Presiding Officer, cavity wall insulation misselling is no laughing matter for the thousands of people who are living with the consequences of inappropriately or badly installed CWI. The cavity wall insulation process is complex and entirely loaded against the consumer. It is routinely sold as 'government backed', a key selling point for unscrupulous installation companies. It is not government backed, and the UK Government needs to act to make this clear. As far back as 2014 the Green Deal Oversight and Registration Body received reports from police forces in Wales, Scotland and Surrey about allegations of fraudulent practices in the CWI market, including larger scale fraud operations and potential cases of money laundering.

The CWI sales person, often having received minimal training, is required to assess a property’s suitability for CWI. Many people have told me about how insubstantial this assessment is. A tick-box exercise is no substitute for an assessment by properly trained professionals. Incidentally, most people do not receive a copy of the assessment document, nor is it a mandatory component of CIGA's complaints process. A further glaring issue is that the assessment appears to ignore the property’s location. Almost all of Wales is located in a category 4 area for wind-driven rain, that is to say, exposed to severe conditions. In such conditions mineral fibre acts as a bridge for moisture to cross through the wall cavity. In 2015 Amber Rudd MP, the then Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, was asked if cavity wall insulation should be used in category 4 areas at all. In response she said:

'My recollection is that mostly it should not'.

So, why does the UK Government allow this situation to continue? They could intervene to end this abuse. For example, why does the UK Government allow energy suppliers to contract so many fly-by-night installation companies? They create a mess, then fold, only to reappear in a different guise with the same directors in place. Why doesn’t the UK Government ensure that energy suppliers and installation companies maintain an accurate register of homes where they have fitted CWI? At the moment, even Ofgem doesn't know the full extent of homes that have been fitted. 

Why doesn't the UK Government insist on a testing regime that is fit for purpose? Even Ofgem recognises that problems can materialise a year or more after installation, so surely that has to be reflected in the testing timeline. Ofgem’s requirement for a one-off inspection a few weeks after installation does not make sense. And, finally, why has the UK Government, in a statement in April 2017, meekly accepted the assurances from CIGA that all 3,663 complaints from affected homes in Wales have been resolved? I can tell the UK Government that they absolutely have not.

Now, let’s turn to CIGA. Many people in my constituency and across Wales have complained to CIGA. It is a tortuous process. In 2015, The Daily Telegraph reported that of CIGA’s 11 directors, seven are also directors of companies who manufacture or install CWI; three are involved in lobbying the UK Government on energy efficiency law. When CIGA loses a case and agrees to a cavity wall clearance, it often gives the contract to companies operated by CIGA directors. So much for independence.

It seems to residents as though CIGA does whatever it can to block claims. Until very recently it was, in some cases, operating two guarantees, one of which places stringent maintenance requirements on property owners, many of whom are older or disabled. It left people in the catch-22 position of invalidating their guarantee if they undertook maintenance or having their claim rejected if they failed to undertake maintenance. In the case of my constituent Mr Morgan it was only when he asked for a copy of his guarantee certificate that he became aware of this maintenance clause—and no wonder, as the original certificate listed seven conditions, whilst the copy contained eight conditions. The additional maintenance condition had been inserted without Mr Morgan’s knowledge or consent.

CIGA’s finances are totally inadequate to meet the scale of remedial work that is required. In 2015, it was reported that CIGA had funds to honour less than 1,000 of its 6 million guarantees. Is it any wonder that CIGA’s claims rejection rate is so high? Many of those affected are on low incomes, so it is understandable that the prospect of undertaking an independent survey, costing up to £500, kills off any thought of making a complaint. Instead, they and their children have no choice other than to live in damp and mouldy conditions and to live with the respiratory and other diseases this brings.