The next item is the Member debate under Standing Order 11.21(iv) and I call on Mick Antoniw to move the motion.

Motion NDM6521 Mike Hedges, David Melding, Simon Thomas, Dawn Bowden

Supported by Mick Antoniw, Russell George, Siân Gwellian

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Recognises that cavity-wall insulation when correctly installed in suitable properties can be a cost-effective way of reducing fuel bills, thereby contributing to reductions in fuel poverty and carbon emissions.

2. Believes that there remains, however, a significant minority of installations in unsuitable properties that are not complying with standards of good workmanship, and for which seeking redress is often difficult and compensation often inadequate or not possible to obtain.

3. Urges the Welsh Government to work with the UK Government, the Cavity Insulation Guarantee Agency (CIGA) and others to provide proper redress and compensation for incorrect installation, and to strengthen consumer protection going forward.

Motion moved.

Presiding Officer, as we approach the festive season, it is perhaps appropriate that we have a debate on an issue that, for those affected, could be fairly described as a pantomime, albeit one with a dark and sinister plot. The cavity wall insulation pantomime has few heroes, but many villains.

First, there are the energy companies. Interested only in meeting UK Government targets, they have little regard for the quality of work carried out or, by extension, whether the intended environmental benefits are being realised. Then there are the rogue installation companies, who target the poorest with aggressive cold-calling techniques, using poorly trained staff who are paid on a commission only basis. Next, we have the Cavity Insulation Guarantee Agency, the so-called ‘independent’ complaints body set up by the industry and populated by the industry and, one might say, for the industry. And, finally, the UK Government who, by setting energy companies targets for fitting cavity wall insulation without first putting a robust oversight framework in place, has encouraged a laissez-faire culture that is characterised by a lack of accountability.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Ann Jones) took the Chair.

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.

There is also no evidence that the alternative disputes resolution process, operated by the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution, is any more effective. My constituent Mr Gray, who is in the public gallery today, is a rare case of CEDR granting a victory. CEDR instructed CIGA to remove the insulation at Mr Gray’s home, which they did, but, in the process, the extraction work caused extensive damage to the external render. Mr Gray’s surveyor’s report recommended a full re-rendering of the property. CIGA refused to act. Mr Gray went back to CEDR, who said there was nothing they could do, and that my constituent’s only option was to take CIGA or the installer to the High Court, which as you will know, is highly expensive. It is often those with the least means that find the process so daunting, and many simply don’t bother complaining. In my opinion, CIGA is simply not fit for purpose. So, where does all this leave the consumer? As the Green Deal Oversight and Registration Body states on its website, 'There is no clear consumer redress path because of complex contracting arrangements'. 

Presiding Officer, I recognise that the motivations behind the various cavity wall insulation schemes are worth while: to provide people, including those in Wales who are in fuel poverty, with a warm home and lower fuel costs and to help the UK to meet its obligations in respect of carbon emissions reduction, but that cannot be the extent of the UK Government’s liability and responsibility. The UK Government, which plans a further 1 million installations, has an obligation to sort this problem out. It is UK Government policy that has inflated this market to its current enormous scale and size—by some measures, worth £800 million. It is the UK Government that failed to apply regulations to protect people from misselling, and it was the UK Government that failed to introduce a transparent, robust process that puts things right and compensates people appropriately.

I acknowledge the action that the Welsh Government has already taken. Ensuring that proposed installations are independently undertaken by properly qualified people will help prevent future misselling. Providing householders with guidance on maintenance will also help. I would, however, ask if there is more we can do within our existing powers. For example, a second assessment at, say, 24 months after installation would provide robust evidence to present to CIGA and remove the burden of cost on the consumer. Fundamentally, it is the energy suppliers who need to be engaged in the process and to take responsibility for the subcontracted work they have directed. They decide which measures they fund and which installer they work with, so they should not be allowed to simply stand back from the problem they have helped create. It may be that the devolution of further energy policy in 2018 will present opportunities to do this, and I would ask the Cabinet Secretary to consider what new options might actually be available to you.

I opened by profiling the villains in this growing scandal, but there are, thankfully, some heroes. Each and every resident who bravely takes a stand against the industry misselling is worthy of recognition. I would like to make a special mention of Pauline Saunders and CIVALLI, the volunteer organisation that is standing up for victims of cavity wall misselling. Pauline and a number of victims of misselling are in the gallery today, and I pay tribute to you all for the work that you do as volunteers.

But, as I said at the beginning of my speech, the process is loaded against the individual. We must be unequivocally on the side of families whose lives have been blighted by this scandal. As a first step, the Welsh Government must establish the precise situation in Wales and publish an action plan. It must recognise that the Welsh Government’s actions to date will not benefit those who have already been missold, so it must include a demand that the UK Government undertakes a full review of the industry, including the regulation of sales, the role of CIGA, the need for a fair redress and compensation process, the role of Ofgem and the responsibilities of the energy companies. It appears to many that there may be a massive industry cover-up, either deliberately

or by complacency. By supporting this motion, we recognise that cavity wall insulation misselling is a growing scandal, and we urge the Welsh Government to do all it can to help achieve justice for victims of misselling and justice for those who will discover themselves to be victims in the coming years. Thank you. 

We debate a very important subject this afternoon, and I was pleased to have the opportunity to co-table this motion, and I commend Mick Antoniw for his initiative in raising this issue. I do want to say that cavity wall insulation does remain an important tool in fighting fuel poverty, but of course it has to be done where appropriate, and it has to be done effectively.

I would like just to say a few words about the latest estimates on fuel poverty from the Welsh Government, that 291,000 households, 23 per cent, are living in fuel poverty. There is some encouragement that these stats are an improvement on 2010 data, but obviously it remains a huge challenge for us. We may be better off in comparison, say, to Scotland, where they have even higher rates of fuel poverty, but there's a huge job of work to be done, and cavity wall insulation is part of the suite of measures that we do need to have. I think it is also important to put this into the wider perspective of other measures that are taken by both the Welsh Government and the UK Government to improve access to efficient fuel and heating systems.

I think, when you come to the actual facts of cavity wall insulation, we need to remember that it's been calculated that, where it is appropriate, it can save up to £150 a year in heating bills, just from the insulation effects. That's obviously the driver for using it where it is effective. Additionally, external walls account for 35 per cent of domestic heat loss, and studies have suggested that, for every square metre of cavity wall insulation, you save a tonne of carbon dioxide over the average life of the building. So, with a typical semi-detached house, that's 80 tonnes or more during the life of that home. So, this is a major contributor, when done well, to reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, as well as, obviously, keeping homes warmer for less.

But, as point 2 of this motion recognises, there is a significant minority—it's not a small number, I concede that—of installations in unsuitable properties, and not complying with the standards of good workmanship. I won't repeat all the points that Mick has made; I think he illustrated the points with great force. There is growing evidence that demonstrates that the industry has much work to do to improve the quality of on-site workmanship. The Building Research Establishment report 'Post Installation Performance of Cavity Wall & External Wall Insulation', a key report in this area, found that not only were some installations completed to a poor standard, there was strong evidence indicating that appropriate maintenance was not being undertaken following the installation of the insulation. So, it really is a concern.

Ultimately, what is the point of promoting and encouraging homes to take up cavity wall insulation if the insulation itself is causing more problems than it's worth? And clearly some people have been led in that direction, and the public purse has been denied efficient use of much-needed resources to tackle fuel poverty. 

Just to mention some of the problems that have been caused by poor insulation practices: dampness and mould, causing unpleasant smells, crumbling plaster, stained walls and, in some cases, properties have fallen considerably in value.

So, I do agree with much of the analysis that Mick has made of this problem of what he says is misselling of cavity wall insulation. I think that it's important that we see an effective joint approach from the Welsh Government and the UK Government. It is easy to place all the blame on the UK Government. I mean, this has been a long-running policy getting on for 25 years, and obviously, there was a Labour Government for much of that time. But it is fair to say that the hard edge of all this now does cut across the work of the Welsh Government, and I do think it's important that we do have an effective survey of those homes that are having a problem, and this was one of the central recommendations of the BRE report that I just referred to. I think that is an appropriate way forward.

There's a lot more I could've said. I think Mick, in fairness, did capture the real concern that the people who have suffered poor practice feel, and I don't think any of us can gainsay that, because it's a fundamental issue. Really bad insulation is completely unacceptable and leads to great, great suffering on the part of those who are affected.

It’s a great pleasure to take part in this debate. It is a debate about fairness and it’s an issue that affects the lives of thousands of people in Wales. Cavity wall insulation has been installed in almost four million homes across the United Kingdom, but in three million of those it has caused a great deal of problems.

This kind of insulation, retrospective insulation, was promoted by the United Kingdom Government, the Welsh Government and energy companies as well as local councils. The initial aim was to decrease energy costs by about £250 a year for each home and to meet energy efficiency targets set by the Government.

In many cases in my consistency in Arfon, cavity wall insulation hasn’t had that effect. Rather, it has caused problems such as mould, damp, dry rot and damage to fixtures and fittings. The dampness in its turn has caused health problems, asthma, breathing problems, without mentioning anxiety and worry. Even though it is a significant problem, there’s no research undertaken of any kind that we can call significant, or a public call for people to come forward to acknowledge those who have suffered as a result.

Much of this insulation was installed by energy companies or by their subcontractors as part of the Green Deal and ECO schemes of the United Kingdom Government. Many people felt that they could trust such schemes that were supported by the Government. They didn’t question how appropriate their properties were for this insulation or the ability of the installers to do so properly.

It’s true to say that the compensation process through the CIGA has been unsatisfactory, with vulnerable people still suffering in damp homes. Now, the guarantee scheme of the industry has disappointed many and the installers and the agency have a history of not taking complaints seriously and rejecting or refusing to offer redress and sufficient compensation. There’s a culture of ignoring customer requests and a failure to provide full responses to simple questions and denying responsibility.

Energy companies such as E.ON, SSE, Npower and EDF are still promoting CWI, even though British Gas stopped doing this some time ago. And as we heard, the Nest programme of this Welsh Government is still encouraging people to install CWI in this country, despite the problems continuing. Many of the companies that installed CWI have failed by now. People only have the guarantee agency to turn to. People have criticised the agency for failing to respond appropriately to concerns about poorly installed or insulation installed in unsuitable properties.

In Arfon, Hywel Williams MP has been active in trying to support constituents. We’ve seen hitherto 80 or more cases and in those cases nobody has a copy of the pre-installation report that should have been completed by the installer before installing the CWI. This despite the fact that CIGA continues to state that pre-installation reports were undertaken for all properties and that insulation would not have been installed if the property wasn't appropriate. But I’m sorry to say that that isn’t the experience we’ve had in Arfon.

One constituent in Arfon has been battling with these problems for almost four years, and the installation company has since gone bust and the agency has refused responsibility for over two years. At last, they’ve offered to withdraw the insulation from one wall, but I understand from one expert in the extraction industry that withdrawing it from one wall can cause cold spots that can lead to deterioration in the long term. So, that’s not a solution at all.

Hywel Williams has been taking action for years to seek answers and fairness for constituents in Arfon and in Wales, and I know that there are others who’ve helped a great deal in Wales. I also thank Pauline Saunders and CIVALLI for their important work in this area. It’s about time for the thousands who’ve had totally unacceptable experiences as a result of CWI to receive fair play. I thank Mick and Mike and the rest very much for bringing this debate forward.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. First of all, can I thank Mick for the very detailed background to, and analysis of, actually, the issues leading to the tabling of this motion? So, I personally just want to add a few comments of my own to support what Mick has already said, particularly in relation to the impact on some of my constituents.

What became apparent to me very early on in my tenure as an AM was that I started to see a pattern emerging in my casework and in some of the correspondence that I was receiving from constituents, and it's a pattern that actually continues today, relating to people who've had cavity wall insulation work undertaken in their homes. The pattern has become relatively familiar. So, we get the promotion of insulation works, we get householders taking up the offers of insulation work only to find that, at some point after that, problems such as damp start arising, and it becomes quickly apparent that the cases coming to my attention were not isolated, which I didn't realise at that time, but formed part of a much wider pattern. I'm very grateful to Assembly colleagues as we've researched and worked together to establish the nature and extent of these problems. I'm sorry to say that it doesn't seem that this is going to be an easy situation to resolve.

There are a mix of issues in this whole problem that range from lack of preparatory surveys, which we've heard Siân and Mick talk about, by suitably qualified staff, leading to inappropriate work being undertaken on the homes and inappropriate work then being undertaken in social housing stock without the knowledge of landlords, and those landlords now having to pay to remove some of the insulation work that's been completed, a complete lack of accountability or accreditation on the part of contractors who've undertaken the insulation work, and the weakness of the guarantee that Mick was talking about in the sector. In truth, the Cavity Insulation Guarantee Agency does not appear to be fit for purpose; indeed, it appears overwhelmed by the scale of the issues that it's facing. That's why I chose to add my name to this motion.

It allows me to report on cases like the elderly constituent who had cavity wall insulation installed almost two years ago via a Government scheme and, as a result, she's now experiencing major damp problems throughout her property. The constituent has approached the contractor, and the contractor stated that, in their opinion, the damp is related to condensation and that there's nothing further that they can do. Luckily, in this case, the contractor is still trading and the constituent is now in the process of starting a claim with CIGA as she has a 25-year guarantee. Unfortunately, for many others, where the contractor is no longer in business, taking such a case is not always straightforward, leaving some homeowners facing huge bills as they have to rectify the work themselves.

This motion supports the cause of constituents like this, facing inconvenience and costs, after defective insulation work has been carried out. In almost every case, these costs were not anticipated or budgeted for, and, in many cases, are eating into valuable pension moneys or savings and, in the worst cases, are putting people into debt when they have to borrow money to rectify the work. And then there are the costs for social landlords, where they're having to spend money on corrections to their properties, money that cannot now be spent on expanding or improving their housing stock.

There is, of course, an ongoing need to understand more about the problems and to extend our understanding of how it came about, and there must be lessons to be learned—especially as we continue to retrofit older properties to become more energy efficient. But perhaps more pressing is to ensure that we have a system that is fit for purpose going forward; a system that can assist householders as consumers; a system that delivers greater guarantees and security for consumers. As I said at the start, there is no quick fix to this problem, but we must be willing to improve the situation, going forward. 

Thanks to Mick Antoniw and the other various Members who were responsible for bringing today's debate. I think we're not going to have as much media interest in this debate as in the previous one, but it is an important subject, especially to householders who've suffered from poorly installed cavity wall insulation, or CWI. Now, Mick, in his well-researched speech, which opened today's debate, highlighted many of the problems in securing compensation for poor installations, partly because of the lack of teeth of CIGA, and he hinted at possible conflicts of interest with CIGA and its connections to the industry in general. Siân Gwenllian was talking about the consequent health issues that can arise with poorly installed CWI, so I think that there is a case for us to try and push, here, for anything that would help redress the situation. So, there is a case for greater consumer protection and for better standards across the industry.

Properly installed CWI should make a strong contribution towards tackling the problem of fuel poverty, as David Melding spoke about in his contribution. He quoted a figure of £150 of savings. I've got a figure coming from the Energy Saving Trust, which estimates that £225 can be saved annually on fuel bills in an average detached house through properly installed CWI. Because of these kinds of savings, an average household can recoup the installation cost, potentially, within four years. We are keen, in UKIP, to deal effectively with fuel poverty, so this is a positive measure that we could back, and we do. Another major benefit is in cutting down on carbon dioxide emissions, so an improvement in the CWI industry would also have a positive effect on the environment. And, as you'll all be aware, UKIP is always keen on policies that benefit the environment, so we support today's motion.

I'm also pleased to take part in this debate. I thank Mick Antoniw and others—other Members—for bringing this forward. It's encouraging, to a point, that other Members are experiencing or have got constituents that have experienced the same issues as mine; I don't feel alone. I think Dawn Bowden alluded to that as well.

In my contribution, I would like to highlight the plight of one of my elderly constituents. Her only income is a state pension and she now lives in a damp 1950s property on an exposed hilltop location in Montgomeryshire. What she contends is that her home has been severely affected by damp since receiving a Welsh Government-funded grant for cavity wall insulation in 2005, which, according to her GP, is having a detrimental effect on her health. She believes that her property was one of those that was unsuitable for receiving cavity wall insulation, due to its very exposed position, located on a hilltop some 800m above sea level, which is, of course, susceptible to wind-driven rain. Two subsequent CIGA inspections found that the cavity wall insulation appeared to have been installed in compliance with system designer and British Board of Agrément specifications. As a result, and due to the lack of available evidence to the contrary, and lack of financial resource to challenge this decision further, my constituent has been unsuccessful at arbitration and is unable to seek redress. So, as you can imagine, she's greatly frustrated by this and, of course, I feel frustrated as well that I don't feel that I can give her any other further course of action as well.

A Building Research Establishment report has found that the majority of Wales is in an area of very severe exposure to wind and rain, and therefore is an unsuitable location for receiving cavity wall insulation. The BRE report also identifies concerns as to the effectiveness of the insulation guarantee mechanism that is available to residents. From the evidence obtained during the completion of the report, none of the 24 sites included as part of the study were successful with claims through the insulation guarantee mechanism. But the response from CIGA in general stated that the failure was not down to the inspection but other reasons such as lack of maintenance or occupier behaviour.

Now, I do have great concerns that my constituent’s home—and others like it—was unsuitable to receive cavity wall insulation in the first place due to its very exposed position. From my own investigation, I’ve found that—I can only assume that the penetration of the wind-driven rain, which soaked through to the cavity wall insulation and to the internal walls—. It can only be assumed, I think, that the dampness affecting the cavity wall insulation has exacerbated the deterioration of the external and internal walls, which provides the reasoning that CIGA gives for contravening the 25-year guarantee.

The Government-funded grant scheme to provide cavity wall insulation is aimed towards those with limited income and the most vulnerable members of the community. So, I am concerned that a Welsh Government grant scheme that my constituent received for cavity wall insulation has left her in the lurch and failed to help her in her time of need. So, I would be grateful if the Minister, in response to this debate, could perhaps give some advice to my constituent going forward: what action the Government intends to take to provide some redress with regard to compensation, and what plans the Government has to work with partners to review the effectiveness of the insulation guarantee mechanisms to strengthen consumer protection in this area.  

I’m very pleased to see this motion being debated in the Chamber today, and I’d like to thank the Members for bringing this forward. As Mick Antoniw says, we must pay tribute to everyone who has come forward today. My constituent, Pauline Saunders, who is in the public gallery today, is a tenacious campaigner and, I think, recognised by many of us around this Chamber. I'd like to commend Pauline for all of the work that she has done on behalf of many people in Wales and the UK.

As we’ve heard, thousands of people have been adversely affected by the poor installation of cavity wall insulation, and today I am going to focus on Pauline’s experience. Pauline’s semi-detached home had always been free from damp. But shortly after the cavity wall insulation, the wallpaper began to bubble and wood panelling became mouldy, with walls damp to the touch. Pauline contacted Mark Group, the initial installers, who sent a surveyor to inspect the property. They said that the damp issue was due to property maintenance. And having had no previous issues with the property, Pauline knew that this did not seem likely. The company offered no solution, responsibility or compensation for the problems.

Following this, Pauline requested that a CIGA surveyor inspect the property. CIGA offer a 25-year guarantee if anything goes wrong with an installation. Knowing this, she asked specifically about the rubble in the wall. It was through Pauline’s own research that she knew that cavity wall insulation should never be carried out if there is debris within the cavity. Even after insisting that CIGA conduct checks thoroughly, my constituent was told that no debris was present. It was only when her husband removed a brick from the wall that they found copious amounts within the cavity.

Eventually, Pauline received £1,750 in compensation, and the insulation was removed. But she only received this after a report that was sent to her in error. The report stated:

‘The property was and is unsuitable for cavity wall insulation and should not have been insulated.’

Now, that is scandalous. Without that report, which was never intended for her eyes, she believes that she would never have received the compensation.

Although her case has been resolved, Pauline realised that her experience had unearthed genuine concerns with how the industry dealt with their customers. She thought that many others would be in a similar position, but less able to present their claims. Many who contacted Pauline were elderly and vulnerable and they financially struggled with the persistent problems caused by unsuitable insulation. It was at this point that Pauline, along with others, formed CIVALLI— the Cavity Insulation Victims Alliance. Since then, she has continued to campaign tirelessly for residents who have been the victim of poor workmanship or installations that should never have happened in the first place.

Pauline has proven herself to be a force to be reckoned with and is an inspiration. The testimonies of people who have been helped by CIVALLI prove how much of an impact Pauline and other volunteers have had. One said: 

'She gave us well informed advice each step of the way, which has helped enormously...Without Pauline’s support and advice I don’t know where we’d be. We are so grateful. She is a wonderful, passionate and driven lady who deserves a medal!' 

And I think we all agree with that.

Pauline and others at CIVALLI did this entirely voluntarily, helping others to navigate the minefield and tortuous process, as Mick has already said. While CIVALLI have been tremendously successful in highlighting these issues and providing support to victims, it's important that we, as Assembly Members, and the Welsh Government act to protect those who have been affected and who are vulnerable from falling into this position. That's why I'm proud to speak for this motion today, firstly to pay tribute to my constituent, Pauline Saunders, for all she's done and continues to do, and secondly to urge the Welsh Government to work with and press the UK Government and CIGA to provide proper accountability and compensation for incorrect insulation. It's crucial that we strengthen our consumer protection to ensure that no-one has to go through the same difficulties as my constituent and many others in Wales.

Thank you. Can I Call the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I, too, welcome this opportunity to discuss this very important matter, which continues to concern Members and their constituents. It's something I recognised in my written statement of 13 June, where I set out the actions we were taking to address the problem.

We are all aware of the serious hardship that cavity wall insulation failure can cause, particularly to vulnerable households who are often the priority for such measures. These are households who, with good intentions, believed it would keep their homes warmer and their fuel bills down. Cavity wall insulation is a cost-effective way of reducing fuel bills when installed correctly. The Cavity Insulation Guarantee Agency, known as CIGA, has been the largest guarantee provider for cavity wall insulation and is also a competent person scheme operator under our building regulations.

Data from CIGA indicates there have been 67,630 CWI installations carried out in Wales under their competent person scheme from its introduction in October 2010 to this month. Since 1995, CIGA have issued over 330,000 guarantees here in Wales. Their data indicates that there have been just over 4,167 Welsh complaints, which equates to a complaint rate of 1.26 per cent. Although, as a percentage, this is small, when there are problems, the consequences can be devastating, as Mick pointed out. Having effective redress where failure does happen is crucial. This is something that, clearly, from the correspondence I receive, has been brought into question, and so has been the focus of our discussions with CIGA.

My written statement identified three main areas of concern. They are: the quality of pre-installation assessments, the information given to householders, and the process for redress when things go wrong. From 1 October this year, I made changes to strengthen the requirements for building regulations competent person schemes responsible for CWI in Wales. One of the main changes now requires the pre-installation building inspection to be independently checked before the installation is carried out. This, I hope, will go a long way in reducing insulation being installed in unsuitable properties. A further change requires a more frequent surveillance regime by scheme operators. Again, this should result in fewer non-compliance installations and will also identify any bad practice by installers.

The importance of maintaining your property following cavity wall insulation is crucial. CIGA have developed a property care pack for householders, advising on the need to maintain their homes. This is encouraging, as the need for maintenance must be highlighted to the householder before they make the decision to have the work done.

Cavity wall insulation is offered to some of the poorest homes in Wales, and households must be clear on their obligations if they are to avoid the risk of subsequent failure and invalidating their warranty. I know this is something CIVALLI has recognised, and it's an area that we have raised with CIGA. 

As I've mentioned CIVALLI, like others, I too want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Pauline Saunders and the work she and her group have done over the years in raising awareness and helping households. I'm very pleased she and others have joined us in the public gallery today.

Whilst the actions I have highlighted should help reduce the number of future failures, this does not help households already faced with cavity wall insulation failure. Dealing with these legacy claims has therefore been a key point of discussion with CIGA. CIGA have made changes to their complaints-handling system and appointed a consumer champion. Whilst this is encouraging, I have directed my officials to continue to meet with CIGA and others to identify further positive action in relation to consumer redress, as it is imperative we continue to ensure effective redress is available. 

The bulk of cavity insulation is funded through Government-funded programmes, one of the major programmes being the UK Government's energy company obligation scheme and its predecessors. Commissioned by the UK Government, the 'Each Home Counts' review has led to a programme of work started earlier in the year, developing best practice on consumer advice and protection, standards and enforcement for a range of home energy efficiency and renewable energy measures. This work is eagerly awaited, if it delivers what's expected, and is adopted for ECO, drastically taking really important matters forward. 

Arbed and Nest, our two schemes, already have robust quality control processes, and I really do hope the UK Government, when bringing forward this work, adopt this. It is important we understand when this work will complete and how soon it will have an impact. I will be writing to the UK Government asking for very clear timescales. 

Russell George mentioned one of his constituents in particular, and I'd be very grateful if you wrote to me specifically about the details so I can look into it.

Cavity wall insulation may also be included as part of a package of measures installed under our Welsh Government Warm Homes, Nest and Arbed schemes. However, our approach, using a qualified assessor to determine which energy efficiency measures are recommended for each property, ensures only the most appropriate measures are installed. We also do not allow cold calling. We are further strengthening the process and the development of our new Nest and Arbed schemes, which will be delivered from April 2018. This will include strict guarantee requirements, robust monitoring and assurance and inspections of all installations. New data about the condition and energy efficiency of all types of housing in Wales will become available as part of the Welsh housing conditions survey 2017-18. We will review this data to see what it tells us about the presence of CWI and damp issues in Welsh homes, and what further steps we can take in light of this.

Mick Antoniw, in his opening remarks, mentioned about further powers we may be getting that might help us in this area. I'm not aware of any powers that will be coming to us following the Government of Wales Act 2017 next year in relation to energy that would help in this area. Most of the powers that we're getting are around consent and generation.

So, just to conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer, I and my Government colleagues will be supporting this motion. I will continue to work with those who set standards, the UK Government, CIGA and others to further encourage effective consumer protection and good practice through our building regulations, UK-led schemes and those directly delivered here in Wales. Diolch.

Thank you. Can I call on Mike Hedges to reply to the debate?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Well, we know this stretches the length and breadth of Wales. We've had Siân Gwenllian from the north, we've had Jayne Bryant from the east, we've had Dawn Bowden, Mick Antoniw and David Melding from South Wales Central, we've had Russell George from mid Wales and me from Swansea. It is a problem throughout the whole of Wales, and that's a point that I think we've managed to get across. We've had Gareth Bennett also, sorry, from South Wales Central. 

I think that it really is important that we've got cross-party support for it. Every one of us Assembly Members does our best for our constituents, and we might disagree on major policies, but we all try and do our best for our constituents. Every single one of us has been upset when we see people with mould coming through in their house, crumbling plaster, wood panelling coming off the wall, damp in the property, the drop in the property's value, dry rot and the health effects—people with asthma and anxiety, which was mentioned. One thing people didn't mention, which I'm sure we've all come across, is the tears—the absolute upset when people have their home in a state, which they thought was wonderful and they enjoyed, seeing it now no longer as it was. People who tend to suffer it are often the poor and often the elderly who seem to have been targeted, as Mick Antoniw outlined. And I think it really is serious and it falls on all of us to try and do our utmost to try and get something done. 

If the last debate may not have been the Assembly at its best, I think this is the Assembly at its best where we're all trying to work for our own constituents, who all suffer exactly the same problems. I and Mick Antoniw don't share the confidence of the Cabinet Secretary in CIGA. From what I've seen of them when I've had to deal with them, as Mick Antoniw outlined, they seem to be very good at trying to get out of making payments. I congratulate the constituent of Jayne Bryant in actually getting money, because I didn't think anybody ever had. That's the first time I've actually met anybody who's managed to get it. I know people who've spent lots of time, lots of effort, and people have mentioned it right through the debate, of trying to take it up, and I find only 4,167 complaints. I don't think that equates to the number of problems. I think that an awful lot of people aren't sure how to complain, and a lot of elderly people aren't good at complaining; they just accept it as this is how it is, and when they come along and say, 'It is your fault', they accept that as well. Why a house that has been up for 120 years without any problems, 12 months after having cavity wall insulation put in has a problem, I don't quite understand, and I'm sure that most Members here don't understand as well. 

It really is something that I'm very pleased—and I hope—we'll get unanimous support for. The UK Government has an obligation to sort this out. This is something that is not massively expensive for them in terms of the way they deal with billions here, but it is having such a serious effect, as everybody's outlined, on the lives of individuals and, in many cases, on how people spend the last few years of their life. I think it really is important that something is done.

David Melding is absolutely right. It is of benefit when in an appropriate place and done correctly, but far too often it's been done incorrectly in inappropriate places. It cannot be right that people get up in the morning and see mould coming through and are then being told, 'It's all your fault, you're not looking after it properly.' I don't believe that. I believe the majority of Members in here don't believe that. I hope people will support this, and I hope we can keep on taking this forward because I speak now on behalf of my constituents, rather than in replying to the debate, and I'm not giving up. I'm going to continue fighting, and I hope other Members in here will keep on doing so as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36. 

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.