Conclusions and recommendations
The Evolution of Civil Service Learning and Development
1.We reiterate the conclusion of our earlier report, as well as those of our predecessor Committees, that, despite its shortcomings, the closure of the National School for Government was premature and left a void that has not been filled. In particular, the need for a dedicated facility where Civil Servants can reflect on their experiences and share them with their peers is as significant now as it was when the Civil Service College was first established. We also note how the closure of National School for Government has made the UK the odd one out, compared with countries such as Australia, Canada, Germany, France, or New Zealand. Most have a permanent institution, dedicated to the learning and development of civil servants. However, the closure of the NSG has also acted as catalyst to some of the positive developments that we go on to discuss in the remainder of this report. (Paragraph 18)
The Academy System
2.Learning and development in the Civil Service has changed significantly since the closure of the National School for Government in 2012. In particular, while departments continue to oversee the development of subject knowledge, this is increasingly supplemented by technical knowledge driven by cross-departmental Professions and Functions, including through a number of new academies. They are now taking responsibility for developing the content, for overseeing its delivery, and for ensuring that it is properly integrated into career progression. Even in the area of policy, which in the past has apparently been both guarded by departments and regarded with a degree of scepticism as a Profession in its own right, there is a clear approach to the development of technical skills alongside subject-specific knowledge. This can only be of benefit in policy development. (Paragraph 31)
3.A system of academies is still evolving but the decentralised approach that has emerged since 2012 has apparently helped to redress the disconnect between learning and development on the one hand and career progression on the other. However, decentralisation has come at the price of consistency of approach and, in particular, in the availability of resources. We regard this as a very significant failing, since this loss of consistency leads to lack of coherence and thus of reputation and public confidence in the Civil Service as a whole. This is a theme we return to in the final chapter of this report. (Paragraph 32)
4.We regard academies as a useful way of promoting the visibility and coherence of Professions within the Civil Service. Those running the Policy Profession acknowledge that, in the absence of a policy academy, they have work to do to catch up with other professions in terms of visibility and coherence. While we recognise that it is up to the Professions themselves how they organise and brand activity in their area, we recommend those, such as the Policy Profession, that have not yet established academies to consider doing so. (Paragraph 33)
The Civil Service Leadership Academy
5.The Civil Service Leadership Academy (CSLA) is a welcome recognition of the limitations of CSL and the need for a dedicated body to address leadership capability in the Civil Service. We also welcome the emphasis on Civil Service “leaders teaching leaders”. With the bid for core funding, the Civil Service Leadership Academy (CSLA) appears to be moving to a new phase. We regard establishing the CSLA on a firmer footing as an imperative and we support the bid for core funding in the forthcoming Spending Review. However, CSLA is still at an early stage of its development and there are important issues to be resolved, including whether it should have a single location or a series of regional ones, the nature of any faculty recruited, and how to integrate greater conceptual learning with its existing focus on reflective learning. That there are still significant issues to be decided is symptomatic of the piecemeal development of this area and the lack of a strong overall governance and strategy. This is fundamental to the ability of the Civil Service to sustain itself and its effectiveness. We return to this in the final chapter. (Paragraph 47)
6.If the funding model of the Civil Service Leadership Academy (CSLA) is based on fee income, there is always a danger that it will be tempted to maximise income at the expense of quality by expanding the range of courses it offers too widely. We acknowledge that charging for courses can encourage participants to value them more highly. But any core funding needs to be used in such a way as to ensure that the CSLA’s focus on nurturing future leadership is maintained, and the mistakes made with the National School of Government are avoided. (Paragraph 48)
7.The Civil Service Leadership Academy (CSLA) should develop a clear mission statement which includes a strong emphasis on its focus on leadership and governance, against which CLSA’s effectiveness can be judged. Articulating a clear vision for the CSLA in such a statement will both promote its aim of developing leadership and guard against the dilution of focus which has affected predecessor bodies as the funding model creates an incentive for them to chase fee income. (Paragraph 49)
National Leadership Centre
8.We welcome the establishment of the National Leadership Centre (NLC). For a learning body with a prospective market of fewer than 2000 people, the NLC’s £21 million budget is generous. We are not critical of this—if it achieves even a small improvement in public service productivity, it will easily cover its costs. However, in comparison with the much smaller amounts given to the Civil Service Leadership Academy, the budget is striking. (Paragraph 56)
9.The National Leadership Centre’s horizontal focus on those at the most senior levels across the public service marks it out from the range of vertical, sectoral academies which focus more on preparing people at a variety of levels for their next promotion. We support the principle that even those established in leadership roles should continue to learn from their immediate peers, from those who have been in similar roles across the public service, and from those with particular, specialist knowledge that they can draw on. We are pleased that there is to be a place where they will have the opportunity to reflect constructively on their experience in a structured environment. (Paragraph 57)
10.The National Leadership Centre is still some months from opening for business and there remain details to be resolved. It has yet to establish a location, for example, and the relationship with the existing sectoral academies that it is supposed to sit above is unclear. Yet, with a number of bodies focussed on the issue of leadership, a degree of coordination is required to ensure the matter is addressed with a degree of consistency throughout. As the “capstone” of public service leadership training and development, it will be in a position to coordinate the activities of the existing sectoral bodies. We recognise that the sectoral bodies are autonomous and this “capstone” role should not suggest that the National Leadership Centre should have authority over them. However, it will be in a position to disseminate its research findings and promote best practice, to share lessons learned and, perhaps, to use its relatively plentiful resources in a way that is mutually beneficial to it and those sectoral bodies, such as the Civil Service Leadership Academy, that have rather less. The working group that has been established is a useful first step in this direction. We will be watching the development of the National Leadership Centre with interest and will consider its progress in more depth once it is fully operational. (Paragraph 58)
11.We recommend that the government pursues the model envisaged for the National Leadership Centre, to ensure that it will include a permanent HQ location, some capacity to conduct research into how to build leadership capability across the public sector and provides a space for senior leaders to learn from each other and from outside experts. We regard these as elements as essential for the Civil Service Leadership Academy. We recommend that the bid for core funding for the Civil Service Leadership Academy should take these elements into account as a benchmark to aim for. (Paragraph 59)
Governance
12.As we have already concluded, we view the decision to close the National School for Government (NSG) as premature at best. NSG’s closure left a void which still has to be filled. Departments and the Professions had to fill this void themselves and take control of the development of their own subject-specific knowledge. This provided the incentive to establish the new and welcome Professional academies and frameworks, including the nascent but still tiny, Civil Service Leadership Academy (CSLA). However, this decentralisation leaves this provision looking haphazard, and has been at the cost of strategic coherence and adequate funding. The National Leadership Centre (NLC) (previously named the Public Service Leadership Academy and then the Centre for Public Service Leadership) with a remit which includes the top of the Civil Service and the wider public sector, was initiated by the Treasury with a generous £21 million funding, but with little consultation with the rest of the Civil Service, despite NLC intending to train Civil Service Leaders. The £21 million for NLC leaves CSLA with funding which is derisory in comparison. Both these bodies have huge potential, but not if they fail to complement each other and both are given the necessary funding. (Paragraph 69)
13.We find it astonishing that the Government estimates that around a total of £600 million is spent by departments on learning and development and yet so little is understood about how that money is spent. There is a lack of evidence of value for money for this substantial total and a lack of accountability. Civil Service Learning accounts for only £75.6 million which is only 12 per cent of this, leaving the bulk of the £600 million unaccounted for. This raises the fundamental question about the leadership and governance of overall learning and development. This is central to the sense of the Civil Service as an institution and its idea of itself. Without better coordination from the centre, there will be wasteful duplication of effort and resources, and a lack of strategic focus and governance. (Paragraph 70)
14.At the conclusion of this inquiry, we have no idea who the Head of the Civil Service holds responsible for the overall quality and output of Civil Service learning and development. This reflects a lack of coordinated ministerial oversight which has led to the two, separately conceived bodies to provide leadership training: the Civil Service Leadership Academy (CSLA), conceived by the Civil Service Board, but which has virtually no budget, and National Leadership College, initiated and funded by the Treasury. (Paragraph 71)
15.Better coordination and accountability to the centre of government is required in order to maximise the impact of spending on Civil Service learning and development. Without the ability to show that money is being used effectively and efficiently, questions about value for money cannot be addressed. (Paragraph 72)
16.Earlier reports from this Committee and its predecessor have highlighted the lack of a central individual or body with responsibility for overall learning and development across the current, decentralised system. In 2015, we wrote that “we have not heard how this new academy landscape will be coordinated, or who is responsible for overseeing their collective development”. We reiterate that concern and recommend that the Government identifies an individual or body to be accountable for this. (Paragraph 73)
17.We welcome the steps the Civil Service is taking to address longstanding concerns about learning and development. For its part, the Government should ensure that its efforts receive active ministerial support and, in particular, adequate resourcing. Whatever the day-to-day pressures on the government of the day, the Civil Service must have ministers’ full authority to implement a coherent policy for Civil Service learning and development. The Government needs to identify who is in charge of Civil Service learning and development. Ministers should encourage the Civil Service to take more visible responsibility for its own future and governance, albeit under the ultimate direction of ministers, and accountable to them. The governance and strategy for Civil Service Learning and Development should be set out in a White Paper, which should have the personal support of the Prime Minister and of the Cabinet as a whole. We do not intend this to disrupt what is being established but rather to review, to consolidate and to improve on what has been achieved in recent years. (Paragraph 79)
18.We conclude from the evidence gathered for this inquiry, and from previous inquiries, that the closure of the National School for Government still leaves a void that cannot been filled by Civil Service Learning and the new academies system on their own. We recommend establishing a new institution, building on the Civil Service Leadership Academy (CSLA), in a permanent location, capable, over time, of developing the full spectrum of Civil Service learning and development. It should provide residential courses where appropriate, which optimise opportunities for reflective learning which is almost entirely lacking at present. The Director should be a senior civil servant of appropriate rank, who would be part of the Cabinet Office, reporting to the Head of the Civil Service and the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who represents the Minister for the Civil Service (the Prime Minister). This would become the central body which holds the key information about what learning and development provision is being made available, and for whom. Working through the Cabinet Office, it would inform coordination of provision across Whitehall, eliminate duplication, fill the gaps in provision and develop synergies with the separate provision of departments, Professions, and academies. It should work alongside and support the new National Leadership Centre. It should not impinge on the ownership that the departments and Professions have of their learning and development. This would also provide a space for Civil Service Leaders and others to enable the Civil Service as an institution to become more mindful of itself, of its values and ethos, and of how to strengthen its internal governance as well as its capability. (Paragraph 80)
Published: 22 July 2019