Why the establishment of a national school for civil servants matters

Public administration has never been the glitziest or most immediately attractive discipline to study. With this in mind, the government’s announcement that it intends to establish a new National School of Government and Public Services (NSGPS) – in-house training for civil servants – is easily overlooked as little more than administrative tinkering in a world beset by uncertainty and turbulence.

And yet to see this announcement as little more than peripheral politics would be wrong: it matters. Since the previous National School of Government was abolished in 2012 (and the Civil Service College abolished in 1995), the UK has struggled to ensure that its public service professional development and support structures are fit for the future.

This is necessary if the UK is to build an inclusive economy, deliver its industrial strategy, deal with its “productivity puzzle”, and manage those issues that now sit within the UK’s National Risk Register (such as the threat from extreme weather events). More generally, if it is to escape the dominant “broken Britain” doom-loop narrative, then it needs to radically rethink how it supports politicians and officials across different governments and at all levels of the UK to govern effectively. This is why the creation of a NSGPS matters.

The slight concern is the UK government’s plan to move quickly. A promise to “move fast and fix things” – as made in chief secretary to the prime minister Darren Jones’ speech introducing the measure – is only a good approach once you are clear what actually needs to be put in place to fix the problem. In some ways the creation of a new NSGPS is too important to rush, and a more moderated design and delivery plan is possibly needed.

Five questions could help take this discussion forward.

1. What does success look like?

The creation of an internationally recognised centre of excellence for training, supporting and nurturing politicians and public servants across the UK in an inclusive and positive manner that is responsive to changes in context, society and technology.

Critically, it should offer a capacity to identify and learn from successful public policies across the UK, and from different countries in the world. As Pat McFadden argued when he was chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in December 2024, public services needs to get better at learning from “things that have gone right”.

2. What does it need?

Stability. If the NSGPS is to flourish and thrive then it cannot be established based on short-term funding guarantees. Ideally it needs an endowment-based model of funding which is managed by an independent trust to facilitate innovation and flexibility. The churn and change that has defined reform in this area cannot continue. It’s a total waste of money.

3. What structure might it adopt?

A flexible one. Not a large country house but a hub-and-spoke model where different providers (universities, consultancies, professional associations) provide a patchwork of services which range from one-to-one mentorship and support right through to action-based learning opportunities and crucible-type initiatives that bring people from different specialisms together.

The Australian and New Zealand School of Government can provide information and inspiration but a bold and ambitious approach in the UK might look to go even further, especially as lots of relevant investments have already been funded.

4. What’s the USP?

Simple – the NSGPS must facilitate mobility. That is, the mobility of people, knowledge and talent across traditional professional, organisation, geographical and sectoral boundaries.

The “public services” dimension of the NSGPS signals a massive opportunity to connect and catalyse with leadership support structures in many sectors (local government, NHS, regional mayors). It cannot be focused on the civil service and must deliver policy learning by building relationships.

5. Where’s the pinch?

Culture. Any minister who is announcing a bold new training initiative for the civil service is almost bound to concede that they will work with the civil service to change the system. However, this creates an obvious risk in the sense that continuity may end up defeating the need for change. Social scientists have for some time recognised the disruptive value of “cultural strangers” – radical new thinking – and a NSGPS must somehow inject a degree of criticality and challenge.

The minister’s announcement that the NSGPS would be “a new centre for world class learning and development within the Cabinet Office” arguably jarred with the broader emphasis on innovation, connectivity and change. Where is the evidence from previous initiatives that the Cabinet Office possesses the capacity to facilitate the mobility of people, ideas and knowledge?

Despite these hurdles, thought, the government’s commitment to establish a new NSGPS matters because dangerous populist narratives are based on claims of governing incompetence. Public trust in political institutions and political processes are at worrying low levels.

Investing in the professional support systems that will help enable politicians and public servants at all levels of government to deliver on their commitments is long overdue. It provides an opportunity to focus not on specific issues or problems, but on systemic improvement and systems leadership based on the realities of working in a quasi-federal, multi-level governance system.

Rebecca Riley receives funding from ESRC as Principle Investigator on the Local Policy Innovation Partnership Strategic Hub . She is affiliated with the Labour Party.

Ian C Elliott and Matthew Flinders do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.