Opinion Column Blames 'Pushy Parents' for Rise in Childhood ADHD Claims as DWP Data Shows Record Numbers

The number of children aged 11 to 15 receiving disability payments in England and Wales has reached a record, and a Daily Mail opinion column argues that ‘‘diagnosis-seeking’’ by parents and widening clinical definitions are driving that rise.

Analysis from the Department for Work and Pensions shows 362,520 children in that age group were receiving Disability Living Allowance (DLA), the column by Dr. Max Pemberton said, a figure he described as equivalent to roughly 10% of secondary-school pupils. DLA payments for children range from about £1,520 to £9,770 a year, and the benefit is tax-free and not means-tested, Pemberton wrote.

Pemberton, a psychiatrist writing in a Mail column, attributed part of the increase to more children being diagnosed with conditions such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorders, and to parents seeking financial help once a diagnosis is made. He cited a report from the Policy Exchange think tank, backed by former health secretary Jeremy Hunt, that warned common definitions of mental ill health and neurodivergence had been ‘‘stretched too far,’’ producing what the report called widespread overdiagnosis and ‘‘diagnosis-seeking behaviour.’’ The think tank estimated the trend was contributing to a £16 billion-a-year bill for children’s health benefits, special education and mental health services.

Pemberton and the Policy Exchange report argued that broader diagnostic criteria and incentives in benefit and education systems create pressure on public services and could disadvantage children with the greatest needs. "Once a child has a diagnosis, their parents will try to get the financial help that comes with that label," Pemberton wrote, adding that the medicalisation of everyday problems risks overwhelming services and leaving less-resourced families behind.

Experts and studies cited in the column expressed similar concerns about ‘‘diagnosis creep.’’ Pemberton referenced a landmark study that found autism diagnoses rose 787% between 1998 and 2018, and quoted University College London cognitive development researcher Uta Frith as warning that the diagnosis of autism had been "stretched to breaking point." The column also cited former Royal College of Psychiatrists president Dr. Mike Shooter, who has said autism spectrum disorder ‘‘is vastly and dangerously over-diagnosed.’’

Those viewpoints reflect a longstanding debate among clinicians, educators and policy makers about the boundaries between developmental differences, behavioural problems and clinical disorders. Advocates for broader diagnostic criteria and for expanded support argue that recognition and formal diagnosis can connect children and families with specialised services, educational adjustments and financial assistance that they would otherwise not receive. Critics say that overly broad definitions can dilute resources, increase waiting lists, and stigmatise children whose needs might be better addressed through nonmedical interventions.

DLA is awarded when parents demonstrate that a child needs extra care, has limited mobility, or requires support compared with peers without a health condition or disability. Pemberton questioned whether some of the conditions now being accepted as grounds for benefit have expanded beyond the original intent of the welfare system, and warned of a system "at breaking point" if eligibility criteria are not reviewed.

The column did not include responses from the Department for Work and Pensions, the National Health Service or autism and ADHD advocacy groups. Independent researchers have also urged careful interpretation of diagnostic and benefit statistics, noting that rising identification can reflect improved awareness and access to services as well as changes in diagnostic practice.

Public debate over diagnostic thresholds and the allocation of special educational needs and disability support has intensified amid broader pressures on child mental health services, rising waiting times, and constrained public spending. Policy makers face competing priorities: ensuring that children with clinically significant impairments receive timely support, while guarding against administrative or clinical incentives that might expand eligibility beyond those with demonstrable need.

Pemberton concluded that ‘‘changes must be made’’ to prevent the welfare and education systems from being overwhelmed, arguing that without reform, children from less assertive or less resourced families risk being pushed to the back of the queue. Scholars and professional bodies have called for further research, clearer diagnostic guidance and careful policy design to balance access to care with fiscal sustainability; the DWP figures and the debate sparked by the Mail column are likely to renew calls for cross-government review of assessment criteria and support pathways for children with developmental and mental health needs.