Life on benefits under Labour will not be an option, says Liz Kendall

Liz Kendall, centre, meets students at the Euston Skills Centre in north London after delivering a speech during an event hosted by thinktank Demos. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA

Under a Labour government there would be “no option of a life on benefits”, the party has said, as it set out plans to reduce the number of young people not in work, education or training.

The shadow work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, said the party would recruit 8,500 more mental health workers and promised that the sickness benefits bill would fall under Labour.

But Kendall did not specify what form the tougher measures on universal credit would take.

“Under our changed Labour party, if you can work there will be no option of a life on benefits,” she said in a speech to the centre-left Demos thinktank in London, where she sought to outline Labour’s commitment to “investing” in young people.

“Not just because the British people believe rights should go hand in hand with responsibilities. But because being unemployed or lacking basic qualifications when you’re young can harm your job prospects and wages for the rest of your life.”

The tough language on welfare – reminiscent of 90s-era New Labour – prompted concern about the implications of sanctions for those struggling with mental health issues.

Kendall also spoke of overhauling jobcentres to end a “tick-box culture” and devolving employment support to local areas “because the man – or even woman – in Whitehall can never know what’s best for Leicester, Liverpool and Leeds”.

She also took aim at what she described as “Tory claims about being tough on benefits”, and said that over the next five years there would be 600,000 more people on incapacity and disability benefits costing an extra £33bn.

Kendall made the speech as new figures revealed that almost 851,000 young people aged 16-24 were not in education, employment or training (Neet) – an increase of 20,000 in a year. It was largely driven by the increase in young men who are Neet.

Kendall was challenged in a question and answer session by Ollie Steadman, policy and campaigns manager at the charity Mind, who prefaced his comments by welcoming her emphasis on the need for “quality” work.

But, he added: “Many of the same people might feel a bit concerned about the talk around responsibility, and potentially for it to lead to sanctions and a kind of wider system or harsher system that doesn’t get mental health.”

Steadman said afterwards: “Supporting disabled people to find long-term, fulfilling work can only be achieved by taking a supportive approach. Punitive action does not work and only pushes disabled people further into poverty.

“Whoever forms the next UK government should restore trust in the benefits system by establishing a commission led by disabled people to redesign benefits assessments.”

Kendall responded to his question by saying that there was clear evidence that having a good job was very good for mental health, adding: “We know that if you’re in good work, your relapses can be cut by a third or even half. That’s better for you. It’s better for the NHS, it’s better for taxpayers.”

Other concerns were expressed by Dr Michael Orton of the Institute for Employment Research at the University of Warwick, who welcomed much of what Kendall had outlined, in particular around devolving employment support.

“But there are questions as to how this differs from programmes going back to the 1980s and which the evidence shows have marginal impact at best,” he said.

“Some critical issues weren’t mentioned including fluctuating health conditions, which standard jobs can’t accommodate, and the need to update our social security system to meet new challenges not repeat punitive approaches which do more harm than good.”