On a related matter, we were concerned by allegations from Shelter Cymru of alleged police involvement in illegal evictions during the pandemic, repeated in both their written and oral evidence. We sought further details from Shelter on exactly what information had been shared with the police. After our report was published, I wrote to all four police forces in Wales asking them to respond to these allegations, and it is important to note the police response, which is that an urgent request, as soon as they were made aware of this problem, was made to Shelter Cymru to provide further information, and this was followed up by a further request in October. But Shelter, unfortunately, responded to say they were unable to give any additional details, due to staff shortages, at that point. Some limited additional information was received on 19 October, but that was insufficient to enable investigation of specific cases or allegations. I received that letter on 14 December. I want to raise this because I think we need to stop any hares running here. It's entirely appropriate for Shelter to pick up specific cases of allegations of police involvement in illegal evictions, but they need to do so in a meaningful way. Shelter has yet to provide the police with the dates and addresses of where these alleged illegal evictions occurred, as that is the only information that would allow the police to chase that up in terms of the operational responsibilities. Until or unless Shelter or anyone else has exhausted the pursuit of a complaint against the police or any other organisation, they shouldn't be going public on it. They need to give the organisation complained against the opportunity to respond. 

Turning to another matter, we received compelling evidence on the role of affordable credit providers, whether they are credit unions or Purple Shoots, an interesting not-for-profit microcredit provider, who offer a much safer option than illegal lenders or high-interest credit providers. However, not everyone is aware of these sorts of organisations or what they can provide, and, therefore, resort to or are pressured into much more damaging solutions. There's a role here also for the discretionary assistance fund in its future guise, because that played a very significant part in helping people with discretionary awards during the pandemic. We heard from a range of stakeholders that the Government should consider making the flexibilities that were available in the DAF during the pandemic a permanent feature, and they also want to see the application process streamlined and written in easy-to-understand language, so everybody, hopefully, can access it. I'm very pleased that the Government has accepted that these issues will be considered in its review of the successor to the DAF. 

I want to thank all those who contributed to the inquiry, either by submitting evidence or taking part in one of our online focus groups. I want to highlight the pivotal role of the Bevan Foundation. Its work on debt raised it up the agenda for all of us, and their initial report into the pandemic and debt in Wales certainly helped prompt the committee into undertaking this inquiry as our first one. I also want to thank Rhys Morgan and the rest of the clerking team, the research behind this report led by Gareth Thomas, and the excellent outreach engagement work with the public led by Rhys Jones. I hope that Members will use this opportunity to share with us what they think we can do to really try and manage these very, very difficult problems, and what strategies we are able to pursue in Wales to prevent more people going into debt and, indeed, possibly becoming homeless and destitute. I look forward to hearing Members' contributions.