DOES anyone care whether Mr Blunkett stays or goes? It is alleged that he fast-tracked a visa application on behalf of his mistress and that he supplied her with travel passes which are intended for the wife or partner of the minister.

In everything I read and hear about this sordid little business there is confusion between the matter of the adulterous affair and the other issue of whether Blunkett has compromised the office of government which he holds. Let's separate the issues then and see where that gets us.

First the adulterous affair. It is morally wrong - the technical word is "sinful" - to have a sexual relationship with someone who is married to someone else. Marriage is a legal institution in this country and couples getting married vow to be faithful to each other. That is the ideal of course. In everyday life many fall short of the ideal and do have lovers, mistresses, affairs, liaisons, bits on the side - call them what you like. It is morally wrong to indulge in these extramarital relationships. That in itself does not mean that a government minister who has a mistress should be sacked.

Many ministers have had love affairs and several prime ministers were famous for it: Lloyd George, Churchill and Harold Wilson for example. So they did what was wrong. So what? We all do what we shouldn't from time to time and sexual infidelity isn't the only blemish. Far worse, perhaps, to be a mean and cruel husband or a fractious, nagging wife. So taking a mistress in itself should not be a sacking offence. But the important question is whether, by his treatment of his mistress, Mr Blunkett is compromising his office as Home Secretary and a member of the Cabinet.

Leave aside the fast-tracking for now. Blunkett has admitted that he provided his mistress with travel passes. And he has apologised for this "mistake". This is where we desperately need some clarity of thought. First, the woman to whom he gave the passes was not, as some newspapers and the BBC have described her, his "partner". She was and is another man's wife. And this is where the need for precise thinking is so crucial. I mean, we must understand that it would have been wrong of Blunkett to give those travel passes to any woman not entitled to them - irrespective of whether she was his fancy woman or not. If I may put the matter facetiously: in order to be the fraudulent recipient of travel passes, a woman is not required first to become Mr Blunkett's mistress!

Blunkett did give her those passes, so should he be sacked? I should declare an interest: I don't like Blunkett. As Home Secretary he talks big and does little. "Tough on crime," he says while violent crime and shootings are increasing all the time. Under his watch our towns and villages have become nastier places as the yob culture proceeds unchecked. Worst of all, Blunkett wants to spend billions of pounds introducing the utterly useless identity card which will be the biggest infringement of personal freedom in all our lifetimes.

Identity cards will not prevent terrorism - or else they would have prevented terrorism already in Madrid and in other European countries where cards are obligatory. Identity cards will simply give more power to the government to interfere in our private lives. So Mr Blunkett, don't resign over the affair, the fast-tracking or the travel passes. But go quickly, now - because you are a failed Home Secretary

* Peter Mullen is Rector of St Michael's, Cornhill, in the City of London, and Chaplain to the Stock Exchange