---

Home Office

My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate, particularly the Minister who defended her department exactly as we expected. It was, if I may say so, not exactly the flavour of the debate. She said precious little about the 1,000 foreign prisoners, the illegal immigrants, the scene at the open prison, and national insurance. I must say, in the gentlest possible way, that I have rather reconsidered my position as to her representation, even with her exceptional offer of free representation, as she may not get around to what I am charged with. It has been a good debate. There has been a great deal of criticism of the Home Office, from my noble friend Lord Marlesford and my noble friend Lord Norton—in a powerful speech—from the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and my noble friend Lady Anelay on the Front Bench. There was even a little from the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, at the end; he was verging into that area. There have been proposals for change from the powerful duo of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, advocating their separate ministry of justice. Personally, however, I agree with my noble friend Lord Brooke that the priority is to manage better what we have. However, throughout the debate, there has been a touch of sadness, because the Home Office was once a department of state with a national and international reputation. Frankly, few would claim that that is the case at the moment. Unless Ministers are careful, the tag of ““not fit for purpose”” will be hung round the neck of the Home Office and its Ministers. However, as the Minister said, we will return to this issue again. I thank all noble Lords who took part. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers. Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.