A CRITIQUE OF THE RAYNER REVIEW OF THE GOVERNMENT STATISTICAL SERVICE
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1984.tb00559.x |
| Date | 01 June 1984 |
| Published date | 01 June 1984 |
| Author | RAY THOMAS |
224
PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION
REFERENCES
Abel-Smith, Brian. 1964.
The hospitals,
1800-1948.
London: Heinemann.
-.
1976.
Value for money in the health services.
London: Heinemann.
Dick,
D.
H.
1981.
What would
it
be
like
to
be a patient here?',
CHC
News,
December.
Jones, Kathleen. 1972.
History of the mental health services.
London: Routledge
&
Kegan Paul.
Klein, Rudolf. 1982. 'Private practice and public policy: regulating the frontiers', in Gordon McLachlan
and
Alan
Maynard (eds.)
The publidpriuate
mix
for health.
London: Nuffield
Provincial
Hospitals
Trust.
Westerman, John
H.
1980.
Change and the joint committee on accreditation
of
hospitals.
Mimeo.
Woodroffe, Caroline and Peter Townsend. 1961.
Nursing homes in England and Wales: a study of
public responsibility.
London: National Corporation
for
the Care
of
Elderly People.
A CRITIQUE
OF
THE RAYNER REVIEW
OF
THE GOVERNMENT
STATISTICAL SERVICE
There is no more reason for the Government to act as universal provider
in
the statistical field than in any other (Rayner
1980,
11).
The aim of the Rayner review of the Government Statistical Service
(GSS)
was
to ensure value for money. Rayner's
own
Report does not, however, include dis-
cussion of the value of government statistics,
it
does not discuss the possibility
of devolution in the provision of services from central government, and neither
(except through pricing of publications) does it discuss the possibility that services
might
be
financed by bodies outside central government.
The aim of this note' is to relate these omissions to the procedures adopted
in the review and in particular the brief given to study officers. It is suggested
that the procedures adopted led Rayner
to
misconceive the functions
of
government
statistics, that this led to the mistaken assertion that government has 'real needs'
for data distinct from those of other organizations, and, as a result, that Raper's
Report failed to give consideration to the kinds of measure which would be most
effective in meeting the review's aims of cutting costs and getting value
for
money
in
government statistics.
Procedures
The brief given to Rayner was vague
-
'to oversee a review
.
.
.'.
But Rayner's
brief to the study officers appointed to investigate the services provided by
individual departments was detailed (Rayner
80,
67-71). One clause specified that
special attention should be given to costs and to value for money. The brief did
not specifically mention users outside government but asked study officers to
address the question 'do customers outside the department pay for the service in
full?'
Study officers were instructed to test their recommendations
with
senior peo-
ple
in
their department and then report
to
the departmental minister; only after
Public Administration Vol. 62 Summer 1984 (224-229)
0
1984 Royal Institute
of
Public Administration
To continue reading
Request your trial