Employers review drug and alcohol testing in response to UK’s Road Safety Strategy

The Government has published its first Road Safety Strategy in over a decade, placing renewed emphasis on work-related driving, including proposals for a National Work-Related Road Safety Charter and the creation of a new Road Safety Investigation Branch. Government data cited in the strategy indicates that around one in three road deaths in the UK involves someone driving or riding for work, underlining the scale of occupational road risk.

At first glance, this might look like a transport or fleet story but it carries a wider message about scrutiny and governance. With work-related driving moving closer to the core of the health and safety agenda, employers are reviewing whether their impairment and testing policies are robust, proportionate, and defensible. Where staff drive for work, operate machinery or perform other safety-critical roles, impairment, whether from alcohol, drugs or medication, becomes part of that risk landscape.

The Road Safety Strategy does not introduce immediate new legal duties for employers. Driving for work is already captured under existing health and safety legislation, but the direction of travel is clear: stronger emphasis on systemic responsibility, prevention and learning from incidents, and the establishment of the Road Safety Investigation Branch to examine patterns and high-risk situations, including those involving work-related journeys.

For employers, it means road risk cannot be treated as a peripheral issue. Where driving forms part of an employee’s role, whether that’s fleet drivers, engineers, sales teams or grey-fleet users, organisations will need to demonstrate that risks are properly assessed, that competence is assured, and that governance arrangements are clear and consistent.

A key part of that wider control framework is how impairment risk is managed. Drug and alcohol testing can form part of an employer’s approach, but it must be justified by a clear safety rationale, underpinned by consent, and handled with appropriate confidentiality and care. Policies need to be proportionate to the level of risk and integrated into broader health and safety systems.

So, let’s get a view on that. Earlier I caught up with health and safety expert Zoe Betts who joined me by video link to discuss it. So, can drug and alcohol testing it be justified, and if so when?

Zoe Betts: “Yes, drug and alcohol testing certainly can be justified. Fundamentally, employers have a duty under section 2 section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to take reasonably practicable steps to safeguard the health and safety of their employees, and also their non employees – so that's people like visitors, contractors and members of the public – and in this context, we are safeguarding people from the risks that may be created by workers who are under the influence of drugs and alcohol for obvious reasons, really. They are more likely to be involved in, or create accidents because they may have poor concentration, they may have impaired judgment or slower reactions. So drug and alcohol testing is definitely justified but there does have to be a clear safety rationale. So that might be where people are in safety critical roles, they might drive for work, they may work at height or operate machinery, because if there isn't a clear business reason for undertaking the drug and alcohol testing, I would also say that that's disproportionately intrusive on the worker’s privacy and their human rights. I would also say that drug and alcohol testing should be part of a broader risk management framework, one which really tries to do two things. On the one hand, support openness and encourage people to admit they may have substance misuse issues but at the same time be very clear about outlining when and why drug and alcohol testing would take place in the workplace and that really is in four categories. It can be pre-employment, following an incident where there is reasonable cause, and it can also be done randomly.”

Joe Glavina: “There are obviously quite a few legal and ethical pitfalls HR need to be aware of. I guess consent must be one of them” 

Zoe Betts: “Yes, it absolutely is. Consent has to be contractual and it has to be explicit. So employees cannot be forced to undergo drug and alcohol testing unless there is something expressed in their contract of employment, and unless they have given their informed consent. I think one of the other pitfalls that HR and health and safety professionals can fall into in this context, is not understanding the quite onerous obligations of GDPR compliance and confidentiality. It's obviously critical that people feel that this sort of testing is being done appropriately, it’s being done to the right standards and that, of course, any sensitive personal data is going to be handled and stored very well. Ultimately, the results of drug and alcohol testing should only be seen by those on a strict authorised basis and a need-to-know basis, and if that isn't the case then I would say that testing without justification, or testing in a way which ultimately leads to a breach of privacy, can really undermine the trust and faith that employees have in their employer and that can really damage morale within an organisation because, ultimately, everybody wants to believe that they are being employed in a fair and transparent way.”

Joe Glavina: “Clearly there is a balance to be struck here, Zoe, so maintaining safety and compliance, but without damaging trust. How does HR do that?”

Zoe Betts: “Yes, I think there's a couple of ways they can do that, and communication is often key. Communication should be as open as possible. People need to understand why testing is being done. Fundamentally it's being done to maintain high safety standards in the workplace and that goes to the heart of an organisation's culture, really, but it's also about encouraging people to accept help and look for support if they've got medical issues or they're battling with addictions. So communication is definitely key to getting this right. I would also say there has to be a real trust from the workers in the reliability and the credibility of results. So if initially screening has taken place and a non-negative result has been returned, that then needs to be corroborated by a laboratory that has been UKAS accredited for the type of testing that has already been carried out. That will really instil faith, I would suggest, in the employees that the testing is being done properly and to the right standard. Then lastly, I think there's a role here for health and safety professionals to really collaborate with their HR colleagues and also management to ensure that any policy which is implemented is fair in the way that it's been drafted, is fair and consistent in the way that it's being applied in the workplace, and that appropriate equipment has been used. So that's almost going to your procurement department to make sure that the right testing equipment is being purchased and then used so that the results are reliable and not likely to be challenged. Then lastly, I would say there's a role for training. So if health and safety professionals are able to train their HR colleagues, and their line managers, as well as all of the employees on the drug and alcohol testing policy and why it's being done, I would hope that that would underpin the positive safety measures behind it, and steer people away from regarding the policy with fear and suspicion.”

If you would like support reviewing your organisation’s road risk arrangements or updating your drug and alcohol testing policies to ensure they are proportionate, lawful, and defensible, please do contact Zoe – her details are on the screen for you.

- Link to government policy paper: Road Safety Strategy 2026