THERE are two ways to look at the "spingate" saga which involves Stephen Byers, Martin Sixsmith and Jo Moore.

One is that this story is about a hitherto inconsequential civil servant who may, or may not, have resigned. In the absence of anything more substantial to attack, the Government's critics are beating it with a piece of tittle-tattle which the wider world beyond the Westminster village neither cares about nor understands. The wider world simply wants to see serious investment going into the railways.

On the other hand, it could easily be argued that the confusion over Mr Sixsmith's departure from office is indicative of the confusion that reigns in the Department of Transport - a confusion which is preventing that serious investment.

That confusion was evident in October when Mr Byers said "for certain" that no taxpayers' money would go to Railtrack shareholders, but then in February he announced a "self-financing grant" of taxpayers' money would go to shareholders.

It was certainly evident when Mr Byers placed Railtrack into administration "for three to six months", as it now looks as if that administration will last at least 13 months - a grievously long period of inactivity with the rail network going nowhere in the sidings.

It now appears that Mr Byers was confused when he came to the House of Commons on February 26 and presented a statement entitled "The Resignation of Martin Sixsmith" which contained the sentence: "Martin Sixsmith agreed to resign."

There seems little room for confusion in such bald statements, especially not as Mr Byers had had 11 days since Mr Sixsmith's resignation on February 15 to sort out any confusion he may have had.

But yesterday we learned that his statement was based on a "misunderstanding of an understanding". Yesterday we learned that Mr Sixsmith had never resigned.

And yesterday we learned that senior figures at the Department of Transport had been negotiating acceptable terms for Mr Sixsmith's departure since February 15 - nearly three months ago.

If only they could have diverted their energies into resolving the confusion surrounding the future of Railtrack and whatever may replace it.

The only unconfusing part of this Westminster village tittle-tattle is that Mr Byers should not still be running this department.

Senior Labour figures are said to be mystified that Hartlepool could elect a monkey to run its affairs - but to the voting public it does look as if even a monkey couldn't have made such a poor job of running the Department of Transport.