Are ADHD benefit claims and work exemptions becoming too widespread?

[JoyousOpalLemur]

This was the top story on LBC this morning.

The number of people who get benefits for ADHD so they don't have to work has gone up by a staggering 40% in just the last two years.

The taxpayer now funds more than 100,000 people to not work because their ADHD makes work too difficult for them.

About 40% of them receive the top rate of daily living and motability allowance - £194 a week - and that's on top of several other benefits. Those who receive this do not have to look for work. This is now costing the taxpayer billions of pounds per year. Most of the beneficiaries are young people.

This is absolutely bonkers!

I know someone very well who receives these PIP payments for ADHD so she doesn't have to work. She's got a lovely flat in London that most people her age couldn't afford.

Her main argument is that her ADHD means she can't work, because it's "literally impossible" for her to follow time and transport rules - which means she never turns up on time at appointments, and often will call about two hours later saying she thought the appointment was a different time, and she's got lost finding it and is nowhere near.

That is true - she does do that a lot. However, she also goes on holiday several times a year. And I've never known her to once fail to make the holiday. Her track record of getting to the airport at the right time appears to be 100%!

This isn't party political - the Tories started this, Labour have made it much worse and Reform will almost certainly mess up trying to sort it out. And I'm not saying ADHD isn't real.

But this is clearly nuts, terrible for an economy and totally unsustainable.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/adhd-pip-claims-no-work-requirement-100000-9qlcpsqws

I agree

e just about the money that is possibly being paid out when it shouldn’t be it’s that there are many people who have slipped into a rut of living on benefits and many people who simply don’t want to work full time and there isn’t a huge difference in working part time with top up benefits and working full time

that needs to change, the application process needs to change and the assessments for ADHD need to be more thorough it is shockingly poor but all that costs money …. government’s of the past 30 years in particular go for quick fixes rather than looking at the long term issues

But the level it impacts you is on a sliding scale right?

Over 17% of people who get pip are of state pension age or above.

(this is because if you get pip before pension age it can carry on. If you become disabled over state pension age it’s Attendance Allowance).

in general the government doesn’t try to make people over state pension age work but maybe you disagree?

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/personal-independence-payment-statistics-to-april-2026/personal-independence-payment-official-statistics-to-april-2026

I know several people with ADHD who claim PIP, and they were claiming long before they were diagnosed. Most have other health issues that they claim PIP for. You also do not need a diagnosis to claim, just evidence of your struggles (which you will have long before you get assessed).
But you have to list all of your diagnoses when you apply for PIP (and alphabetically would put ADHD at the top anyway). There have also been articles in the press about people getting PIP for acne too.

Also, I have noted the poster on here who has a near identical name to me (with no posting history funnily enough). The regulars will now my views on things like this (which is the opposite to my new fan), so be aware when replying.

I was confused for a few seconds until I realised! Very odd.

There are taxpayers on PIP themselves. An inconvenient truth. PIP is not a means-tested benefit and until now has never been linked to earnings, although the forthcoming Timms Review (with its embedded foregone conclusions based on an ideological agenda to slash benefits) aims to change that. Heaven help those of us who will go under without it.

But your argument ultimately reveals that what the sainted taxpayer is doing is piling onto the disabled and treating them like the 'undeserving poor', as per the agenda of governments, media and financial institutions. You're doing this because it feels preferable to standing up for your own rights in the face of managed decline. So that's a political choice you're making, and good for you, because you'll feel strangely empowered for a while when it comes to pass. Which it will, because you're all pushing that pendulum. But mark my words. When the long term sick and disabled have been scapegoated, the same governments, media and financial institutions will be coming for you, because when you had the health and relative security to stand up for your own rights, you decided to blame society's ills on many of its weakest members instead of addressing the real problem.

Actually, on second thoughts, don't take my word for it. Educate yourself, otherwise one day it will be too late for you, not to mention your kids. Every time an economic scapegoat is slaughtered, the need for another arises.

Edited for spelling.

Over 17% what is that 78% or 18%

No I don’t but I do think too many people are claiming benefits and that the benefit system needs

that we have so many young people signed off work is shocking, its not good for them it’s not good for productivity irs not good for society it’s not good for people to be living off benefits unless they need to but many get stuck in this lifestyle

I don’t agree that everyone wants to work or woudl rather work there are a number of people that do not want to work and there are a number of people that need more support to work and that might only be part time

Interesting Xeno
thanks for the heads up I did notice the ‘es’ added to your name and wondered.

makes sense now 🙏

No idea what all that’s got to do with this thread

People don’t want to work !
PIP is not an out of work benefit

The conversation moved on to how many claimants and how many people are living off benefits

i am aware PIP is a separate benefit

As a percentage of GDP, welfare spending is actually lower than it was 15 years ago under austerity, HRTQueen, and is also almost identical to what we were spending under Thatcher. Yes, spending on some benefits has gone up but since spending on others has gone down it equals out. It's been about 10% of GDP for decades, with small fluctuations in some years but no massive changes. ONS data shows this clearly. There is no "spiralling" going on despite what dishonest politicians might have you believe. Here's Jonathan Portes explaining this if you don't believe me (he's a professor of Economics and Public Policy at the School of Politics & Economics of King's College, London).

The number of people not working is also relatively low. The highest uk labour force participation rate ever recorded was 79% just before the pandemic for example. It's now estimated by the ONS to be around 75%. The lowest figure we have on record as far as I'm aware was around 60% in the 1930s and even in the early 1900s, during the booming second phase of the industrial revolution, the figure was about 65% to 70%. We do not have more people not working than the generations before us did.

Only because the goal posts have been moved tbf

16hours a week and you are classed as working and can get in work benefits and don’t have to look for work
It’s not quite the full time of yester year is it
It’s how Govns fiddle the stats

This isn't true as per the graph below. The average number of hours worked across all part time and full time workers is around 32 hours a week. And given the average number of hours worked by full time uk workers is 36.5 per week this means most working people are working full time or pretty close to full time (over the equivalent of 4 full days a week). Relatively small numbers are working very part time hours (and there will always have been people working like this. My own granny back in the 50s had a very part time job because she had 2 young children and multiple elderly relatives to look after). The economy has always employed people both full and part time but mostly full time. Nothing has changed with this.

www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/timeseries/ybuv/lms

Also, from what I understand, you need to be eligible for quite a high level disability benefits to be allowed not to look for a full time job. Unless you can earn around £1000 a month on 16 hours a week in which case you may be allowed to work less. Most people can't do this though and would be expected to keep looking for more hours.

.In the UK, 25.65 million people work full-time compared to 8.76 million who work part-time. Full-time employment makes up roughly 75% of the total workforce, while part-time roles account for the remaining 25%.

Prior to 2006 kids age 16 could leave full time education and once Theyd left school without jobs formed part of those stats on unemployment
16-18 year old must now be studying and that change has reduced the workforce stats

Lets also not forget the increase in pension age which started pushing up in 2010 adding more to the work force.

Small changes can make a big difference

Heres another
What is full time and has that changed.

Then (1970)
Average Hours: The average full-time working week across the UK was approximately 40 hours, a steady drop from 46 hours immediately following WWII. 1]

Statistical Grouping: Government statistical tracking (such as the early Civil Service statistics) treated full-time roles strictly on established structural classifications rather than self-reporting. 1]

Now (2026)
No Statutory Definition: There is no legal definition of a full-time working week in UK employment law. Most standard full-time contracts range between 35 and 40 hours. 1, 2]

Household Surveys: The Office for National Statistics (ONS) determines full-time status in household polls like the Labour Force Survey based purely on the respondent's own classification of their work. 1]

Business Surveys: In ONS employer surveys like the Quarterly Business Survey, full-time employment is officially defined as working more than 30 hours per week. 1]

So once we change
-the definition
-the way people are assessed ie actual assessment compared to now which is self assessment and we change
-the ages of people counted as working age
using past and present stats needs to be treated with caution.

Governments like Labour in 2006 claimed a marked drop in unemployment as a success story but it was after they’d removed all 16/18 year olds. So not an accurate measure at all

The only way to accurately compare today to pre 2006 ,for example, is to do so like for like and we simply don’t have the ability to do that

I’m completely blown away by the post war full working week being 46hours
but my mum ( born in 1932 ) only got one day off a month after she started working in 1946 so I suppose she must have worked more
Dawn to dusk as she used to say

How times have changed

.In the UK, 25.65 million people work full-time compared to 8.76 million who work part-time. Full-time employment makes up roughly 75% of the total workforce, while part-time roles account for the remaining 25%.

Maybe, but most of these part time workers are working almost full time hours (almost 4.5 days a week or thereabouts) according to the government data which is going to be one of the most reliable sources available. Most people have no motivation to lie to or mislead the people who do this kind of statistical work. It can't be used against them in any way - it's collected confidentially and then anonymised - it cannot be collated into any sort of individually identifiable public record. They will have contracts stipulating the hours they must work for the most part and most will actually work these hours. The average person works 4.5 days a week and the average full time work week is slightly less than 37 hours. Unless you have strong data that suggests a very different story I can't see a good reason to dismiss these figures.

Prior to 2006 kids age 16 could leave full time education and once Theyd left school without jobs formed part of those stats on unemployment
16-18 year old must now be studying and that change has reduced the workforce stats

No - the labour force participation rate counts everyone of working age (16 to 64 at the moment) and asks whether they are working or looking for work (and therefore part of the labour force) or not working or looking for work for any reason at all (and therefore not). A 16 year old who'd left school prior to 2006 and hadn't found a job WOULD have been counted as part of the labour force if they were actively looking for work. A 16 year old still in school without a part time job in 2026 would be considered as a person of working age not working or available for work so would now be part of the 25% of people who are not part of the labour force. So this phenomenon is working in the opposite way to how I think you've understood it as it has taken a big chunk of the population who used to be counted as part of the workforce whether employed or unemployed (and indeed most of them would actually find work quickly and be working) and shifted them into the group of working age people not in work.

Lets also not forget the increase in pension age which started pushing up in 2010 adding more to the work force.

This adds more people to the work force in absolute terms but the labour force stats are based on percentages. More and more people not making it to retirement age due to poor health might actually reduce the overall percentage of labour force participation but the effects are complex and I haven't looked at what the data says on this.

Small changes can make a big difference
Heres another
What is full time and has that changed.
Then (1970)
Average Hours: The average full-time working week across the UK was approximately 40 hours, a steady drop from 46 hours immediately following WWII. 1]

Yes, the average full time working week might have been longer for those working but there were higher numbers of people who did not work at all. In some demographics, women were expected to give up paid work completely after marriage and at some times and in some demographics women who did work might have been more likely to work part time. There were not enough jobs for everyone if they didn't. And many doing those long hours were only able to do them because there was someone at home not working at all and so able to do everything else, like getting groceries every single day since there were no fridges etc, washing all clothes by hand or with a mangle at one point, going to the bank in person because you couldn't bank online. Working men typically had far fewer responsibilities at home re childcare and housework, hence the ability of some of the population to work longer hours while many consequently were forced to work less.

Statistical Grouping: Government statistical tracking (such as the early Civil Service statistics) treated full-time roles strictly on established structural classifications rather than self-reporting. 1]
Now (2026)

So what? I presume that doesn't work any more or else they'd still be doing it. And the alternative has been deemed to be sufficiently reliable.

No Statutory Definition: There is no legal definition of a full-time working week in UK employment law. Most standard full-time contracts range between 35 and 40 hours. 1, 2]

So what? We have government data which tells us how long most people are working and presumably this can be checked in other ways.

Household Surveys: The Office for National Statistics (ONS) determines full-time status in household polls like the Labour Force Survey based purely on the respondent's own classification of their work. 1]

Again, people have no reason to lie or mislead on this. It's confidential and anonymised and can't be used against them. Most people are contracted to work a certain number of hours a week and most work these hours. If they worked less they would lose their jobs and if they worked more they wouldn't get paid for it in many cases.

Business Surveys: In ONS employer surveys like the Quarterly Business Survey, full-time employment is officially defined as working more than 30 hours per week. 1]

But we know from government data that the average full time worker works just under 37 hours a week and the average part time worker just under 32 hours a week.

So once we change
-the definition
-the way people are assessed ie actual assessment compared to now which is self assessment and we change
-the ages of people counted as working age
using past and present stats needs to be treated with caution.
Governments like Labour in 2006 claimed a marked drop in unemployment as a success story but it was after they’d removed all 16/18 year olds. So not an accurate measure at all
The only way to accurately compare today to pre 2006 ,for example, is to do so like for like and we simply don’t have the ability to do that

Yes, of course we need to treat all government statistics with caution but what's interesting here is that the stats are contradicting the governments' own message, which doesn't appear to be backed up with any other source of reliable data.

All the hysteria about spiralling working age benefit spending seems to be based on monetary figures for example which hides the fact that we've had and will continue to have massive population growth and inflation. So of course we'll be spending more in monetary terms on these benefits even if the stats show that the percentage of GDP spent on welfare has remained unchanged for decades.

Sorry - I should have said the average WORKING person (from stats looking at part time and full time workers). Around 20% of the working age population is not working or looking for work as stated before and this is not high by historical standards.

But it’s not ok! It’s his LIFE not just his inability to have a job. No one would want this for their child. The more you are enabled to hide in your bedroom the harder it is to cope with normal life.

Not sure if this has been said as not read through the whole thread but I think some of it stems from changes in education as well. Years ago a lot of people with ADHD would have floated through school, doing vocational subjects until they could leave and get a manual trade. Schools now offer very few vocation subjects meaning a vast number of young people can’t cope in school. Then you need Maths and English to get an apprenticeship or stay at college, so many young people are so done by this stage that it’s just not possible for them to achieve. They therefore drop out and become unemployed.
If their education had been more suitable then they would have been far more employable and less likely to be looking at what benefits they may be eligible for.

I am stuck in my own house. Close to housebound (ie I go out first medical appointments and the very odd outing).

Yes beimg housebound is shit. No it’s not the life you want.
But you know what? Drum roll…. Some conditions never get better. Some conditions don’t have treatments. Some conditions are lifelong.

According to research, I have (one of) the illness with the worst quality of life. I’m not hiding in my house/bedroom. I am ill and disabled.

People don’t stay in the R bedroom because it’s fun. Or because they kack the will to go out.
They do because their health doesn’t allow them to do anything else. No amount of pushing, encouraging will change that.

And yes I agree, it’s NOT OK. And the answer here is healthcare. Access to proper specialist, research to treat agd support people better. And in the case of depression, anxiety etc… the last thing you want is to reduce income and add poverty, stress around ‘where will I find the money to eat/heat the house etc…?’ On the top of tge existing condition. Because it will just make it worse. It won’t make people go to work.

I have nothing against benefits or people who receive them. You never know that’s around the corner and I’m grateful to be living in a society in which these safety nets exist.
But there are limits, and the rise in recipients is challenging alone, even without ludicrous demands for extra funding for takeaways or item replacements and I’m sure most people would have similar views.

The money we spend on disability benefit hasn’t changed in % of the GPD in the last 15 years.

Also if there is an increase in the number of people receiving PIP, maybe we need to ask why?
Like what is the impact of a failing healthcare system/NHS?
Why do we have a clear increase since Covid? What’s the impact of LC amongst others?
What’s the impact of the increase in poverty and food uncertainty (see the staggering increase in the number of food banks)?

Youre listening to news reports with no critical thinking.
A simplistic view that says more people claiming PIP = more lazy people/scroungers.
Never mind PIP isn’t an out of work benefit. Never mind the root cause because being ill or disabled= not trying hard enough. Always.
Have you ever wondered why those ideas are prevalent? It’s an interesting subject….

I know someone with ADHD who is a data scientist working in industry.

My own DC says they find work actually improves their mental health a lot.

I have ADHD and work full time in an industry that suits my unconventional thinking style and productivity spikes. I'm very lucky. I could not cope in a job that required me to work in a more consistent and standard way. I think most people have no idea what it is like to live with ADHD. I do not claim benefits and I consider myself very fortunate not to need them. I'm not going to crap on people that are less fortunate.