Policy engagement · Published 7 October 2026
When someone develops serious substance dependence, should the law be able to consider how that condition affects their life before deciding whether disability protection applies? In Great Britain, the law generally rules out that consideration for addiction itself. We believe that deserves a fresh examination.
On 2 August 2026, the founder of Civil Liberties Action sent a policy briefing to the Cabinet Office proposing a review of the exclusion of addiction from the Equality Act disability framework. The briefing asked for a targeted consultation and consideration of the legal and practical options for reform. It was submitted personally by CLA’s founder; we are now bringing that work into the organisation’s public record.
The change we are proposing
Regulation 3 of the Equality Act 2010 (Disability) Regulations 2010 says that addiction to alcohol, nicotine or another substance is not treated as an impairment for disability purposes, except where it originally resulted from medically prescribed drugs or other medical treatment. A separately qualifying condition arising from addiction may still receive protection.
Our proposal is not to declare every addiction a disability. It is to remove that special exclusion so that clinically significant dependence could be considered against the ordinary test: whether a physical or mental impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities.
That distinction is fundamental. It is a proposal for individual assessment, not automatic entitlement.
What the Government said
On 15 September, the Office for Equality and Opportunity replied. It confirmed that the briefing had been passed to the relevant policy team for consideration, but said that the Government had no current plans to change the arrangements.
The response explained the exclusion by describing addiction as “self-induced” and contrasting it with medical and neurological conditions. It also emphasised that some associated physical or mental impairments can qualify separately, and that dependence arising from prescribed medication or other medical treatment may fall within the statutory exception.
These are important parts of the Government’s position, and readers should be able to see them in their original context. We have published the response in full, with a personal email address redacted.
Why we wrote again
On 1 October, the founder sent a detailed follow-up. It did not ask the Government to promise an amendment before the evidence had been examined. It asked how the particular proposal had been assessed, and what would be needed to assess it properly.
One question concerns the explanation that addiction is self-induced. The Health and Safety Executive’s guidance to employers describes drug and alcohol dependence as recognised medical problems. That statement does not decide where Parliament should draw the boundaries of disability law. But it does make the distinction used in the Government’s response worth examining carefully.
The follow-up also asks whether officials have evaluated the suggested safeguards for employers and public services, what assessment has been made of possible effects on disclosure and access to treatment at work, and whether the requested consultation has been considered separately from any decision to legislate.
We have published the full follow-up letter, with personal contact details redacted, so that these questions can be judged on their merits.
Protection does not mean permission to work unsafely
A serious question raised by reform is how employers should respond to conduct and safety risks. Our proposal does not remove existing workplace safety duties, provide a right to work while intoxicated, or excuse unlawful behaviour. It would allow the condition to be considered under disability law where the ordinary threshold is met, while preserving the ability to manage actual risks and apply the relevant legal tests to conduct and capability.
We have set out this distinction in a separate evidence note on disability protection and workplace safety.
What happens next
We have asked for a substantive answer from the policy team, including clarification of the evidence it would need and whether any formal assessment or consultation is planned. The Government has not, in the correspondence published here, committed to a consultation or a change in legislation.
As further responses arrive, we intend to publish them, including where they challenge our position. The aim is to make this a record of the argument and the evidence, not simply a record of our side of it.
Meanwhile, CLA is building the wider evidence base. Our existing papers examine addiction and neurodivergence and how other countries approach addiction under equality law. The work also forms part of our wider addiction and disability protection campaign.
Document note: Both public source records reproduce the original correspondence as page images, with private contact details and one non-substantive internal filename removed. This correspondence was originally conducted by CLA’s founder in a personal capacity; it is now published as part of CLA’s developing programme of work.