Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall has claimed that the Labour government is pursuing a “moral agenda” in its approach to welfare reform.

It is a claim that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny — and the refusal to abolish the two-child limit on means-tested benefits proves it.

This deeply unpopular policy, which restricts benefit entitlement to the first two children in a family, has been widely criticised for driving child poverty and disproportionately harming women and ethnic minorities.

If Labour had a moral agenda, scrapping it would have been one of the first orders of business.

Instead, ministers have fallen back on vague talk of “fiscal responsibility” and “tough choices” — hardly the language of morality, and certainly not the language of compassion.

And if Labour won’t act morally when it comes to supporting children in poverty, why should we believe that its other welfare decisions are rooted in ethics either?

That brings us to Kendall’s reported plans to restrict eligibility for Personal Independence Payment (PIP), a vital benefit for disabled people.

With the two-child cap decision as a precedent, it’s hard to argue that such a move would be motivated by moral conviction.

On the contrary, it looks increasingly like a continuation of the cost-cutting mindset that defined the Conservative era — dressed up in more palatable language.

If Labour is unwilling to act according to a moral framework when the opportunity arises, then talk of a “moral agenda” is just that: talk.

The public deserves better than rhetoric that collapses the moment policy is tested against it.