I don't need to reel off a long list of policies that have had a devastating, cumulative impact on the poorest people here in Wales. These policies are well documented, and as the recent proposed changes to universal credit illustrated, these impacts are quietly now being accepted, even by many Tories. It's been amusing on one level to see ex-Tories like Anna Soubry realise the scale of what has happened in their name, as illustrated on tv's The Last Leg recently.

It's the attitudes within the civil service that I really want to highlight today, because I don't believe we can really create a human social security system worthy of the name unless we change the way in which staff interact with people in need on a day-to-day basis. The long list of sanctions given to people experiencing tragic circumstances—for example, the man who was sanctioned for a missed appointment due to being at hospital with his partner who had just had a stillborn child—is illustrative of this. This system is callous. Now, reviews into sanctions have denied that there has been an official policy of penalising bereavement, and have highlighted regional inconsistencies in that policy. I've no doubt, though, that the DWP would have used those reports to identify regions not sanctioning people enough, and probably asked questions as to why. But the rest of us reading those reports would acknowledge that something much more complex is going on.

Official policy has been draconian and designed to punish the poor and, of course, has nothing to do with work incentives, as the DWP's own impact assessment on universal credit has shown. But more widely, these policies haven't been introduced in a vacuum—they've been part of a suite of policies that started when Lord Freud spent an entire three weeks reviewing welfare policy in detail for Tony Blair. Yes, that's sarcasm—what was really happening was it was an effort on the part of the Blairites to appease the Daily Mail. We know that appeasement doesn't work, so rather than change the way in which the tabloid media covers those issues around social security, the tabloids instead became more and more hysterical and inaccurate, when the real issues at the time were bureaucracy, inflexibility and the inability to support casual labour. That in turn created the culture whereby our entire political system was afraid of opposing many welfare cuts and the coalition, and it seemed seriously to think that the 2008 financial crash was caused by disabled people claiming too many benefits. That is a climate that can turn nasty very quickly and permeate throughout Government, as we've seen by the day-to-day interaction of DWP staff in sanctioning.

Which brings me to my final point here—the attitudes remain evident, even in the Welsh Government's report. Now, I know the Minister didn't personally write this report, but I'll give an example as follows. On page 2, the report refers to the removal of the spare-room subsidy. Now, that's a loaded political term—it's the term the Tories tried to use to counter the labelling of the policy of the bedroom tax. The real name for the policy, as shown in official documents at the time, is the 'underoccupancy charge'. But by using the Tory term here, the Welsh Government officials have shown just how internalised the narrative of welfare cuts has become.

All of this shows that the language we use to describe things matters and is rarely apolitical, and deference to Whitehall's terminology and mentality remains. That is one reason why we need devolution of welfare so that we can start to change attitudes and so that we can find some compassion.