There are two striking findings from the three-part investigation of methadone treatment programmes for heroin addicts published by the Scottish Executive yesterday. These are not the numbers of people affected - some 21,000 receive a substitute prescription of methadone to help tackle their drug problem, a 10% increase on estimated figures from 2004. Of those, 7000 are living with children under the age of 16. It is illogical and illiberal to call for more comprehensive action to tackle the impact of drugs on individuals, families and communities, and then complain when more people receive treatment and services.

There are two striking findings from the three-part investigation of methadone treatment programmes for heroin addicts published by the Scottish Executive yesterday. These are not the numbers of people affected - some 21,000 receive a substitute prescription of methadone to help tackle their drug problem, a 10% increase on estimated figures from 2004. Of those, 7000 are living with children under the age of 16. It is illogical and illiberal to call for more comprehensive action to tackle the impact of drugs on individuals, families and communities, and then complain when more people receive treatment and services.

But the two interesting findings from the reports are the level of agreement on the use of methadone itself, and the startling lack of monitoring of the treatment's effectiveness. On the first point, because it seems almost irrational to prescribe a dangerous, toxic and addictive legal drug to replace a dangerous, toxic and addictive illegal one, the benefits of methadone are repeatedly undersold by commentators, politicians and GPs. Who are the experts? Arguably, the professionals who work in the field day in, day out. A case can also be made for those trapped in addiction as experts in their own plight.

Both contributed to the executive reports and both value the prescription of methadone. The Scottish Advisory Committee on Drug Misuse - a group of clinicians and academics - was unequivocal. The group unanimously agreed that methadone prescription should remain the main treatment for opiate dependency, with overwhelming evidence for its cost-effectiveness and "little current credible evidence to support other approaches". From the professionals' point of view, the benefits include reducing the risk of blood-borne infection, stabilising chaotic lives and keeping drug-users in touch with other support services, as well as cutting crime and relieving the strain on the criminal justice system. The views of drug-users, as reported by the Scottish Drugs Forum, cover the same ground, summed up by one quote: "It takes the madness out of your lifestyle."

The report has less comfort for advocates of methadone treatment regarding the other main criticism often levelled at it: that prescriptions are a way to "park" a drug problem, with methadone standing in for any coherent attempt to encourage users to detoxify or abstain. In short, does methadone work? Astonishingly, the expert professional group concluded that we don't know. Noting the treatment was relatively young, having developed quickly as a measure to tackle HIV and other infections, it said information on the performance of current services was sparse and services struggled to provide meaningful information on the outcomes of treatment. Accountability was inadequate and effectiveness unknown. "Services are rarely evaluated objectively," it stated.

It is hard to think of another area of the public sector where this would be tolerated nowadays. Minister for Community Safety Fergus Ewing can be congratulated on his refusal to seek cheap headlines by siding either with the abstinence or the harm-reduction lobbies. In this case, the adult approach is to sit on the fence. But he must also act on what the executive describes, with some understatement, as "genuine concerns" over prescribing philosophy and drug-users' progress towards recovery.