Today's papers respond to Sir Alan Budd's report.

Times

"It is an unsatisfactory outcome. Had David Blunkett not already resigned, the text and tone of Sir Alan’s tome would have been enough seriously to damage, but not necessarily sink, him if the prime minister had been determined to back him ... This affair should not last any longer than is absolutely necessary. But it is not in the interest of the government, the department or Mr Blunkett for the matter to end here."

Guardian

"Michael Howard went ludicrously over the top yesterday in his conclusions on the whole affair. But this was a grubby episode all right, reflecting little credit on anyone involved. It points the need for the current civil service bill, and for a stronger culture of governance across Whitehall. Officials and ministers need to have more trust in one another, and the public more confidence in them both, than exists in the world that has been described by Sir Alan Budd."

Telegraph

"Sir Alan is an economist, and all we would say is that it is just as well he did not choose a career as a detective. It is difficult to imagine anyone other than a former government adviser, who was handpicked to investigate the workings of the civil service, coming up with such an incomplete report. The rest of us will draw our own conclusions about Mr Blunkett's suitability to hold high office in the future. Apart from anything else, his memory may not be up to it."

Independent

"In one sense, Sir Alan Budd has done a satisfactory job. His inquiry has established beyond doubt that Leoncia Casalme's visa application was indeed fast-tracked. Mr Blunkett, who had strenuously denied that any fast-tracking went on at all, had no choice but to resign when this fact emerged."

Mirror

"MPs deal with thousands of cases a year in which constituents struggle to cope with the hardline rules and unfeeling attitudes of Home Office departments. And the minister responsible for taking such a tough line was David Blunkett. That - and his attacks on fellow Cabinet members - is why there was an outcry over the fast tracking of the nanny's visa. And why Mr Blunkett, despite the widespread sympathy for him in the country, had to resign."

Express

"Resignation was Blunkett's only option because his integrity was in tatters. And clearly the Home Office itself is either a shambles or worse. This government is habituated to lying and self justification. It is shot through with the arrogance of power but when departments of state are either forced or minded to collaborate, it is cause for anger or alarm."

Mail

"There are many - and not just in the Labour Party - who believe Mr Blunkett deserves the benefit of every doubt. He is justifiably proud of his reputation for honesty. He immediately ordered an inquiry when the case came to light and was confident he would be exonerated. He was genuinely shocked when Sir Alan told him there were contacts over the Casalme case between his office and the immigration service. He did the decent thing and resigned. All that is to his credit. Yet the Budd report reveals something deeply disturbing in Whitehall, despite its reluctance to reach harsh judgements."

Sun

"Three clear facts do emerge from the muddle. First, Mr Blunkett did wrongly involve himself in fast-tracking his lover’s nanny’s visa application. Second, as Tony Blair said, it was serious enough to warrant his resignation. Third, although Mr Blunkett has been unwise, his conduct has not been bad enough to stop him returning to high office. Meanwhile, as No 10 said yesterday, the Budd report should draw a line under the Blunkett affair. The former home secretary has paid the price. And in due course he must return to the front benches."