It sometimes feels like the old adage of “two steps forward, one step back” with this government.

This week the PM questioned whether the government is spending too much on benefits, rather than focusing resources on treatment and wider support. His comments highlight the question of how to ensure people with mental health challenges are empowered to live fulfilling lives independent of welfare.

Sir Keir’s comments did not explicitly concern public spending. He did acknowledge that too many young people were struggling with mental health challenges, but that starting adult life on welfare increases the risk of never breaking this cycle.

The PM said: “I think we need to look again at this issue of mental health and ask ourselves a fundamental question, which is, would we not be better putting our money in the resources and support that is needed for mental health than simply saying, it’s to be provided in benefits.”

He swiftly dispelled the incoming barrage of headlines by ensuring people he was not denying that benefits should be available for mental health issues, but that the issue needs to be examined “quite carefully”.

“I am particularly concerned about young people in this regard – there are about a million people young people who are on benefits, not all for mental health issues, but quite a number for mental health issues.

“I think that is wrong, and I don’t just say that because of the spending implications. I say it because if you are on benefits in your 20s, it is going to be extremely difficult to get off benefits for the rest of your life. It is not good, and there’s a million young people in that position”, he said.

Sir Keir described this as a “moral case” for change that he was “perfectly prepared to make”.

So according to the PM, it’s not just about economics. As Sir he put it, there is a “moral case” for change. Young people deserve accessible treatment, employment support, and communities equipped to respond with compassion.

Under the much-maligned Labour government, there have been positive advancements in mental health. They have committed to gorwing the NHS mental health workforce, with 6,700 staff already recruited out of a target of 8,500, alongside plans for 85 new emergency mental health departments. They have also pledged for specialist mental health professionals in every school by 2030.

These plans are obviously welcomed by First People and other charities in the sector, but they don’t solve the problem. Department of Health and Social Care data shows that 1.8 million people are currently on waiting lists for treatment.

As a result of waiting lists, people's issues spiral and ultimately they work together to degenerate mental health. The lack of timely mental health care doesn’t just affect these people, it pushes people closer to poverty, unemployment, and even homelessness.

In response to the PMs comments, Mark Winstanley, Chief Executive of Rethink Mental Illness, said that simply cutting benefits would be “counterproductive” and emphasised the need for better support for people struggling to find employment.

“We agree with the Prime Minister that more money should be invested in helping people access treatment. At the same time, we know secure work protects mental health, but many do not receive the right support into employment, and simply cutting someone's financial lifeline alone will be counterproductive.

“The real task is to build capacity in the health system and expand targeted employment programmes, done sensitively but quickly, to reduce economic inactivity among young people. This requires government working closely with frontline organisations to get it right”, he said.

In many ways this echoes similar sentiments First People and other charities alike have made in other sectors. Developing a preventative approach of course cannot be viewed negatively, but simplifying these issues also isn’t helpful either.

Mental health and homelessness are deeply interconnected. Without safe housing and income, recovery becomes harder. Without recovery, work and independence feel out of reach. That’s why this debate matters so much to charities like First People. Making a choice between benefits and treatment clearly can't be as effective as ensuring both are on the table.

This takes me back to my initial statement comparing the government to the old adage. In many ways, First People are supportive of the rhetoric and many of the actions - namely the Renters Rights Bill - that Labour are trying to implement. But they also had a homelessness minister who resigned after accusations she effectively made her tenants homeless. It seems obvious that the government means well and is trying to address many of the issues First People provides support in, but the messaging needs to be clearer and the actions needed to outweigh the rhetoric.