We have a committee on standards in public life, but do we have any standards in public life? With the bottom-pinching, loan-grabbing and incompetence of ministers, one wonders. Peter Mandelson and David Blunkett finally did the decent thing (after much prodding) but John Prescott and Lord Sainsbury remain.

Can nobody restore order in the playground? In theory Sir Alistair Graham could; he is chairman of the committee on standards in public life. In conversation last week he seemed as frustrated as the rest of us. He raised doubts about how Prescott and Sainsbury, the minister who bunged Labour massive loans in secret, can remain in office; he levelled the grave charge at Labour that it might be ignoring electoral corruption to gain votes; and warned the party that it is seen as being as sleazy as the Tories. But, he said, there is little he can do until the prime minister takes standards seriously.

For this failure, Graham gave Tony Blair both barrels. “I’ve been disappointed that the prime minister has not given greater emphasis to standards in governing the country and I think it’s a major error of judgment,” he said softly but firmly. “He sees standards as a peripheral, minor issue not worthy of serious consideration. Well, I think it is demonstrated by opinion polls that the public think this government is as sleazy as the last. He has paid a heavy price for ignoring standards.” Wow. Coming from a man in Graham’s position, that is some indictment.

Graham is no Kenneth Starr, the American right-wing prosecutor who tried to drive Bill Clinton from office; he is a former union official who bends over backwards to understand Blair’s behaviour, but ultimately he cannot: “The damage is being done. The public perception (of sleaze) is pretty grim, and that is a warning to politicians to change their behaviour.”

Amid rumours that Blair wants rid of this turbulent public servant, Graham confirmed that No 10 has hardly helped him with his inquiries: “We would have preferred more positive support from the prime minister. We suspect he is pretty lukewarm to the work we do.” Which is outrageous: the only agenda of Graham’s committee is to raise standards.

Our man ramped up pressure on Blair, disclosed that he will meet David Cameron and enjoyed a private meeting with Gordon Brown, who clearly intimated that as prime minister he would be less cavalier than Blair about ethics: “I was pleasantly surprised how interested he (Brown) was in the issues; I think that is a helpful sign.”

The government’s gravest lapse has been cash for coronets: “They don’t feel they are going to get (enough money) from subscriptions so they go to rich supporters.” To escape the scandal — and avoid going begging to party members — Blair “sniffs a deal” with the Tories for the state funding of political parties.

This angers Graham. “I’m apprehensive how the public are going to react to some cosy deal stitched up in a smoke-filled room; I’d had experience of that as a union official,” he said laughing, “although given Mr Cameron it would be in a carbon-free room.”

Quickly he turns serious: “State funding is a form of additional taxation.” He says Blair should allow his committee to conduct an open inquiry into party funding, but then “if you have an open inquiry, you cannot be sure where it will come to”. The result of Blair’s dodges? “The cynicism inevitably arising from the loans for peerages scandal and other big issues of politicians’ behaviour is damaging to the crucial issue of trust,” he said.

He anticipates that the results of his committee’s main survey will show plummeting confidence in government ethics. “We have to face the blunt fact we haven’t convinced the public that standards are rising. Our survey showed the public think cronyism is rife as far as public appointments are concerned.

“We have given recommendations as to how the government could address that. They accepted many of our recommendations but they didn’t accept those." .

At least the theatre buff is in training to investigate the Blair witch project: the last play he saw was The Crucible. What other ministers, I asked, have been guilty of sorcery? “David Blunkett seemed to be using ministerial arrangements to assist somebody; and we had potential conflicts of interest arising from Tessa Jowell’s husband’s relationships. This government has not been as rigorous as it should in establishing procedures. We are very critical of it for not revising the ministerial code to provide for independent investigation into an allegation.”

Far from being appeased by the appointment of Sir John Bourn as ministerial sleaze-buster, Graham says his appointment is a “cobbled- up affair” with “substantial weaknesses”. He added: “It arose from the intense political pressure of the Tessa Jowell affair. Sir John’s role has not been fully thought through. He has hardly any discretion to intervene on his own initiative and there is no guarantee that any report he produces will be published. Plus the fact there is no public guarantee that if Sir John is replaced, the opposition parties will be consulted about his successor.”