was a very important inquiry, that he fully supported the approach and he encouraged MPs to pay back — as he did — as quickly as possible," he said.

David Cameron, the Conservative leader, admitted that the system was wrong. "I was the first to come out and say that MPs had to pay back some money," he said. "Never mind that they were acting within the rules, never mind that they were given permission at the time." Mr Clegg said he hoped the report would "draw a line under the rotten system of expenses we had in the past". However, there were growing calls for the Prime Minister to call an election. John Wick, the former SAS officer who orchestrated t he leak of the uncensored expenses files to The Daily Telegraph , said: "The Legg report has shown that Parliament was rotten to the core. We must now have a general election." Mr Wick’s comments were supported by several MPs, including Tim Yeo, the senior Tory. "I think it will have to wait until after the election before we have a completely new, fresh atmosphere," he said. BBC News - Key points: Legg report into MPs expenses claims Printable version Key points: Legg report into MPs expenses claims Here are the key points of Sir Thomas Legg's audit of MPs expenses claims between 2004 and 2008.

HEADLINE FIGURES Over the five-year period covered by Sir Thomas' review, £55m was paid to MPs under the second home allowance. An additional £2.5m was claimed by MPs, but rejected by the Commons Fees Office. Sir Thomas recommended £1.3m for repayment by 390 MPs, but his total was cut by £185,000 after MPs appealed against his earlier judgements. Seventeen MPs had their demands cut to zero on appeal, leaving 373 to make repayments.

LARGEST SUMS TO PAY BACK The largest sums ordered to be repaid by sitting MPs - after appeals are taken into account - are £42,458 by Barbara Follett (Lab, Stevenage), £36,250 by Bernard Jenkin (Con, North Essex), £31,193 by Andrew Mackay (Con, Bracknell), £29,691 by David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells, Con), £29,398 by John Gummer (Con, Suffolk Coastal), £29,243 by Julie Kirkbride (Con, Bromsgrove) and £24,878 by Liam Fox (Con, Woodspring). BIGGEST DEMAND FOR REPAYMENT Barbara Follett, junior local government minister and MP for Stevenage, has been ordered to repay £42,458. This includes £34,776.30 claimed from April 2004 to November 2008 for mobile security patrols at her second home. This went beyond the rules set out in the Green Book limiting claims to "basic security measures".

She was also paid a total of £8,908.36 for six telephone lines at her second home between April 2004 and November 2008. The number of lines and the amount claimed were excessive, and half the allowance, i.e. £4,454.18, should be repaid, Legg ruled. The report says Ms Follett was further overpaid by an estimated £2,812.95 in 2004-05 to 2006-07 for an additional household insurance premium for fine art, which is not allowable. She was also paid £221 twice for boiler insurance in June 2004 and again in August 2004. Finally, she was paid £193.78 for pest control in April-June 2006 for an address other than her second home. SMALLEST DEMAND FOR REPAYMENT Mike Gapes, Labour MP for Ilford South, was asked to repay 40p due to a clerical error.

NUMBER OF MPs ASKED TO REPAY Some 48% of the 752 MPs and former MPs covered by the audit have no issues arising from the review and 52% have been recommended to make repayments. BIGGEST REDUCTION ON APPEAL Conservative MP Peter Lilley had his repayment demand reduced by £41,057.46 on appeal. The Legg report says: "Mr Lilley purchased his second home in 2003 using a loan from his wife, but since this happened before the review period I make no comment on this arrangement. In 2005, he replaced that loan with a mortgage held jointly with his wife, repaying her the original loan. Over the rest of the review period, he was paid a total of £41,057.36 for mortgage interest on this second loan. In substance, this loan appears to have released capital, which was not permitted under the ACA other than for the purpose of improving or repairing the home." COST OF LEGG REVIEW The Legg review cost £1.16m - more than the £1.12m demand for repayment.

EYECATCHING CLAIMS Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester Gorton, Lab) was paid £240.95 for two Waterford crystal grapefruit bowls. They were bought to replace broken items, but Mr Kaufman was told he should have claimed for these under household insurance. John Redwood (Wokingham, Con) claimed £112 for the cost of reseeding his lawn. He appealed, but was told that while expenses for "lawn cutting, weeding [or] pruning shrubs" would have been acceptable, "anyone who has to decide what gardening expenses should be borne by public funds has to draw a line somewhere". Anthony Steen (Totnes, Con) was paid a total of £184.89 in May 2004 for skip hire, 23 garden plants, and a flagpole rope and binding. He was told by Sir Thomas that the plants were not allowable and the other items "were claimed without evidence as to their necessity". OVER-REPAYMENT A number of MPs have paid more money back than Sir Thomas requested. One of the most eye-catching is Phil Hope (Corby, Lab) who has repaid almost 10 times the amount.

He was asked for £4,365.65 yet is recorded as having returned £42,674.13. Sir John Butterfill (Bournemouth West, Con) has repaid £15,000 more than Sir Thomas asked for. Confirming he would not be asking for any of the money back, he told the BBC: "My reputation is worth more to me than anything else." Conservative leader David Cameron, Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, his predecessor Sir Menzies Campbell and ministers Chris Bryant and Liam Byrne have also over-repaid. NO RESPONSE Two former MPs have failed to respond to requests for repayments by Legg. John Lyons and Ivor Caplin (who left the Commons in 2005) were both asked for more than £17,000. Newspaper reports have suggested that there is nothing the House authorities will be able to do to regain the money. In his report, Legg recommends that both men should repay the entirety of what he says are invalid payments. CRITICISM OF MPs AND EXPENSES SYSTEM The report says: "The Additional Costs Allowance (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." MPs' expenses – live | Politics | The Guardian Close This article is 6 years old 8.57am: The controversy about MPs' expenses erupted in May last year when the Daily Telegraph started publishing the full details of claims that the parliamentary authorities were trying to keep secret. Today, in the words of John Bercow in the Times , we will witness "the last remaining reels of a particularly grisly horror movie" when Sir Thomas Legg publishes a report naming the 350-odd MPs who have been ordered to repay a total of more than £1m because their claims were deemed unacceptable. The report is out at 10am. I'll be covering it here. But, although the Legg report will be the highlight, there is also an extraordinary amount of expenses-related news happening today.

We've also got: • The publication of the report from Sir Paul Kennedy, the former judge who was given the power to hear appeals from MPs unhappy about Legg's verdict (at 10am). • The publication of a list showing how much MPs have repaid (at 10am). • The publication of expenses data for all MPs for 2008-09 apart from data relating to second homes, which has been published already (at 10am). • The publication of information showing how many times MPs have booked rooms in the House of Commons on behalf of outside bodies (at 10am). • Sir Christopher Kelly, the chairman of the committee on standards in public life, giving evidence to the Commons public administration committee (at 10am). • Harriet Harman, the leader of the Commons, answering questions in the Commons (at 11.30am). • The publication of a standards and privileges committee report into Tory MP Anne Main (at 11am). I'll be blogging all the developments throughout the day. It should be quite a day.

9.19am: David Cameron did what they call a "doorstep" (a quick statement to the television cameras) as he was leaving his home this morning. He said the Commons should use the crisis to build "a parliament that people can be proud of" and to show that MPs are not just "a bunch of ciphers". He also said that he was the first party leader to take a "strong stand" on expenses and that any MP who refuses to repay money should have it clawed back from his or her salary or resettlement grant. 9.26am: Here's a link to the parliament website . The Legg report and the other documents being published today should be here at 10am. I'll put up a more direct link as soon as I get on. 9.28am: We now live in an age where MPs can perform "rebuttal by Twitter". I've just spotted this , from Julie Morgan, the Labour MP for Cardiff North. I paid back for inadvertent overclaim on mortgage interest. Didn't dispute, altho' over 5 yrs Legg looked at, I had actually underclaimed. 9.31am: Nick Clegg did a doorstep this morning too.

Sky has just shown the footage. Clegg said today's report would "confirm people's anger" about the expenses affair and remind them of the "appalling, dismal, petty, unforgiveable errors that were made". But he also said he hoped that this would "draw a line" under the affair. 9.36am: Will expenses be an issue in the election campaign? Sir Stuart Bell, the Labour MP who sits on the members estimate committee, thinks not. This is what he told the Today programme: The expenses system will fall away in a general election campaign. Our hope is it can be put behind us so the parties can fight the election on the issues, on what really matters to the public. But he might be being optimistic. Today's report from Legg will provide useful ammunition to candidates fighting sitting MPs who have had to repay money. The MPs will (mostly) be entitled to say that they did not break the rules. But their opponents will be able to say that they submitted claims that were excessive, or unreasonable, or unacceptable. And - for the first time - they will be able to say that an official appointed by parliament has made this judgment, not just the Daily Telegraph.

9.49am: The new Politics Home "Pro" service (to which I've been given me a free trial subscriptions - for which, many thanks) has put up this, from Norman Baker at the end of the Today programme. Baker, the Lib Dem MP, thinks Bell is wrong about expenses not being an election issue. It's going to drag into the election campaign and after it ... The MPs who complain will get no sympathy from the public. 9.55am: I want to read a hard copy of the report, so I'm off to the Commons vote office now, where they will be handing out copies at 10am. I'll start putting the highlights up here asap. 10.02am: It's huge: 237 pages. Just starting to look at it now. 10.03am: Here are some key stats: • Three MPs were ordered to repay more than £40,000, with Legg ordering the highest repayment of just under £65,000. But Sir Paul Kennedy reduced that. The highest repayment is now £42,458.

• 56 MPs were ordered to repay between £40,000 and £5,000. • 182 Mps were ordered to repay between £5,000 and £1,000. • 149 MPs were ordered to repay between £1,000 and £100. • Sir Paul Kennedy's decisions have reduced repayments by just under £185,000 (14%), taking the total amount repaid to £1.12m. 10.08am: More details: • Legg originally ordered that just over £1.3m should be repaid, out of the £55.5m spent on MPs' expenses between April 2004 and March 2009. • Some £800,000 has already been repaid. • 52% of the 752 MPs and former MPs considered were ordered to repay money. 48% were not asked to repay.

10.10am: Two observations from me before we go on: • The amount ordered to be repaid is almost exactly the same as the figure given by Commons officials for the cost of the Legg exercise - £1.2m. Funny that, isn't it? • Some £400,000 has still not been repaid. Why? Don't know yet. 10.14am: Here is Legg on how the system worked: The ACA [additional costs allowance - the second home payment] was deeply flawed. In particular, the rules were vague, and MPs were themselves self-certifiying 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. 10.20am: Barbara Follett, the Labour MP married to the millionaire author Ken Follett, is the MP ordered to repay £42,458. She has already repaid £33,000 and £9,000 is outstanding.

She has been ordered to pay money back because she claimed: • £34,776 for mobile security patrols at her home. This went beyond the rules saying only basic security measures were allowed. • £8,908 for six telephone lines at her home. • £2,813 for an additional insurance premium for fine art. She also claimed a double payment for boiler insurance and for pest control at a home that was not her designated second home. 10.25am: This is from the Press Association. The largest sums ordered to be repaid by sitting MPs - after appeals are taken into account - were £42,458 by Barbara Follett (Lab, Stevenage), £36,909 by Bernard Jenkin (Con, North Essex), £31,193 by Andrew Mackay (Con, Bracknell), £29,398 by John Gummer (Con, Suffolk Coastal), £29,243 by Julie Kirkbride (Con, Bromsgrove) and £24,878 by Liam Fox (Con, Woodspring).

10.29am: A colleague has just pointed out that the Tory MP Anthony Steen claimed for "a flagpole rope and binding"! Steen, who is standing down, was ordered to repay a total of £11,211. 10.37am: I've just been looking at the Sir Paul Kennedy report, which has been published towards the end of the main report. Kennedy is very critical of the suggestion that some of the claims deemed unreasonable by Legg are now "tainted". He says this is "damaging, unfair and wrong", he says. 10.45am: This is the full quote from Kennedy explaining his doubts about the Legg process. I entirely understand why in 2006 Parliament found it necessary to change the rules, but I am particularly troubled by the suggestion that a transaction entered into before that date, which was disclosed to the Fees Office, was apparently genuine, and was evidenced in writing, should now be described as tainted and, for the purposes of ACA, wholly invalid; or as having "breached the requirement of propriety" (Review executive summary paragraph 24).

I recognise that in paragraph 37 the author of the Review says that his conclusions and recommendations "imply no reflections on the conduct or motives of individual MPs", but the situation is not, as suggested, analogous to an under‐payment of tax or an over‐payment of social security benefits. Such errors are usually put right without any publicity. The ACA Review is, at least in part, the result of enormous publicity, and will no doubt generate further publicity when it is published. Against that background it seems to me that to describe any apparently genuine transaction as tainted, or breaching the requirement of propriety, when there is no evidence of impropriety, is damaging, unfair and wrong. Of course I recognise that transactions between close associates may not be what they appear to be, and can be used by one or both parties to obtain ACA to which they are not really entitled, but that only leads me to conclude that when relied upon such transactions should be carefully examined, and that is what I have tried to do. 10.51am: Turning away from Legg for a moment, here is a link to the other expenses data being published by parliament today. The Tories are going through this carefully.

Henry Macrory, the Conservative party's head of press, has just put this on Twitter. Exes latest: Ed Balls paid Brown's former press officer – Fiona Gordon - £4,000 in exes in 08/09 10.56am: Some more figures from the Kennedy report: 75 MPs submitted appeals, and 44 of the appeals were wholly or partially upheld. 10.59am: MPs who have not already repaid money have until February 22 to cough up. Here's a statement from the members estimate committee. The MEC expects that as a key part of that process any MP who has been identified by Sir Thomas as having received an overpayment will (subject to the appeal decisions) repay or make arrangements to repay those sums by February 22. However, the MEC will support a resolution in the House to authorise the recovery from salaries and other allowance payments of any sums outstanding after that date. 11.01am: An hour after publication of the Legg report and the Kennedy report, where do we stand? Here are three preliminary observations. • Anyone who thought MPs had already endured the worst was wrong.

This report contains information from an auditor appointed by parliament that - fairly or unfairly - could be used to damage the reputation of around half of all sitting MPs. Some of the detail is extraordinary and new. (See 10.20am and 10.29am) It is hard to see how this won't become an issue in dozens of local election campaigns. • The whole thing is a horrendous muddle. Parliament appointed two investigators - and they disagree with each other. (See 10.37am and 10.45am) • Some of the worse abuses aren't covered. Legg does not seem to have touched those MPs whose claims have been investigated by the police. This may be seen as a weakness. 11.14am: At least one MP has been asked to repay money because he could not provide the paperwork to justift his claims. Paul Clark, a transport minister, has been ordered to repay £11,407 because Legg ruled that his mortgage interest payments were "invalid" because Clark could not provide the evidence to justify them. MPs like Clark will have some explaining to do to their constituents.

I've just emailed Clark and left a message on his office answerphone. I'll let you know if I hear a reply. 11.25am: Here's the Press Association on Peter Lilley persuading Kennedy to reject completely Legg's demand that he should have to repay £41,057. Former cabinet minister Peter Lilley (Con, Hitchen and Harpenden) had a demand for £41,057.36 from Sir Thomas overturned in its entirety on appeal. Mr Lilley purchased his second home in 2003 using a loan from his wife, replacing that arrangement in 2005 with a joint loan. Sir Thomas ordered him to repay the amounts claimed for mortgage interest following that change, arguing the new loan "appears to have released capital, which was not permitted under the ACA other than for the purpose of improving or repairing the home". But Sir Paul Kennedy ruled Mrs Lilley's loan was effectively a "bridging loan", as the couple were initially unable to use a mortgage to buy their second home because the seller wanted an immediate cash offer.

The subsequent change was therefore not an "additional" mortgage - which would have been banned under the rules - but a first mortgage on the property. Sir Paul said he found Mr Lilley's appeal "compelling", adding: "I am at a loss to understand why the review should state that what you did was not permitted." 11.29am: Legg appears to criticise Michael Martin, the former Speaker. In his foreword to the report, he says officials in the Commons fees office were "vulnerable to the influence of higher authorities in the House of Commons, from the Speaker down". Here is the full quote. Alongside those problems, the authority and legitimacy of the fees office was much less than seems to have been realised by most MPs at the time. These officials were not civil servants with an independent duty to, and accountability for, the public purse. They were servants of the House and, while of course supposed to observe and apply its rules, they were also in practice expected to do so in the ways most beneficial to the MPs whom they were there to serve.

The CSPL report has spoken of a 'culture of deference', and my own view over the years, on the audit committee and conducting this review, has been that this expression is justified. The fees office was therefore vulnerable to the influence of higher authorities in the House of Commons, from the Speaker down, and of individual MPs. In practice during most of the review period, these influences tended more towards looking after the immediate interests of MPs than to safeguarding propriety in public expenditure. 11.38am: Although Barbara Follett was ordered to repay the most, her Labour colleague Phil Hope seems to be the MP who has repaid the most. Legg asked him to repay £4,366. But he voluntarily repaid £42,674. 11.43am: Here's a link to the table published by parliament showing details of event and function bookings made by MPs on behalf of outside organisations between 2004 and 2009. It's 255 pages long. 11.47am: Lord Mandelson has been ordered to repay £800 for excessive gardening costs.

Mandelson needed to spend the money because an overgrowing tree was threatening to bring down his neighour's wall. As my colleague Severin Carrell pointed out at the time, this seemed to come straight out of the plot of Armando Iannucci's In the Loop. 11.54am: This is what Downing Street said this morning about today's report: The PM feels very strongly that this is one part of restoring trust in the way our political institutions have been operating and continue to operate. 12.00pm: In his report, Legg includes a breakdown of the types of expense overpayments he has identified.

Here are the figures: Mortgage/rent claims - 208 excessive payments, worth £711,000 Cleaning claims - 56 excessive payments, worth £105,000 Service/maintenance - 52 excessive payments, worth £81,000 Repairs/insurance/security - 24 excessive payments, worth £73,000 Council tax/rates - 59 excesive payments, worth £35,000 Telephone and communications - 35 excessive payments, worth £23,000 Food - 12 excessive payments, worth £12,000 Utilities - 30 excessive payments, worth £10,000 Hotel stays - 7 excessive payments, worth £4,000 Other claims - 182 excessive payments, worth £252,000 These figures do not include the cases where Sir Paul Kennedy upheld an appeal and either reduced or scrapped the demand for a repayment. 12.16pm: The Legg report names two former MPs who have not replied to "a number of letters" sent to them at the address held by the Commons authorities.

They are the former Labour MPs Ivor Caplin and John Lyons. Legg says that, because he has not seen evidence justifying their mortgage interest claims, they should repay the all the money they claimed - £17,865 in the case of Caplin and £18,780 in the case of Lyons. Two other former Labour MPs have been asked to repay substantial sums. Ian Gibson has been asked for £16,025, because he claimed for a flat he was sharing with his daughter. Diana Organ has been asked for £15,964 because she did not provide Legg with information to justify her mortgage interest claims. 12.28pm: A colleague has been looking at the figures for total expense claims in 2008-09. Total claims cost the taxpayer £95.6m, up 3% from the previous year. But, interestingly, the amount spent on the second home allowance was £10.5m, down 9% on the figure for the previous year. That's partly because the rules were tightened. But it may also reflect the fact that MPs started to exercise restraint after the Daily Telegraph launched its onslaught.

12.33pm: Those Kennedys in full. In response to a comment from HopefuJ below, I can see that I need to clarify something. There are two Kennedys with knighthoods involved in this process. Sir Paul Kennedy is the former judge who was asked to consider appeals from MPs complaining they were treated unfairly by Legg. Sir Ian Kennedy is chairman of Ipsa, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. He is not involved in today's events, but Ipsa is taking charge of MPs' pay and expenses and so he will soon become the parliamentary paymaster. 12.42pm: I'm not particularly impressed by Legg's attempts to track down Ivor Caplin. If you put his name into Google , the third item to come up is a link to Foresight Consulting, which declares on its website that former Labour defence minister Ivor Caplin is a senior consultant. I've just tried giving them a ring. No one is picking up the phone. 12.46pm: I haven't had time to look at the standards and privileges committee report into the Tory MP Anne Main yet. But someone at PA is on the case. They've just snapped this.

Conservative MP for St Albans Anne Main was today told to repay £7,100 and apologise in writing after an investigation by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner into her second home allowance claims. 12.48pm: Here's a link to the standards and privileges committee report into Anne Main. 1.06pm: Will the taxpayer save money from the Legg process? No. Legg says that his review cost £1.16m. The total amount repayable as a result of his recommendations is £1.12m. 1.10pm: Norman Smith on the World at One has just pointed out that one MP, Labour's Mike Gapes, was ordered to repay just 40p. Originally Legg said that he should repay £186.89 because he submitted a council tax bill late. Gapes appealed, and Kennedy accepted the appeal. But Kennedy only reduced the amount by £186.49, because Gapes overclaimed by 40p as a result of a "clerical error". The report says that 40p has now been repaid.

1.18pm: David Blunkett has just been on the World at One complaining about the way MPs now appear to have ceded control of the political system to unelected officials. What we've had over the last few months, with Sir Christopher Kelly, Sir Thomas Legg, Sir Ian Kennedy, all knights of the realm, [is] the civil service running the political system, rather than politicians representing and accountable to the people. 1.30pm: I've just been skimming through the entries for all MPs. Here are some that caught my eye. Gordon Brown was told to repay £12,888. But he has actually repaid £13,723. The main complaint related to cleaning costs, which exceeded the limit set by Legg by £11,190. Andy Burnham, the health secretary, was ordered to repay £2,841 but repaid voluntarily £4,181. Legg complained that he received duplicate payments for rent and service costs. David Cameron was ordered to repay £237 for a mortgage interest overpayment, but has actually repaid £965.

Ed Balls, the children's secretary, was ordered to repay £1,363 for a morgage overpayment. Yvette Cooper, his wife and work and pensions secretary, was also ordered to repay an identical amount. Wayne David, the Wales Office minister, was ordered to repay £12,960. Legg complained that he claimed £6,184 for critical illness insurance cover which was not allowable. David also increased his mortgage for a purpose not allowable under the rules. Sir Alan Haselhurst, the deputy speaker, was ordered to repay £11,678. Legg said he overclaimed for gardening by £8,359 and for cleaning by £3,321. Michael Howard, the former Tory leader, was ordered to repay £7,039. He claimed £18,058 over five years for the cost of employing a gardening company. Legg decided that almost half of that was excessive. Sir Gerald Kaufman, the Labour backbencher, was ordered to repay £4,534.

Legg complained that he had claimed £1,851 for a rug (which exceeded the limit for a rug) and that he claimed £241 to replace two Waterford grapefruit bowls that broke. Legg said Kaufman should have claimed these on his household insurance. Julie Kirkbride and Andrew Mackay, the Tory couple, were ordered to repay £29,243 and £31,193 respectively. The main problem was that they were both claiming a second home allowance when they did not have a main home not funded by parliamentary allowances, but Legg also complained about Kirkbride extending her mortgage to fund a bedroom mainly used by her brother. More to come. 2.05pm: Jim Pickard at the FT's Westminster blog has got a useful list of MPs who have paid back more than requested. Being an FT journo, he's even worked out some percentages. 2.10pm: Here are some more entries that I thought might be worth flagging up. Remember Shahid Malik, the minister who claimed £730 for a "massage chair"?

Legg has ordered him to repay £1,340, partly because the chair claim exceeded the limit by £180, partly because he claimed £1,050 for a televison (exceeding the limit by £225), but mostly because he was overpaid for council tax. Alun Michael, the former first minister of Wales, has been ordered to repay £19,170. Legg said Michael claimed for mortgage interest on a portion of a loan which was not allowed within the rules. David Miliband, the foreign secretary, was ordered to repay £808 for mortgage interest overpayment. Clare Short, the former international development secretary, has been ordered to repay £3,188. Legg identified various problems, including excessive claims for gardening and cleaning and a £1,206 mobile phone claim that was ineligible because it was claimed against the second home allowance, not the office costs allowance. 2.47pm: I've just been reading the full text of the statement issued by the members estimate committee today. I mentioned it earlier, because it sets February 22 as the deadline for repayments.

Reading the whole thing, I see that 11 MPs have been allowed to submit new appeals because they missed the December 23 deadline set last year. They missed the December deadline because they did not get their letters from Legg on time. It also makes the point that the overpayments identified by Legg "vary in character". The MEC points out in its report that the recommended repayments vary in character. While some reflect errors by members or the House administration, others are no more than end-year accounting adjustments. The committee also notes that Sir Paul Kennedy did not accept the idea that MPs who breached the limits imposed by the review on cleaning and gardening costs were lacking in propriety. 2.56pm: More highlights from the report. Dennis Skinner has been ordered to repay £551. Legg said that he claimed £1,761 for a sofa bed and that this was excessive. Keith Vaz has been ordered to repay £1,514, although he has actually repaid £18,950.

Legg complained that he claimed £550 for a rug (when the limit was £330), £1,100 each for two chairs (when the limit was £550 for a chair) and £414 for a footstool (when the limit was £220). Richard Younger-Ross, the Lib Dem MP, was ordered to repay £3,181. Legg complained that he had spent £1,263 on a hi-fi and loudspeaker stands, £225 for a bedroom stool, £1,475 for a five-drawer chest and £725 for a mirror, all of which were over the limit. 3.08pm: Barbara Follett (see 10.20am) has just been apologising on BBC News. I did try to act as honestly as possible, but where I failed, I'm sorry. 3.11pm: I've just had an email from someone wanting to know why Harriet Harman is not included in the report. It's not a conspiracy, or a mistake. It's because she's an inner London MPs.

Inner London MPs are not eligible for the second home allowance, and so Legg did not have to look at their claims. 3.17pm: Nick Robinson has got a good summary on his blog of what's going on. Sir Thomas has asked around half of MPs to give money back - because, even if they followed the rules, the rules were wrong. But Sir Paul says that Sir Thomas is being too harsh and that the rules were the rules. Neither Sir Thomas nor Sir Paul writes the rules for MPs; that's the job of Sir Christopher - except, actually, Sir Ian is the man who really writes them. Now Sir Ian is consulting on new rules that are different from the new rules which Sir Christopher wrote. 3.42pm: I've just been skimming through the Kennedy report - at the back of the joint 237-page Legg/Kennedy report - and looking at his replies to all the MPs who appealed. The Tory MP Gerald Howarth said that his gardening costs were unusually high because he had bought a house and garden with "a mini wood which had to be brought under control". That argument did not wash with Kennedy. He dismissed the appeal.

3.46pm: The Crown Prosecution Service is going to make an announcement tomorrow about whether any MPs will be prosecuted, we've just been told. Earlier I said the Legg report did not cover those MPs - like Elliot Morley and David Chaytor - facing the most serious allegations. In his introduction, Legg says that he has not investigated those MPs being investigated by the police or the parliamentary commissioner for standards. In these cases he has simply written "no issues". But he has also written "no issues" against MPs who are genuinely in the clear, so you cannot use the Legg report to identify those being investigated by the police. 3.57pm: John Redwood appealed against Legg's decision that he should repay the £112 he claimed to re-seed his lawn. His appeal was refused. 4.06pm: Today the Commons authorities have published two reports that come close to contradicting each other. As I said earlier (10.37am and 1045am), Kennedy does not like the way Legg has described claims that MPs made thinking they were within the rules as "tainted". In his own report, Kennedy includes more criticism of Legg.

I do, however, consider it unfortunate that the review should, in relation to cleaning and gardening claims, have invoked again "the requirement of propriety" (see paragraphs 82 of the review and 22 of the executive summary). That carries with it the inevitable implication that those who made claims in excess of the retrospectively imposed limits were lacking in propriety, and in the appeals I have seen I have found little, if any, evidence of that. Kennedy also made his views clear in the replies he sent to the MPs who appealed. For example, this is what he wrote to Michael Ancram, whose appeal he dismissed. You say that the limits chosen by the ACA review are arbitrary and retrospective, and that they take no account of realities, such as the location of a second home, local rates of pay, and whether the second home is used to benefit constituents. I agree with all of that, but the ACA review has explained why it considered it appropriate to impose limits and my carefully restricted terms of reference do not permit me to re-open that part of the ACA review decision.

4.26pm: For anyone not already feeling swamped by paperwork, here's one more document to have a look at; it's the list of all repayments on the parliament website. The repayments listed here overlap with the ones in the Legg report. But there are some on this list not mentioned in the Legg report and vice versa. This list covers all repayments, not just second home allowance (ACA) repayments. It includes repayments ordered by the sntandards and privileges committee and the department of resources. The Legg report just covers ACA repayments. And this list only covers repayments made between April 1 2009 and December 18 2009. Legg includes repayments made up until Monday this week. Unfortunately, the Commons authorities have not added up the figures to produce a total. They never make it easy. 4.43pm: Torcuil Crichton has a full list of what Scottish MPs are repaying on his blog. 4.52pm: The Commons document listing repayments by MPs is a treat because it includes comments from MPs explaining their repayments.

Earlier (see 2.56pm) I said Dennis Skinner had been ordered to repay £551 because Legg deemed a claim for a sofa bed excessive. The Legg report says Skinner actually repaid £880. The Commons document has this explanation from Skinner. I made a voluntary contribution of 50% of the cost of the sofa bed before Mr Legg was appointed. This payment had nothing whatsoever to do with Legg who made an unreserved apology to me and asked for no repayments. 4.59pm: Here are some of the other comments from MPs explaining their repayments. From David Curry, who repaid £181 he claimed for tools and equipment: I bought equipment to build shelves for files since it would be cheaper than having the job done by a carpenter. The Conservative party suggested repayment and it was not worth making an issue of it. From Nick Harvey, who repaid £1,793: I withdrew claims for furniture (£284.70 and £249), Sky+ (£159) and food (£1,100) in light of the economic turndown and its impact on the public finances.

From Anthony Steen, who repaid more than £5,000: Voluntary repayment following an independent audit. The Conservative party established a panel but the repayment was an entirely voluntary gesture. From Hugo Swire, who repaid £399 he claimed for a computer bag: Whilst the bag was authorised by the fees office and is in every day use, I felt on reflection it may be deemed "extravagant". I therefore decided to reimburse the fees office in May 2009. 5.17pm: It's been a good day for anyone planning to stand as an independent anti-sleaze candidate at the election. But for parliament as a whole, it has been pretty wretched. The BBC are speculating about this being the beginning of the end of the expenses affair. Up to a point. Tomorrow we've got the CPS decision (see 3.46pm) and there is enough information in the public domain today to keep journalists busy for weeks. I think we'll be writing about expenses until polling day. On that note, I'm calling it a day. Thanks for the comments.

Friday update: Later Paul Clark did provide an explanation as to why Legg did not get the paperwork justifying Clark's claim for mortgage interest. Clark said: "This is simply an oversight on my part. Sir Thomas wrote a letter to me dated December 8 and as it was the run-up to Christmas I failed to read it carefully. The letter asked for information in respect to my 2008-09 mortgage interest claims. By the time I realised what the letter was asking for the deadline for providing the evidence of my claims had gone. Technically Sir Thomas had no choice but to publish in his report a recommendation that I repay the sum of more than £11,000. I have now provided the evidence that Sir Thomas requested and I am sure this will be sufficient as the evidence I have provided for every other year has been accepted." Topics Sir Thomas Legg's report attacked despite condemning expenses system as 'deeply flawed' and 'vague' Published: 4 Feb 2010

Question: In February 2010, who reported on an audit of MPs' expense claims?
Answer: Sir Thomas Legg