THE routine use of drugs such as Ritalin and anti-depressants to treat pupils with behavioural difficulties or autism is damaging their education, according to an expert.

Child psychiatrist Professor Sami Timimi said research showed the increased medicalisation of pupils could have short-term benefits, but had a significant negative impact in the long-term.

Mr Timimi, director of postgraduate education for the NHS in Lincolnshire and a visiting professor at Lincoln University, also believes labelling children with conditions such as autism and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) can have a negative impact on their life chances.

His comments, which will be discussed at a conference organised by Glasgow City Council and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, comes as figures show the spiralling use of drugs to treat pupils.

Figures show the use of medications such as Ritalin has risen sharply with 105,000 prescriptions in 2013/14, up almost 15,0000 prescriptions in two years at a cost of £6 million.

More than 800,000 prescriptions, mostly for children aged five upwards, are issued annually across the UK, double the number just six years ago.

And the number of children in Scottish schools diagnosed with autism rose risen by 15 per cent to almost 10,000 in 2013 – up from 8,650 the previous year.

Mr Timimi said: "The figures clearly show there is a medicalisation of pupils in terms of diagnosis and the prescribing of too much drugs which we do these days for all sorts of issues that young people present with from unhappiness and self-harm to behavioural problems and conditions such as ADHD.

"We are using increasing amounts of drugs like Ritalin, but we are also back to using anti-depressants and anti-psychotics quite commonly with pupils."

Mr Timimi said in previous eras pupils now being diagnosed with specific conditions would have been described as "boisterous" and it would be thought they should "do a lot of PE" and run off their energy.

"Or it might have been seen as a phase they were going through, which just needed to be tolerated, or it might have been seen as something rooted in the home which required family therapy," he added.

"But now we have moved to a model developed in America where we are assuming that we have the ability to place different behaviours into diagnostic categories that make some sort of logical sense that reflects the biological nature of the child, but we have no evidence that is the case.

"I would not have as much of a problem with that if we had accompanying evidence that children's outcomes have been improving, but in fact the research we have shows us children who don't take medication, but present a similar level of severity in their behaviours, tend to do better in the long-term than children who take medication."

Mr Timimi said the "massive expansion" of those diagnosed with autism since the early 1990s had not led to improved prospects for those involved.

He said: "In fact we have got some evidence that the diagnosis may lead to worse outcomes for a variety of reasons.

"Anecdotally, I believe one of the problems is the self-fulfilling prophecy that comes with labelling. Once you start to see a person in a particular way as perhaps defective or incapable and requiring extra support, over time they and their peer group can start to believe that.

"If there is a problem in a school with a child with a diagnosed condition, when a difficulty arises a teacher may be more likely to think they are incapable of dealing with that situation and refer back to the doctor so the influence of the teacher over the child begins to wane."