Wily ways of the civil servant at the hub of a crisis

Internal links

Should Byers resign: vote now

Byers insisted I had to go, says Sixsmith

Leading article: End the charade that surrounds the flow of government information

Donald Macintyre: A story born out of misplaced fear

Simon Carr: Words mean only what we want them to mean

Downing Street hits back

Mottram leaves points unanswered

Wily ways of the civil servant at the hub of a crisis

Ministry gripped by soap opera

Mandarin displays loyalty

Number 10 scrambles to patch up civil war in Whitehall

When Sir Richard Mottram gave evidence for the prosecution in the Old Bailey trial of whistleblower Clive Ponting in 1985, the civil servant was asked whether ministers ought to be truthful or ambiguous.

In his reply, the then private secretary to Defence Secretary Michael Heseltine was the very model of Sir Humphrey-esque obfuscation. "In highly-charged political matters, one person's ambiguity may be another person's truth," he told the court.

Seventeen years later, as his account of exactly who said what to whom on the Martin Sixsmith "resignation" dominates the news, Sir Richard's words may come back to haunt him.

Yet until the controversy about Jo Moore's e-mail blew up in September, the 55-year-old career civil servant had been looking forward to promotion to Whitehall's top job. With Sir Richard Wilson, the cabinet secretary, to step down this summer, the permanent secretary at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions was among the favourites to succeed him.

Sir Richard's CV certainly qualified him for advancement, having been permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence during his 32-year career in the Civil Service. A graduate of a Birmingham grammar school and Keele University, his was not the typical public school and Oxbridge route to Whitehall and many colleagues remarked on how "unstuffy" he was.

Yet although he had a "hale fellow, well met" reputation, an image underscored by his reported use of the f-word this weekend, others say he had a wiliness worthy of any politician. Worse still, some in his department complained that he was unconcerned about Labour's culture of spin and unwilling to challenge Mr Byers.

Although he told friends Mr Byers "never takes responsibility for difficult decisions", he himself never appeared to want to challenge the Transport Secretary. One of the first indications of this came when Alun Evans, Mr Sixsmith's predecessor, complained about Ms Moore's attempt to get a junior press officer to spin against Bob Kiley, the London Transport commissioner.

Instead of Mr Evans being backed by Sir Richard for standing up to an unelected special adviser, he was "given a bollocking" by the permanent secretary, and he was out. The cabinet secretary told MPs: "The civil servants quite properly declined to do what she requested. They were completely right in not doing what they were asked to do."

When Ms Moore's infamous 11 September e-mail emerged, normal civil service rules would mean Sir Richard, as her line manager, should have reprimanded her first. Mr Byers did so in private and it a day later the permanent secretary issued an "official warning".

Sir Richard admitted yesterday that he had phoned the Financial Times to talk about Mr Sixsmith's chances of staying in government. He phoned Mr Sixsmith after speaking to the FT with a warning that there would be no future for him in the civil service if he disagreed with his account.

Now the career of Sir Richard also seemed to have stalled in the wake of the Moore/Sixsmith affair. His dream of becoming cabinet secretary certainly looked further away than ever.