Sir Jeremy's Civil Service just isn't working It is bad for Mr Kennedy, who has had the job snatched away. It's bad for Whitehall's reputation, because high-flying outsiders will hesitate before applying to an organisation whose approach to appointments is so muddled. It's bad for the Energy Secretary, because whoever is calling the shots in his department, it doesn't seem to be him. It's bad, too, for Mr Maude. It's all very well for him to say ministers should have more say in appointing top civil servants, but it begs the question of which ministers - the Secretary of State, the Chancellor or the PM? It's also bad for Sir Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary, and Sir Bob Kerslake, the head of the Civil Service. Could they not have managed the matter more smoothly? Some of their predecessors will no doubt think so. Until this year, the cabinet secretary was also the head of the Civil Service. When it was decided to split the two posts, former mandarins lined up to condemn the idea. They said it was particularly important to have one person doing both jobs when it came to senior Civil Service appointments. Lord Armstrong told MPs he had shared the headship of the Civil Service with the redoubtable Sir Douglas Wass, but Margaret Thatcher had condemned this double act as "Pinky and Perky." When Sir Douglas retired, Lord Armstrong had combined both jobs. Under the old system, the cabinet secretary would have found out who was on the shortlist for the DECC job and taken soundings from the PM. When the PM made it clear he did not want David Kennedy, the head mandarin would have shimmered off and suggested to his friends on the Civil Service Commission that it would be easier all round if they chose someone else. A fix? Yes, but one that would have caused far less embarrassment. As it is, under the present rules, the whole appointment process must start again. So why did Sir Bob not warn Sir Jeremy that there was trouble brewing over the DECC appointment? One insider said: "You have to remember that Bob is only the part-time head of the Civil Service. He was probably busy with his other job of being permanent secretary to Eric Pickles, the Local Government Secretary, which involves running a large, complicated department. Maybe it is time to revisit present arrangements for separating the posts of cabinet secretary and head of the Civil Service. They are at best messy and they certainly have not worked well in this instance. The signs are that Whitehall could be in for some unnecessary battles unless there is a rethink, too, over giving ministers more say in Civil Service appointments. The 2010 Civil Service Act, first mooted more than 150 years ago, will not be changed without a fight, with former civil servants in the House of Lords leading the charge. The Government already stands accused of taking on battles that could be avoided. Fighting to undermine the political neutrality of the Civil Service and to Americanise Whitehall, which is what it will be accused of doing, would be imprudent to say the least.