Shunning the near incessant hung parliament speculation, Tuesday’s Today Programme did its best to put crime back on to the election agenda.

All three parties’ home affairs spokesmen were interviewed in succession about their crime policies.

Unsurprisingly for those who have followed the debate, the feature served to reignite the debate between Labour and the Conservatives over violent crime statistics.

The Claims

Take the statements from Labour’s Alan Johnson, compared with his Conservative opposite number Chris Grayling.

Alan Johnson: “If you read the [Conservative] manifesto on crime, it opens by saying that violent crime against the person has risen dramatically under Labour. Not true under the British Crime Survey, not true under recorded crime, not true under the A&E survey that Cardiff do”.

"We came into Government in a period when crime had doubled, violent crime had gone up by 168 per cent.”

Chris Grayling: “It is absolutely clear that recorded violent crime the crime recorded in police stations by individuals going to see the police has gone up even when you take into account all of the changes to the Government's methodology".

The pair made claims about recorded violent crime that are completely opposed, so what are they basing their statements on?

AnalysisThe most recent Home Office annual report on Crime in England and Wales states that in 2008/9recorded violent crime against the person was at its lowest level since 2002/3, as table 2.04 shows.

Yet, an initial look back through this table shows that recorded violent crime is now at a much higher level than 1997.

But as the accompanying notes state: “The National Crime Recording Standard was introduced in April 2002. Figures before and after that date are not directly comparable.”

This is where the statistics become contentious.

The Conservatives point to research undertaken at their request by the House of Commons library which attempted to take into account the changes in the way crime was recorded. The figures seen by the Tories suggest that violent crime had gone up 44 per cent.

Voters are left with a tough choice. Either they trust a party that says the statistics aren’t comparable, which makes it impossible for the electorate to judge their record in full using this measure.

Alternatively they can rely on independent, but unofficial figures produced at the request of the opposition party.

Supporters of Labour’s version of the figures have been quick to point to the head of the UK Statistics Authority, Sir Michael Scholar’s argument that the British Crime Survey (BCS), rather than recorded crime is a “more reliable” means of comparing long term trends in crime.

Responding to the House of Commons library estimate of the figures at the time, Mr Scholar said: “A more balance 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 provides a more reliable measure of the national trend over time.”

The BCS, as all parties accept, does show declining levels of violent crime.

The study of A&E admissions by academics at Cardiff University also backs up Alan Johnson’s claim. In their most recent report, the researchers say that serious violence has come down every year since 2001

Turning to Alan Johnson’s other claim, the Home Secretary contrasted figures showing falling crime under Labour with an assertion that under the Conservatives crime had doubled, and violent crime had risen by 168 per cent.

We contacted the Labour party to establish which figures Mr Johnson’s claims were based on, but have so far received no response.

However, going by the BCS, which as has been established, is considered the best way to compare long term trends neither of the Home Secretary’s assertions do not appear to check out.

The recoding of data for the BCS began in 1981, and between then and 1995, crime did rise very significantly but did not double as the graph on page three shows. Violent crime meanwhile rose from just below the two million mark in 1983 to just over the four million mark in 1995 – more than doubling, but not a 168 per cent rise.

Conclusion

The analysis gives some indication as to why the public are sceptical about claims they hear on crime. The official figures do not back up Chris Grayling’s claim. However, Alan Johnson’s claim also appears exaggerated.

With different measures, time frames, and definitions, an array of competing claims can be made, but it would appear that recent years have seen a fall in violent crime.

However as Alan Johnson acknowledged this morning, this has not been a uniform drop in all violent crime, with some figures remaining stubbornly stable.

By Patrick Casey