Addiction and disability equality: policy briefing

CLA policy briefing · October 2026

Addiction and disability equality

A targeted amendment to restore individual assessment under the Equality Act 2010.

Civil Liberties Action proposes that the Government review and amend regulation 3 of the Equality Act 2010 (Disability) Regulations 2010 so that addiction to alcohol or another substance is no longer automatically treated as not amounting to an impairment.

The proposal is deliberately narrow. It would not make addiction an automatic disability. Instead, the ordinary Equality Act test would apply to the individual facts: whether the person has a physical or mental impairment with a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities.

Protect the person. Regulate the conduct. Manage the risk.

Why the exclusion should be reviewed

Modern clinical frameworks distinguish dependence from simple substance use. Dependence can involve impaired control, increasing priority given to use, persistence despite harm, tolerance and withdrawal. UK treatment guidance treats dependence as a condition requiring assessment, treatment and recovery planning, including consideration of mental health, functioning and employment.

The legal position is different. Addiction itself is singled out by regulation and prevented from amounting to an impairment, even where its effects could otherwise be serious and long-term. Other conditions caused by addiction can potentially qualify separately.

CLA's comparative research also shows that other legal systems are able to protect people experiencing addiction without abandoning rules on current drug use, workplace safety, capability or conduct. Ireland, Canada, Australia and the United States use different models, but none requires the British approach of categorical exclusion.

Why employment matters

Government clinical guidance says employment support should form part of recovery planning rather than being left until treatment has finished. A 2025 government data-linkage report found that 51% of clients in England's alcohol-and-drug Individual Placement and Support programme entered employment during follow-up of up to 18 months. Outcomes varied substantially between treatment groups, so that figure should not be treated as universal.

The broader point is that treatment, recovery and labour-market participation are not inherently incompatible. A legal framework which encourages employers to distinguish current capability and risk from assumptions about a person's history can support that approach.

What reform would change

  • A person with serious addiction could be assessed under the ordinary section 6 disability test.
  • Where that test is met, the existing Equality Act framework could apply, including reasonable adjustments and protection from discrimination arising from disability where relevant.
  • Employers and courts would consider the individual facts rather than a rule excluding addiction at the threshold.
  • Protection relating to past disability could become relevant to people in stable recovery whose history is used against them.

What reform would not change

  • There would be no automatic disability status for everyone who drinks alcohol or uses drugs.
  • There would be no right to take illegal drugs, possess or supply controlled drugs, or attend work intoxicated.
  • Health and safety duties, safety-critical restrictions, conduct standards, capability processes and proportionate disciplinary action would remain.
  • Employers would not be required to make adjustments which are not reasonable.

A workable route

1. Review. Government reviews the policy justification for the categorical exclusion against current clinical evidence, employment policy and comparative equality law.

2. Amend. Remove or narrow the special exclusion so addiction can be considered under the ordinary statutory definition of disability. Final drafting should be subject to legal and parliamentary scrutiny.

3. Guide. Issue practical guidance making clear that protection of the condition does not prevent proportionate action on safety, capability or conduct.

The evidence behind the proposal

Browse the full CLA evidence base · How we build our evidence

Key primary sources

Policy details remain subject to legal review and further development.