1. Does your local authority currently provide substance misuse and/or addiction recovery services — whether delivered in-house, commissioned from external providers, or a combination of both? If commissioned externally, please identify the provider(s) and the contract reference(s) where possible.

2. Whether services are delivered in-house or by an external provider, does the applicable drug and alcohol testing policy for staff working
in those services include the following safeguards:
a) Engagement
of an independent Medical Review Officer (MRO) or equivalent qualified professional to review positive drug test results before any disciplinary action is taken;
b) Obtaining an independent toxicological opinion when a positive result may be attributable to legal substances (such as over-the-counter CBD products, prescription medication, or dietary sources);
c) Offering confirmatory re-testing or independent analysis following a disputed positive result;
d) Referral to Occupational Health before disciplinary proceedings are initiated on the basis of a drug test result;
e) Maintenance of a written drug and alcohol testing policy that meets the standards recommended by the ACAS guidance on managing drug and alcohol misuse at work?
If commissioned externally, please confirm whether these safeguards are specified in the commissioning contract or service specification, and provide the relevant clauses where possible.

3. Has your authority received any complaints, concerns, or whistleblowing disclosures from service users, staff, or members of the public regarding the drug testing practices of substance misuse service providers (or in-house services) in the last five years? If so, how many and what was the general nature of those complaints?

4. Does your authority's contract monitoring or quality assurance process include any review of drug testing procedures or outcomes — whether delivered in-house or by a commissioned provider?

Additionally, I wish to raise the following in connection with the above request:
Peer-reviewed literature confirms that lawful, everyday substances can produce false positive results on immunoassay-based drug screening devices — the type of point-of-care test routinely used in workplace and service settings across the UK. Documented sources of cross-reactivity include poppy seeds, over-the-counter CBD products, prescribed medications (including codeine, tramadol, gabapentin, and certain antidepressants), tonic water, bananas, passive or environmental exposure to cannabis smoke, and certain antihistamines — among others. In light of this, please also provide:

5. Is your authority (and/or its commissioned substance misuse service
provider) aware of the cross-reactivity risks identified above? Has any assessment been made of the likelihood of false positive results from lawful sources when using immunoassay screening?

6. Does the applicable drug and alcohol testing policy require that all positive screening results are confirmed by a second, independent analytical method — specifically GC-MS or LC-MS/MS — before any disciplinary, safeguarding, or service-access decision is made?

7. If confirmatory testing is not routinely carried out, on what basis are positive screening results treated as definitive?

8. Has your authority (and/or its provider) received any complaints, grievances, or representations from individuals who attributed a positive drug test result to any of the lawful sources listed above?
If so, how many in the last three years, and what was the outcome?

9. What guidance, if any, has been issued to staff involved in drug testing about the possibility of false positives from lawful substances, and the appropriate steps to take before acting on a screening result?