The purpose of this session is to have a discussion on consideration of supports for buildings of cultural significance. I welcome to the committee room: Ms Rosemary Collier, head of heritage services at the Office of Public Works, OPW; Mr. Tomás O'Connor assistant principal architect, head of Dublin conservation and historic building maintenance services, OPW; Ms Sinead Owens properties lead, An Taisce; Mr. Ian Lumley, heritage officer, An Taisce; Mr. Donough Cahill, chairperson of the Irish Georgian Society; Ms Emmeline Henderson, conservation manager and assistant director, Irish Georgian Society; from the County and City Management Association, CCMA, Mr. Coilín O'Reilly, chair of rural, community, culture and heritage committee; Mr. John Quinlivan, director of services, economic, community and cultural development, Fingal County Council and Mr. Eoin Sullivan, heritage officer, Carlow County Council.

The format of this meeting is that I will invite a witness from each group to deliver an opening statement, which is limited to three minutes. Please stick to that. This will be followed by questions and answers from the committee. The committee may publish the opening statements.

Before we move to today's discussion I would also like to clarify some limitations in relation to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references that witnesses make to other persons in their evidence.

The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege in respect of the presentations they make to this committee. This means that they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege, and it is my duty as Chair to ensure that this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed by me to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Just to clarify, Ms Sinéad O'Reilly is not here. Ms Sinéad Owens is here. I invite the witnesses to make their opening statements.

I am grateful to the committee for the invitation to the Office of Public Works to attend today to discuss the consideration of supports for buildings of cultural significance. I look forward to a productive discussion with the members and fellow attendees.

The committee has our opening statement. I will not read all of it but will just highlight a few key points to keep within time. The committee will be very familiar with the roles and responsibilities of the OPW, which was founded in 1831. We have been responsible for Ireland's national built heritage since then. The Rock of Cashel was the first monument that came into our care, in 1874. It is a long-standing track record of caring for our national built heritage. We were involved in the rebuilding of key civic buildings, like the Four Courts, GPO and Custom House in the 1920s. Again in the 1980s and 1990s the OPW delivered big public commissions like Dublin Castle and restoring the Royal Hospital Kilmainham.

Today we care for about 1,000 national monuments, including the UNESCO world heritage sites of Sceilg Mhichíl and Brú na Bóinne. We also have 32 national historic properties encompassing 5,000 acres of land. These include major significant properties like the Phoenix Park, Kilkenny Castle and Castletown House. Our Dublin portfolio is a really important one in terms of Government Buildings, Leinster House, the Custom House, our cultural institutions and, of course, Áras an Uachtaráin. A key thing for us is that we employ a very diverse, skilled workforce of almost 1,300 people in heritage in a huge range of roles. That is to make sure the properties are carefully looked after but also presented to the highest standards to the public. We have a dedicated, direct labour workforce working daily in conserving these historic buildings and maintaining our national properties throughout the country. A key focus of our work is supporting apprenticeships in the traditional building and craft skills that are essential for the conservation of our built heritage. We work closely with the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage in respect of the national monuments estate and UNESCO world heritage in particular. We collaborate with National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, in biodiversity and natural heritage protection, and we work with a range of stakeholders across the country, including our colleagues in local government, who have joined us today, and organisations such as the Irish Georgian Society on education, research, collections, exhibitions, events, training and publications. In 2025, 13.3 million visitors visited OPW sites and we generated about €17 million in income to the State.

The current funding for the OPW is through the Oireachtas through Vote 13, and about €94 million is allocated under programme B. About two thirds of that is for wages and for the operation and presentation of our sites. There is also an allocation of about €20 million for capital expenditure in 2026. Under the national development plan, the OPW has published its sectoral plan, which reflects our diverse responsibilities relating to flood risk, stewardship of a significant portion of the State’s property assets, and the conservation of our built and natural heritage. Under that plan, there will be major conservation projects at a wide range of properties. A few are listed in the statement, including Kilmacurragh House, the lighthouses on Sceilg Mhichíl, and the aquatic house at the National Botanic Gardens in Glasnevin. We will be addressing things like universal access to ensure our national heritage is accessible to people. We will be improving visitor infrastructure at sites across the country. I have listed a few, included places like Trim Castle, Roscrea Castle and Damer House in Tipperary and at Scattery Island. In all of these projects we are working closely with our partners in local authorities, the Irish Georgian Society and other key stakeholders to make these projects happen. On the portfolio of historic buildings in Dublin, we will be conserving places like the Magazine Fort in the Phoenix Park, the Four Courts and Dublin Castle.

Members will be familiar with the national cultural institutions capital investment programme, which is funded by the Department of Culture, Communications and Sport. On behalf of that Department, we are delivering major redevelopments at the Crawford Art Gallery in Cork, the National Archives, the National Library and National Concert Hall. We will be progressing others in the lifetime of that development plan. Finally, we have a strategic partnership with Fáilte Ireland in relation to visitor access and visitor experience. We have provided some figures for the programme. There are other funding schemes that we always seek to apply to and make sure that funds are appropriately invested through those schemes in the national built heritage of the State, which is in our remit. I will be pleased to engage with committee members on any questions and look forward to the discussion.

I thank the committee for inviting An Taisce to contribute to its discussion on supports for buildings of cultural significance. I am the heritage property lead with An Taisce, the national trust for Ireland. I am joined by our heritage officer, Ian Lumley. An Taisce was founded in 1948 and is part of the International National Trusts Organisation, a global network working to safeguard cultural and natural heritage for public benefit. We currently hold 16 properties in trust. In 2025, we expanded our stewardship role by taking trusteeship of 2,000 acres of land for native forest restoration. With support from the US-based 1772 Foundation, we are seeking to play a more active role in architectural heritage, particularly through taking buildings into trust, promoting adaptive reuse and developing a revolving fund to rescue neglected heritage buildings.

On the significance of the current challenge, cultural heritage includes not just landmark monuments but also the wider historic building stock such as urban terraces, market houses, churches and vernacular structures, which together form our national cultural patrimony. Ireland has a strong legislative framework and international obligations, including under the Granada Convention. The most serious threat we now face is dereliction. Across towns and cities, including on main streets, protected and significant buildings remain vacant and deteriorating for years, with a damaging impact on surrounding areas. Enforcement powers exist but they have been inconsistently applied and the strengthened provisions of the Planning and Development Act must now be actively used and properly resourced.

On what works, where progress has been made, it has been through adaptive reuse for cultural and community purposes. Our briefing document contains various examples of success stories of this. We see the double benefit of safeguarding important buildings while creating accessible public uses, particularly in the reuse of redundant churches, convents, courthouses and market houses. Local authorities, supported by funding streams such as the rural regeneration and development fund and the town centre first heritage revival scheme, THRIVE, have enabled ambitious, heritage-led regeneration projects, demonstrating that this approach can revitalise town centres and strengthen local identity.

On supporting heritage in private ownership, tax relief has been a vital support, particularly for culturally significant buildings in private ownership that provide public access and host cultural events. Schemes such as the section 482 tax relief have proven their value in sustaining heritage, tourism and cultural activity across the country. Our key recommendation is that we believe there is a major opportunity to enhance donor support under the tax system. While section 1003 tax relief for donated heritage items has been highly successful, the parallel system for donated heritage in land and buildings is underused. We propose broadening the definition of qualifying properties, including An Taisce as an approved recipient body, and increasing the rate of relief to 80%, in line with section 1003. This will directly support the goals of Heritage Ireland 2030 by strengthening partnerships and supporting not-for-profit heritage organisations.

Buildings of cultural significance are not liabilities. With the right mix of enforcement, adaptive reuse and targeted supports, they can become active community assets once again. We look forward to the committee's questions.

I am grateful to address the committee on the topic of supports for public buildings of cultural importance. I am the executive director of the Irish Georgian Society. I am joined by my colleague, Emmeline Henderson, who is the assistant director and conservation manager at the IGS. The Irish Georgian Society is a membership organisation which encourages and promotes the conservation of Ireland's built heritage, historic gardens and decorative arts. These aims are achieved through its education programmes, by supporting and undertaking conservation works, publishing original research and through advocacy and planning participation. In presenting on this subject, the Irish Georgian Society wishes to highlight the importance of public funding and protecting buildings of cultural significance, and to demonstrate the benefits of the public and not-for-profit sectors working together in championing our built heritage.

In an attached document, the society has briefly reviewed current supports provided by the public sector for heritage buildings and has described how the Irish Georgian Society has sought to work with these through its conservation and education programmes. The supports considered include the built heritage investment scheme, BHIS, and the historic structures fund, HSF, which provide vital grant aid for custodians and guardians of protected structures. It is noted how, through working on a modest scale, the Irish Georgian Society's conservation grants programme complements the BHIS in further assisting grant recipients and how HSF funding for the Sirius Arts Centre in Cobh has leveraged €600,000 in donations through supporters of the Irish Georgian Society, primarily in the US.

The paper also considers a grant aid provided by Dublin City Council through the partnership it formed with the Irish Georgian Society in restoring the 18th century city assembly house in Dublin. The benefits of this partnership are demonstrated in a funding model that saw €1.75 million raised by the Irish Georgian Society through donations and grants from members and foundations in the US, the UK and Ireland and a further €750,000 in public funding, primarily from Dublin City Council. The submission considers the Office of Public Works management of historic properties with which the Irish Georgian Society has past and current engagement. Castletown House is highlighted, as the IGS continues to loan a valuable collection of art and furniture for public display. The recent commencement of works to restore Kilmacurragh House, County Wicklow, was also mentioned, as the IGS has championed this project in recent years.

In considering professional advice and training, the paper notes the engagement by local authorities of architectural conservation officers, whose role has proven vital in ensuring the successful implementation of conservation legislation. It also considers the supports provided for traditional building skills through the all-island heritage skills programme and the certificate in energy renovation of traditional buildings offered through TUS.

In considering adaptation and reuse of historic buildings, the paper notes the significant role of the town centre first heritage revival scheme,THRIVE, in supporting the restoration of historic buildings and acting as a catalyst for investment and how this theme was explored in a recent IGS conference on the subject of new life for historic buildings and places. The Irish Georgian Society is of the view that these initiatives provide robust reason for the continued provision of supports for buildings of cultural significance and that new opportunities are explored, especially in the context of the challenges presented by climate change.

On behalf of the CCMA, I thank the committee for its invitation today. We look forward to assisting the committee in its important deliberations on consideration of supports for buildings of cultural significance. Local government has both a statutory and operational role in protecting, conserving, managing and promoting buildings and sites of cultural, architectural, archaeological and historical importance. This encompasses planning, regulation, heritage management, funding administration, cultural events management and stakeholder and public engagement. Local authorities must maintain a record of protected structures, RPS. When a building is included in an RPS it is legally protected and planning permission is required for any proposed work that might impact on the fabric and character of these buildings. In recent years, there have been many welcome developments to support buildings of cultural significance and funds being made available. This renewed focus on our vernacular structures builds awareness and is paying dividends. The Heritage Ireland 2013 framework covers all forms of heritage, namely, built, natural, cultural and archaeological and its provisions emphasise the protection of built heritage as a core national priority. Local authorities work closely with key stakeholders and partners, in particular the Heritage Council, towards progressing shared goals and achieving key aims and objectives to protect these buildings and maximise supports available.

Key considerations for local authority include the following. Planning legislative provisions are utilised to maintain the fabric and character of regulated approved interventions to protect the structures. This ensures that works meet the required conservation standards in line with the national architectural heritage protection guidelines and any material alterations must be approved and reviewed. There can be a perception among the public that the record of protected structures may be a hindrance should an owner wish to utilise a heritage building in the future.

There is still work to be done to better inform property owners and community groups, which often engage with the maintenance and upkeep of the public realm, of the supports that are available for buildings of cultural significance in an architectural conservation area. In some cases, buildings of cultural significance may be owned or in the care of local authorities, for example, town halls, castles, etc., or the local authority may acquire a building or structure to protect its cultural heritage, with significant funding being invested on upkeep and management across the sector. For example, public libraries form part of Ireland's wider cultural and civic infrastructure and a significant number are housed in buildings of historic and architectural importance, particularly within town centres and long-established communities. These buildings are not only places of service delivery but anchors of local identity, heritage and democratic life. However, many face structural constraints arising from the age, scale and tenure, which make it challenging to meet contemporary expectations around accessibility, climate resilience and multifunctional use.

Additional grant schemes have become available in recent times such as the built heritage investment scheme, the historic structures fund, local authority funded schemes themselves, such as Fingal County Council's stitch-in-time grant - and we have mentioned Dublin City Council's grant scheme - the community monuments fund, the historic towns initiative, local heritage plans and climate change funds.

Local authorities are also keen and happy to work with any collaborative partnership that is available, such as the Heritage Council, the Irish Heritage Trust, the Irish Georgian Society, Historic Houses of Ireland, An Taisce and other professional bodies.

I was delighted that both Ms Owens and Mr. Cahill mentioned THRIVE. In my home town of Gorey there is a wonderful project re-energising the market house in the heart of the town. This helps contribute in a big way to how we can ensure that we keep town centres at the heart of the community, not just from an economic point of view but from a social point of view. I would praise the co-operation between various groups and the leadership of Wexford County Council on that. I would ask the witnesses to comment on that. My second question also relates to my constituency and the town of Arklow. An Taisce has highlighted the problem of dereliction, particularly with a number of old and significant buildings in the area. What can we do for a town like Arklow and what supports can be provided to be able to address dereliction, particularly among those historic buildings, and what message should be sent to a town like that? I am conscious of time so perhaps Mr. Cahill can answer first and then Ms Owens, or whoever wishes to take the question.

A conference was organised recently by the Irish Georgian Society in association with the European Parliament liaison office in Ireland and the European Commission representation at the Department of Housing and Local Government and Heritage, There, I made reference to the fact that the role that THRIVE plays was identified as being a key player as a catalyst for change through the public sector being able to make an investment in historic buildings that simply would not be viable for the private sector at all. Having done so, the public sector can then set an example of how change can be brought about and attracting investment perhaps on a lesser scale, but then on an incremental scale. In the context of that conference reference was made to a number of THRIVE initiatives around the country. From an IGS point of view the message would be to continue to look at the potential of THRIVE as a means or tool to bring about change on both larger and smaller scales.

I might ask that we reflect on that in the committee and raise this with relevant Government agencies. It is good to endorse THRIVE but I ask the witnesses to specifically talk about Arklow and some of the challenges there with dereliction.

First, I am very pleased to give credit to what has been achieved with the project in Gorey, which was quite a complex partnership to get together. In our detailed submission, we highlighted that. Another example would be the Shackleton Experience in Athy, County Kildare, housed in a building that was previously used as a market house, a courthouse and a town hall. This is now a landmark attraction and completely transforms the image of the town centre.

I was involved in producing a detailed report on Arklow. It stands out in comparison to other Irish towns because it has suffered decline of its traditional industry. I come from Waterford, which has experienced major difficulty with its port being relocated and the loss of traditional industries such as glass manufacturing. Waterford has shown what can be done by treating its town centre as an asset. Waterford City and County Council has a long-standing record, going back to old Waterford Corporation days, in being extremely effective in using a range of Government funding supports. If I turn to Arklow-----

What about for Wicklow County Council then or for others?

For Wicklow, this is a case where the derelict sites legislation needs to be more effectively used. Despite the scale of dereliction in Arklow and indeed to a lesser extent in Wicklow town, the council has not measured the response by registering sites under the Derelict Sites Act. I would point out Carlow town as a comparison. Carlow has been much more proactive in using the derelict sites legislation. That loosens up property and acts as a disincentive to people just sitting on properties, which is a very obvious problem in Arklow. We note that the proposal on dereliction is a key provision of the programme for Government to take a more effective, proactive response to dereliction.

In particular, the 7% annual levy on registered sites will be collected by the Revenue Commissioners because local authorities have had a lot of difficulty collecting and scheduling. We hope that councils like Wicklow will be resourced but equally that management and council levels will be proactive in seeing that. Arklow needs some sort of landmark to create a renewed focus on the historic town centre. I look to the examples of what has been achieved in Gorey, Athy and other locations. The big potential in Arklow is to come up with some maritime attraction for the seafront and the harbour that could become a focal point, but the main street needs equal attention.

I echo the sentiment about THRIVE. Drogheda, the town I come from, is getting the benefit of that programme with the transformation and re-energising of Westgate House, which will be a huge addition to the centre of the town and the main streetscape and thoroughfare. That is to be commended. I am trying to tease out some advice the witnesses might have, for any who want to pick up the question. Curraghtown House in Drogheda is effectively a shell. Curraghtown House in County Louth, or Curraghtown manor as it may have originally been called, was built in 1612 by Oliver Plunkett and his wife Catherine Hussey. They were members of prominent local dynasties, with Oliver being the grandson of the first baron and a relative of the later martyred archbishop, St. Oliver Plunkett. It is a deeply historical site that is on the Irish Georgian Society website and is a dedicated building of national importance on the County Louth record of protected structures. It has not been lived in since the 1980s. The windows and doors are blocked up with cement blocks. The roof was stolen off the property in 2014, which led to significant exposure to the elements and deterioration of the building. I raised this umpteen times over my years on Louth County Council. I raised it directly with An Taisce and was told there was no money to acquire the property and restore it. Unfortunately, this is one of many examples we see around the nation. The witnesses will be a bit more informed than I am, so I want to tease out if any of them are aware of other examples like this around the country that have been brought back into use in recent years. If so, how did they get there? That is essentially what I am trying to find out.

I can mention something and maybe Mr. Lumley can, too. In the context of Curraghtown House, I recall at the time, which was maybe ten years ago, that the Louth archaeological society was actively campaigning for its protection. Am I right in thinking that perhaps-----

It fixed up the roof at one point and fundraised for that.

A small grant was given by the Irish Georgian Society to support those works. If I remember correctly, there might have been a fire in the house-----

That was afterwards.

-----that really brought an end to it, to the huge frustration of everybody. Perhaps to a certain degree, it reflects the limitations of planning enforcement. The impression you get is that local authorities are terrified of the idea of planning enforcement as it relates to compulsory purchase orders. A case in point where it did work is in Millbrook House in County Laois, where the county council acquired the house through a compulsory purchase order, found a new owner for it, and it is in the process of being restored at the moment.

I am familiar with the case of Curraghtown. I was looking at some drone footage of it recently and I fear it is a complete shell now. That was one of the few buildings of the early 17th century in Ireland that had retained a roof and continuous habitation, so it is a major national loss as well as being of huge importance for Louth. We have had some great cases of buildings being brought back from ruin in private ownership, including Millbrook, as Mr. Cahill has mentioned, where the CPO from the council triggered it in turn being able to find an owner to take on its restoration. There have been other spectacular examples around the country of derelict shells that have been roofed in private ownership, as well as for uses such as hotels. Unless the current owner of Curraghtown is willing to take on an initiative there, then the Millbrook example in County Laois is certainly one that the council should be looking at.

On the wider issue of Drogheda, in our detailed submission we have been pleased to commend that redundant churches are major cultural buildings and landmarks in towns. We have seen the Highlanes Gallery in the former Franciscan church. That is a good example. Apart from the Westgate scheme that the Deputy mentioned, the former Dominican church that has become redundant for religious use is to become the library. That is a very good use. There are a number of other positive cases, like the Dominican church in Athy becoming a public library. That is a good use when a church becomes redundant. Again, as in Arklow, the council needs to take a proactive role. There have been people sitting on buildings in Drogheda for decades and the derelict sites Acts and the levy process need to be effectively used. It is also important that we have transparency in the application of the levy. It is good that the Revenue Commissioners will now be collecting it, which will make it easier, but the issue of transparency-----

Excuse me for a second time. There is a clock here, so just be respectful of it.

I welcome all of the witnesses. I am conscious of the time, and I will keep it tight. THRIVE was mentioned. There is the project at Sean Connolly Barracks. A former TD for the county wanted to offload it to developers and we managed to stop that and go looking for funding. We secured multimillion euro funding through THRIVE to develop the whole barracks and bring it back to its former glory and for additional usages for the community. That funding is extremely welcome.

I have a couple of queries. There are OPW buildings. We have existing sites. I think Corlea, which the witnesses are familiar with, is underdeveloped. I have been putting queries, as I have been involved in Longford tourism for a number of years. What are the plans for Corlea? Is there going to be significant further investment in it to expand a fantastic asset? I would like to hear the witnesses' comments.

I turn to the CCMA. I know Mr. O'Reilly is doing great work in Carlow. With regard to funding for potentially purchasing buildings, I know BAM was there. The maximum of €500,000 is still available. Are changes needed to that scheme to allow further purchases of buildings that are deteriorating and could then be turned to community use in our counties?

On Corlea, I think we would agree with the Deputy's assessment. It is part of the just transition zone, so we applied for just transition funding last year and received just under €1 million to do a master plan to look at the redevelopment of Corlea. It obviously also has great biodiversity potential, and we are working with Longford County Council. It is looking to work with Bord na Móna to connect the towns of Lanesborough back down through the county. There are a number of overlapping projects. There is our master plan for Corlea as a visitor attraction and important heritage site. There is the conservation of the monument within the visitor centre. That is what we are focused on. We are working with the stakeholders in Longford County Council and Bord na Móna on that wider picture of the master plan for the area. We agree with the Deputy's assessment and a number of projects are already in play there.

Will we be seeing significant investment in the site in the near future?

I would like to think so. It is a fantastic site and has huge potential. It is the lesser known of our heritage sites. We would love to see more visitors there. It is a unique heritage proposition, and that just transition movement in the centre of the country is important and we are keen to support that. We are hopeful that, through various schemes and our own Vote, we will see more investment in Corlea in the future.

I start by saying that the CPO is certainly an option, and we get it and see the importance of these buildings. However, it depends on the scale of the building, to be honest, and on the current state of the building. I am not familiar with the house in Louth, but it sounds like quite a big house. If I were the chief executive in Louth, I would love to CPO it to protect it, but where am I going to come up with the €10 million or €15 million that would be required? You then have to start down the road.

Deputy Carrigy mentioned Carlow. We have done good CPO work in Carlow, and we do an awful lot for housing. That works really well. We use housing money to CPO vernacular structures in the town centre and redo them. Some we do under urban regeneration and development funding, URDF 3, where we buy them and sell them on.

One is a prominent house in Carlow Town called the Doll's House.

With regards to BAM, it works really well for us. Yet again, there is the example of a convent that we are applying for rural regeneration and development fund, RRDF, funding for it to become a business centre so that works well for us.

The last point is about how badly damaged the building is. We have some buildings like Duckett's Grove in Carlow, which we have more or less accepted that we will never get the money required to bring Duckett's Grove back to what it once was. We have to look at how we can interpret it, use it and manage it and tell people what it once was.

I thank the witnesses. I met most of them in my previous role and engaged with them. This is a useful session.

My first question relates to the skills required. The Irish Georgian Society has a skills programme and the OPW has apprenticeship programmes. Looking at the range of grant schemes that exist, particularly for urban centres but also for heritage more generally, there appears to be a deficit not just of traditional skills, but also professional services and architectural services. Would any of the witnesses like to comment on what we need to do to build up those skills within our local government system and professionally across the board?

A really good example is Mr. Quinlivan's county of Fingal, which has a real grá or heritage properties. I was the former head of heritage there quite a while ago. However, Fingal's county architect is a conservation architect. Where there is a person who has an understanding and a love for that, it really does help. It is about making sure our architects have the access to opportunities to train themselves in conservation skills and become more interested in it and learn about it. That is part of it and that is on us.

Regarding apprenticeships, one of the things we have seen recently is that we have apprentice accountants for example, and I have two apprentice gardeners in Duckett's Grove. That is something coming more and more into local authorities and as it is getting harder to get staff, we are looking to expand that. We would be more than will and would welcome the opportunity to get into apprenticeships for people who want to work on historic properties.

That is fantastic.

The Irish Georgian Society has long championed traditional building skills and best conservation practice though our conservation education programme, which my colleague, Ms Emmeline Henderson, manages for the society. In terms of encouraging greater expertise at professional and crafts levels, conservation to a greater degree is more intrinsic in the work of architects now than it was 20 years ago. Great progress has been made. However, there is always a case for encouraging architects to develop their skills further, to increase the number of grade 2 and grade 1 conservation architects through the RIAI's accreditation scheme.

Regarding architectural conservation officers, it has long been an aspiration to put them in place and to ensure that each local authority has an architectural conservation officer. Even 25 years or more after the introduction of the initial conservation legislation, there are still local authorities without conservation officers, which really needs to be addressed. Just 21 out of 31 local authorities have these.

More recently, in terms of encouraging traditional building skills, it was definitely welcomed when there was a provision made in the programme for Government to explore the creation of a national centre of excellence for traditional skills. The Irish Georgian Society certainly encourages further consideration to be given to that in tandem with the support that is being given to the all-Ireland heritage skills programme being delivered by the King's Foundation in partnership with the Heritage Council. An awful lot has been done but more encouragement and support needs to be given to the structures that are in place.

I concur with both contributions. I will focus on the opportunities that the OPW offers in training for people on the properties themselves and the craft skills such as stone masonry and joinery. We have increased the volume of apprenticeships we are offering. We are working with the Heritage Council on the feasibility study, which the Senator may have commissioned when he was in the Department.

We are very keen to work with the partners to see that national centre idea scoped out and fully explored as to its potential possibilities because, that supply line and the next generation of craft workers in the traditional skills is what we require to sustain the portfolio of properties we have. Having those traditional building skills is really critical to the future protection of places like Sceilg Mhichíl and Brú na Bóinne so we are very keen to work with stakeholders on the ambition around a national centre for traditional building skills.

I call Deputy Cleere.

I will pass, Chair, as I am only in the door.

You are the last.

I will get in on the second round.

There is no second round.

To be fair, I will listen.

I thank all the witnesses for their contributions. I am also a fan of the THRIVE, because of Roscrea but I am not a fan of the speed of it because it is too slow. I am also not a fan of lack of joined-up thinking where €150,000 is somehow given to survey a hotel in the middle of the town on the main street to see if it is going to be feasible to be used again as a hotel. It is like throwing money off a cliff. It was absolutely insane. The team who are involved in THRIVE in Roscrea is fantastic and Brian King is a fantastic person. However, of all the towns I know, Roscrea really needs this. The speed at which this is happening is just not at it. The lack of joined-up thinking whereby there is a decision to throw away money like that is beyond my comprehension.

I used to be a manager in Fáilte Ireland. I know what is feasible as regards hotels. That was just a political stroke. When I see money being wasted like that, it is insane. My first question relates to THRIVE.

Second, consistency in approach as regards what the witnesses are all doing and the URDF and the RRDF is important. The funding mechanisms are important but I question the consistency of approach. In my home town we have the Nenagh Historic and Cultural Quarter, which is Rosemary Joyce's baby. She has done amazing work. She is absolutely incredible. However, the council has a consistent approach with all the councillors in Nenagh but they are dependent on funding. In every case, is there joined-up thinking between the OPW and other organisations and those funding mechanisms.

My last point is specifically for the OPW. We have had some issues in the recent past in relation to funding and rent the OPW was meant to be collecting on buildings that was not being collected, which would have been rolled back into its work. Have all those issues been concluded? Can the OPW give us a guarantee that they have been concluded because they were pretty embarrassing? I know because I had to reveal some of them.

I am biased because I am from Waterford, but Waterford is a very good example of where there has been a co-ordinated approach and vision for funding, not just using public funding and not just using it for cultural buildings, but complementing that with initiatives on dereliction and using funding for social housing for conversion of derelict buildings. All of that is an overall vision for the city. We have been talking about public funding so far but tax relief is something we should be also looking at. Waterford is again a very good example of where the contents of the Irish Museum of Time and the Irish Silver Museum have been made possible by donors being able to avail of the tax relief scheme. We have made recommendations on that on the importance of maintaining that tax scheme for donations to cultural institutions and expanding it to cover culturally significant buildings where we have offered to take a role. As well as that, at the moment a donor could contribute to the cost of the building itself for, say, a museum conversion and top up State grants in that way.

One of the good things about THRIVE, which I know is initially slow to get off the ground, is that it does have an end date that the project must be completed by or it does not get the money.

That is probably seen as a positive by everybody else, but I speak as the chief executive of a local authority with the pressure to get it done on time. It will get it done, and it does manage the time frame.

With regard to the partnership, I was chatting to Ms Collier outside about a few projects that we are working on. An Taisce is coming down to look at some vernacular structures in Carlow in the next few weeks. The network is quite small, and we very often engage with regard to what we are doing and what we are looking at. In fairness, An Taisce is very good at writing to us about issues as they arise. The network is small and we engage in work together. I am hopeful that this is in good shape.

I agree with that assessment. Fáilte Ireland has played a great role in looking at the tourism piece and bringing the stakeholders together. There is a more joined-up approach nowadays in relation to those schemes. The OPW supported applications from Meath County Council. In relation to Nenagh, Tipperary originally got phase A funding under the RRDF, with support from the OPW. There is a level of joined-up thinking there and, of course, we are continuing to work closely with other stakeholders to try to progress that.

In relation to THRIVE, we are supporting Clare County Council at Ennis Priory, and we are also supporting Rathfarnham Castle stables. We look after the castle and the local authority is developing the stables. There is quite a bit of joined-up thinking going on and maybe it is just about trying to get visibility for that. I note the Chair’s point about the speed and the delivery piece.

With regard to the Nenagh cultural quarter, we are working with partners on the ground. There was an issue with a wall collapse in one of the areas behind the castle recently. Our focus has been very much on the conservation piece. I will take that away and see if we can do other things on the cultural quarter piece.

Regarding rent, I did not bring any notes on the estates side of the house in the OPW but a process is ongoing. The Chair is right. It has been reviewed and there is a whole process around that.

I would not be doing my job if I did not raise it because the lost revenue that could be reinvested is not acceptable, to be fair.

That is correct. In general, rent goes back in A-in-A, and our investment is provided through the Vote of the Oireachtas. It is an accounting procedure. The Chair is right. That has been noted at previous appearances of the Committee of Public Accounts and other committees.

Ms Collier might take that message back. I will ask that question again soon.

I will.

I invite the witnesses to make a concluding comment.

There are a couple of points that I failed to make. With regard to the building acquisition measures, there are parts of the country where this could be increased from €500,000. I am thinking of urban areas and bigger towns, where €500,000 no longer gets very much. If we were looking to change it, a small increase to maybe €600,000 or €650,000 would make it easier for local authorities to acquire properties.

I also come back to the point about the architectural conservation officer. We are one of the local authorities that does not have one. This is the second time we have advertised for the job, which speaks to Senator Noonan's point about getting people with the qualifications and training to apply for those jobs.

I have one further point to make on the adaptation and reuse of traditionally built buildings. There is the potential for a greater focus to be placed on that by national and local authorities, working in tandem with the Office of Public Works, which is one party, but also the national built heritage service in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, and then going back again to the various schemes that have been discussed, including THRIVE, and how those can be used as a means of championing and highlighting the potential of reuse.

We should learn from the success stories that have happened around the country. We have mentioned a few. We made a detailed comment in our submission to the committee. Look at your town. Look at what landmark buildings are empty. Look at the history of your town that can be turned into something that can be made an attraction for the place. Think in terms of an overall vision for the place. That needs leadership.

One thing I did not mention in my opening statement was EU funding. We have been successful with EU just transition funding through the tourism objectives, but there is a whole piece around skills development, research, education and training through EU funding that all agencies have to try to pursue. There is also the State policy thinking around that, and how it is aligned with those EU schemes. In particular, the OPW has been showing leadership on adaptive reuse and energy efficiency in relation to the climate challenge we have with traditionally built buildings. They require very specific interventions on energy efficiency. EU support for those kinds of more complex issues around what we have to do in the cultural buildings space is very important.

That is a good point because it is a very high-cost area. I thank the witnesses for their contributions. We will go into private session.