Here are the key points of Sir Alan Budd's report into the allegations that David Blunkett speeded up a visa application by his then lover Kimberly Quinn's nanny:
Ms Leoncia Casalme, Kimberly Quinn's nanny, applied for indefinite leave to remain in the UK on 15 March 2003.
Initially she was told by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate that her case might not be processed until January 2004
After Mrs Quinn raised the case with Mr Blunkett the application was actually processed in 52 days - 120 days faster than normal
There is a "chain of events" linking Mr Blunkett to the speeding up of the application
There were two possibilities for Mr Blunkett raising the case - either he was seeking "special help" for Mrs Quinn's nanny or he was raising the case as an example of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's (IND) poor performance
Sir Alan said he did not have direct evidence that allowed him "to choose between the two possibilities"
What was clear was that at some point after Mrs Quinn had raised the case with Mr Blunkett an official in Mr Blunkett's office had contacted the office of the director general of the immigration directorate about the case
As a result, the case was re-considered and leave to remain in the UK was granted on 12 May
Mr Blunkett's private secretary e-mailed the private secretary of the director general of the IND on the 8 May asked for an "update on the settlement (domestic worker) case I faxed through to you the other day?"
On 9 May the director general's private secretary e-mailed back saying: "Sorted - she has been granted ILR - papers will be sent to her shortly. The case was in ICU so they pulled it out of the queue and made a decision - ( no special favours, only what they would normally do - but a bit quicker."
Sir Alan said he had not been able to discover whether Mr Blunkett had given any instructions over the application and if so, what they had been
He had been "unable to link Mr Blunkett to the sending of faxes to the IND"
He acknowledged there must have been a link but said he was not able to establish the nature of the link.
People questioned for the inquiry could not "recollect" what the link had been and Sir Alan had no reason to disbelieve them
Sir Alan said he had received full co-operation from Mr Blunkett and his office.
There was no attempt to destroy, conceal or withhold documents relevant to the inquiry