Q&A: MP expenses row explained

A full list of repayments MPs have been asked to make following the expenses scandal has been published in a report from auditor Sir Thomas Legg. Here is a guide to what is happening and a reminder of what the expenses furore was all about.

WHAT'S THE LATEST DEVELOPMENT?

MPs have been told to repay £1.12m in second home expenses. Sir Thomas initially asked for 390 MPs - 52% of the House - to repay £1.3m, but that was cut after an appeals process. To date, almost £800,000 has been repaid since April 2009. Sir Thomas's report states that 48% of MPs had "no issues" with expenses arising from the review. Gordon Brown asked former civil servant Sir Thomas to go over all MPs' second homes claims made between 2004 and 2008 and identify any mistaken payments.

WHAT ABOUT APPEALS

Sir Thomas issued his initial requests for repayment in October, but many provoked anger from MPs. About 80 launched appeals with former Court of Appeal judge Sir Paul Kennedy and in the last week a number of those have proved to be successful. As as result of these appeals, the total amount asked for by Sir Thomas was reduced by just under £185,000 to £1.12m. Seventeen MPs also had their demands for repayment cut to zero, leaving 373 with money to return. The highest single repayment will be £42,458.

WHY DID THE EXPENSES AUDIT PROVE CONTROVERSIAL?

In some cases because Sir Thomas asked MPs to repay claims which were approved, because he felt they claimed too much. He imposed his own retrospective limits on claims for gardening and cleaning, and asked MPs to repay the difference. Gordon Brown was asked to repay £12,415. He repaid the money and urged others to do so, but many MPs were annoyed, saying Sir Thomas went beyond his remit. Other complaints included errors in the audit and the fact that MPs who made money by "flipping" their second homes were not being asked to repay money.

REMIND ME - WHY THE FUSS ABOUT MPs' EXPENSES?

Basically the old system is widely regarded as having been discredited. From the case of Derek Conway, who lost the Tory whip after being heavily criticised for paying his sons too much from public funds, to former Labour Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who apologised for mistakenly claiming for an adult film, to MPs claiming for mortgages on homes that relatives live in, MPs' expenses have been making headlines for nearly two years.

WHY DO WE PAY FOR MPs' HOMES?

Most MPs say they have to live in two places - in their constituencies and in London where they attend Parliament. They have been allowed to claim expenses to cover the cost of running a second home. What was known as the "additional costs allowance" was worth up to £24,006 in 2008/9 for MPs representing seats outside central London. It covers things like mortgage interest payments on second homes and utility bills - but officials also allowed claims for items of furniture, electrical goods like televisions, refurbishments and up to £400 each month for food. It is just one of several allowances available to MPs. What MPs can claim

SO, WHAT WENT WRONG?

Details of claims under the second homes allowance used to be kept secret, but Freedom of Information campaigners won a High Court case to get them released after years of battling Commons authorities. There was uproar in May when claims for expensive TVs and furniture emerged alongside stories about MPs who claimed for more than one property by "flipping" their designated second home , or did not pay capital gains tax on sales of second homes or over-claimed for mortgages. Constituents were so angry at the revelations in the Daily Telegraph - which had obtained details of all expenses claims - that many MPs announced they would be repaying claims and some have said they will stand down at the general election.

DID THEY BREAK ANY RULES?

MPs have said they acted within the rules and some seemed to base much of their defence on the fact that their claim was paid out by the fees office. It does seem that the rules were rather vague or lax . But it is also the case that the UK's Parliament has worked for centuries on the basis of MPs being "honourable members" so in most cases the fees office was, perhaps not surprisingly, unlikely to challenge an MP if they had given their signed declaration "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" - some critics say this shows they had the ultimate responsibility to ensure claims were reasonable demands on the public purse.

WHAT IS BEING DONE ABOUT IT?

The party leaders pledged to act and ordered a series of interim changes, reviews and new legislation. The main inquiry was by the independent committee on standards in public life - chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly. He has set out recommendations on how the system should change in the future. Sir Thomas Legg carried out his audit of claims.

SO IS A NEW EXPENSES SYSTEM IN PLACE?

Not yet. After seven months looking into the issue Sir Christopher's committee came up with a raft of proposals - including banning MPs for claiming towards mortgage payments on second homes and from employing relatives. But that was still not the end of the story. Now those proposals are being investigated by a new regulator created by MPs, Ipsa, which will decide which can work and which will not. Its chairman, Sir Ian Kennedy, has pledged to have a new expenses system in place in the next Parliament.

SO, WILL THEY ALL BECOME LAW?

Only if they are adopted by Ipsa (the newly created Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority). It is consulting on a range of them . Its chairman Sir Ian Kennedy says he agrees with Sir Christopher that mortgage payments should be banned and that MPs should not employ relatives. But he leaves the door open for people to make their views known on whether there should be a total ban on MPs employing relatives. There are some differences. Sir Ian says MPs whose constituencies have a station within London's 1-6 travel zones should not claim while Sir Christopher had said MPs "within reasonable commuting distance" should not claim, which was thought to cover a wider area. Ipsa also appears to back an end to the communications allowance, and questions whether retiring MPs should get any pay-offs at the public expense.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

Ipsa's consultation closes on 11 February. Sir Ian has said he hopes to get a new system in place by the start of the next Parliament - when more than 100 existing MPs will have stood down and others will have lost their seats. The police are also investigating some MPs' claims . With the general election approaching, the expenses issue is likely to remain high profile.

HOW MANY MPS WOULD BE AFFECTED BY EXPENSES REFORM?

If the recommendations are accepted, a lot. According to the committee's hearings, about 415 MPs claim for mortgage interest payments through the second homes allowance. The committee was told about 250 MPs employed relatives, according to the official Parliament register of employed relatives it is just over 200. In addition 12 more MPs would be unable to claim for a second home at all. Currently only those living within 20 miles of Parliament are unable to claim the full £24,000 a year, but before changes earlier this year it was available to any MP outside inner London.

WILL WE KNOW WHAT MPS ARE CLAIMING IN FUTURE?

We will certainly know more as the Commons has agreed to publish claims on a quarterly basis. They say they will not "censor" as much information following criticism of the amount of key details that were blacked out when receipts were published in June. You can check your MP's claims on the Parliament website.

WERE ALL MPS ACCUSED OF ABUSING EXPENSES?

No, many were not. Many take exception to suggestions they padded out their salaries with the allowance. Others vehemently resent being accused of wrongdoing over expenses when they were acting on the advice of officials in the House of Commons fees office. Some MPs who were entitled to claim the allowance because they had constituencies outside inner London, chose not to. Others made modest claims.