RSSeNEWS to be determined...

Correspondence with shadow home secretary Chris Grayling published by the UK Statistics Authority makes it clear that the authority is determined to maintain an independent vigil over the quotation of crime statistics in Parliament.

In a letter dated 8 March, the Authority's chair Sir Michael Scholar says "I am afraid that it will not be possible for the Authority to give advance clearance to your, or anyone else’s, future statements on this subject – or indeed on any other. In assessing whether statistics are being used properly, and not in a misleading way, much depends on the accuracy of the language which is used, the context, and the inferences which are drawn from the statistics."

Grayling has not made his letters or other communication with the Authority public. The Authority's letters were released on the eve of a renewed debate in the House of Commons over crime figures.

In February the shadow home secretary was criticised for making a comparison of crime statistics between 1998 and 2009, despite a major change in 2002 in the way that the police recorded violent crime.

Grayling then asked the House of Commons library to review the police data from before and after the 2002 changes to provide a valid comparison. Subsequently he quoted library figures which he said showed a 44 per cent increase in violent crime between 1998 and 2009. But in a note accompanying the figures the library's statistician had warned that “police recorded crime is not viewed as a reliable indicator of trends”.

In the 8 March letter, Sir Michael Scholar echoed this advice. It said: "On some issues – including violent crime – there are several series of statistics which attempt to measure the same phenomenon using different methodologies, and which can sometimes produce results which appear to point in different directions. In such cases, the selective quotation of one without regard to the other could prove misleading, and a balanced presentation of an inevitably complex case would refer to all available statistics, and the uncertainties and ambiguities which they sometimes reveal …

"… I am glad to learn that you have now sought and been given guidance on these statistics from the House of Commons Library. The adjustment you record them as having suggested to you in relation to the police recorded statistics certainly provides a more accurate comparison than can be made through the unqualified use of published numbers a decade apart, without regard to the definitional changes which have taken place during that time. But a more balanced commentary on national trends in violent crime would, in the view of the Authority, also make reference to the estimates given in the British Crime Survey, which in our view provide a more reliable measure of the national trend over time."

In February the RSS President wrote to party leaders pressing for appropriate and accurate use of official statistics in public debate . The letter said "The Royal Statistical Society shares Sir Michael's continuing disquiet at the improper use of statistics in public debate. The Society is particularly concerned at the continuing low level of public trust in official statistics and believes that their inappropriate or inaccurate use can only further corrode this trust."