Policy made on the hoof is more likely to translate into strategy that runs into the ground. It is best to know the facts first before shaping policy and framing initiatives, especially, perhaps, when high levels of public investment are earmarked to bring about positive change.

Policy made on the hoof is more likely to translate into strategy that runs into the ground. It is best to know the facts first before shaping policy and framing initiatives, especially, perhaps, when high levels of public investment are earmarked to bring about positive change. There is evidence in the latest figures on life expectancy, published by the Scottish Government yesterday, to suggest that investing in a range of publicly-funded strategies, covering everything from lifestyle and education to housing and welfare to work, is reaping dividends. Life expectancy at birth for females is at present 79.9 and 74.8 years for males; in each case, more than two years longer than being born a decade ago.

The impact of properly resourced, effectively targeted investment in strategies to improve health and lifestyle is clear from the figures for Shetland. These show that girls and boys born today in Scotland's most northerly isles can expect to live two or thre years longer than the national averages. It is no coincidence that Shetland has used the proceeds of the deal negotiated with the oil companies for refining some 30 years ago to deliver high levels of health care and keep deprivation at a low level.

For every group above the average figure, there is one below and the new figures show Glasgow toiling with the lowest life expectancy estimates for men and women (although both have improved). There is a wealth of evidence to point to the link between poverty (which has its highest levels in the city) and illness, mental and physical. While progress has been made in tackling poverty and deprivation in Glasgow, the figures confirm there is room for improvement. It requires up-to-date information to hit the target of efficacious intervention, not only to guarantee that every penny of the taxpayers' money is being spent wisely but also to help disadvantaged communities better themselves so that their members can lead healthier, more productive and longer lives.

The figures, produced annually, are not broken down below the level of health boards and local authorities. The result is that we seem to have to fall back on figures, which have been around for some time and were again used in the recent World Health Organisation report on health inequalities for an impression of how poverty and deprivation affect life expectancy.

Several factors can skew the appalling figures for areas such as Calton in the east end of Glasgow but are things still so bad in the worst areas and is the analytical approach sophisticated enough to put the headline figures in an appropriate context? It would be helpful if the annual government figures drilled down into the information to provide an area by area publishable snapshot to replace historic information. That would help reveal which strategies were working, and should be replicated elsewhere, and which were not and should be dropped. Communities with the worst life expectancy figures need help but can also help themselves. We need to know why and how their life expectancy estimates are changing. We need the figures to supply that level of detail.