Maidin mhaith. I welcome everyone to the public session of our meeting today. Before we proceed, I need to read some formal notices. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that members must be physically present within the confines of the place where parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, in order to participate in public meetings.

I will not permit members to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting.

The first petition is No. P00010/25 - "Reform of insurance for thatched heritage properties". We are joined by Ms Katie McNelis - I apologise if I mispronounced her name - and Mr. Ciarán McDonnell. For the benefit of our witnesses I want to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses may 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. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction. Before we hear from the witnesses, I propose to publish their opening statement on the committee's website. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On behalf of the committee, I extend a warm welcome to our witnesses. I ask them to read their statements and then we will have questions and answers. I thank the witnesses for being here.

I thank the Chair and the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak here again today. I am here for a second time because, despite everything that has been raised before, nothing has changed in any meaningful way. There is still no accessible or affordable insurance for thatched properties in Ireland.

I grew up in a thatched home in rural County Tipperary. It was not just our home though, it was our family business - a public house run by my parents since 1976 and the third generation of our family to do so. That building holds our history, our livelihood and our identity. After my father passed away in 2020, my mother received a letter in April 2021 stating that her insurance cover would no longer be provided as the underwriters had withdrawn from the Irish market. From that moment on, everything changed. I stepped in to try and help her. I contacted countless insurance companies, brokers and underwriters. One after another, the answer was the same: there was no full cover and if there was any sort of cover it was unaffordable. We made the heartbreaking decision to close the pub in the hope that we could at least secure domestic insurance, but even that door was closed. The final company offering cover withdrew, saying its quota was full.

My mother is now almost 85 years of age. She has been living without insurance since July 2021 and she is worried every day. She is afraid to have people come into her home in case something happens. Imagine reaching that stage in your life, after working hard for decades, only to feel unsafe in your own home, not because of anything you have done, but because the system has failed you.

This house has been cared for with pride. Over the years, my parents replaced the thatched roof multiple times at great personal cost. In nearly 50 years, they never made a claim. They did everything right, yet now my mother is the one left without protection. As it stands, with the property classed as a listed building, should anything happen to it, my mother would be obliged by law to return the building to its listed state but at her own cost. If she failed to do this, she could potentially face two years in jail and-or be liable for a fine of up to €12.7 million, as stated under the Planning and Development Act 2000.

I have contacted every relevant body I can think of - the Central Bank, the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, CCPC, Insurance Ireland, the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, FSPO, Brokers Ireland, local representatives and heritage officers - but no one has been able to offer a solution. We have even looked into removing the protected status of the building just to be able to change the roof and get insurance. That is not something we ever wanted. It goes against everything my parents stood for, but that is the position we have been pushed into. Even then, there is no guarantee it would solve the problem.

There have been some small developments. Statistics show fewer fire incidents and a pilot programme was rolled out by the Department to assess thatched properties, but none of it has made any real difference. Insurance is still not available or, in the few instances where it is available, it is not affordable. The reality on the ground has not changed. To put it in real terms, quotes from insurers equate to handing over approximately 30% of the weekly State pension every week.

What worries me most now is the future. This house will not stay with my mother for ever. One day, it will have to be passed on, but to whom and in what condition? Who can take on a thatched property with no insurance, rising maintenance costs, and legal obligations to restore it if anything goes wrong? Who can afford to carry that burden? The truth is I cannot and most people cannot. When that happens, the choice becomes very simple: remove the thatch or walk away. That is how we will lose these homes: not through neglect, but through necessity; not because people do not care, but because they are left with no other option.

If nothing changes, we are not preserving our heritage; we are slowly dismantling it, piece by piece. I am asking the committee to ensure that families like mine are not put in that position, that we are not forced to choose between protecting our homes and protecting our heritage and that, when the time comes to pass these homes on, we are passing on something that can be lived in, cared for and continued, not something that feels like a burden or a risk.

My mother’s situation is not unique. There are many families across Ireland facing the same reality. These are people who want to do the right thing, to preserve their homes and our heritage, but who are being left with no viable path forward. I am asking the Government to act, not in the future or after another report or pilot programme, but now because, for families like mine, this is not theoretical. This is happening in real time. My mother should be able to feel safe and secure in her own home and not have to live with constant worry about what might happen tomorrow. This house, like so many thatched homes across Ireland, carries generations of history. It was built to last, and it has lasted because people cared for it, invested in it and took pride in it.

This is the second time I have been here to raise this issue following the dissolution of the previous Dáil. I will ask again, as plainly as I can: can something be done this time? If not, the future of thatch in Ireland is in question. It is disappearing and once is gone, we will not get it back.

I am a thatch owner from County Kildare. In 2022, along with Katie McNelis and other concerned thatch owners, I formed the Thatch Insurance Action Group. This is a campaign group working on a voluntary basis to advocate for change in the thatch insurance market. We are seeking for thatch insurance to be both more available and more affordable. One without the other does not work.

The thatch sector faces many challenges and is currently in crisis. There has been a 95% decline in the number of thatch cottages in the past 70 years. An Taisce is making a submission to the World Monuments Fund on the basis that Irish thatch is an "endangered species". There is a shortage of thatching skills. Many thatchers are older now and nearing retirement. There is a scarcity of suitable quality thatching materials. What used to be plentiful is now in short supply. The intensive use and overuse of nitrates has degraded the quality of reed and straw. Thatching materials now have to be imported, making them significantly more expensive.

There is also a lack of affordable thatch insurance. Thatch owners faced with the obligations of living in a protected structure have no insurance and risk financial ruin. We are thankful that the Heritage Council has been tackling the thatcher and thatching materials issue, but a solution to the thatch insurance issue has remained out of reach thus far.

The Thatch Insurance Action Group currently has over 400 members, all of whom are thatch owners. As part of our campaign to raise awareness of the thatch insurance issue, we conducted an insurance survey of our members in 2025. The results of this survey are quite startling. Almost 50% of Irish thatch is uninsured, with these owners citing unavailability and unaffordability as the primary reasons for this. The 50% who remain insured are paying premiums that are, on average, over five times higher than what would be charged for a standard build house of the same value. The equivalent factor in the UK market is three times higher. With Irish property insurance premiums being, on average, double their UK equivalent, thatch premiums in the South are more than three times higher than those in the North without any real difference in actual insurance risk. This is just mental.

There is no competition between thatch insurers, with many insurers only offering to renew existing policies but refusing to take on new customers. Thatch owners who want to remain insured simply have to accept the premium quoted by their insurer. Over the past number of years, they have seen double digit annual increases in their premiums, generally increasing far above normal inflation levels. This is happening even to policyholders who have never made a claim.

Many insurers have left the Irish thatch market due to Brexit and are unlikely to return, citing the lack of profit as their reason. FBD and OBF remain the main insurers in the Irish market. Both are closed to new customers and trying to reduce their thatch exposure. OBF’s underwriter has decided to exit the Irish market and is actively shedding policies. The number of uninsured thatch cottages is steadily growing each year as insurers exit a sector they perceive to be too risky and unprofitable. For them, allocating capital to thatch is simply not an efficient use of their resources.

We have done some basic research to try to understand why this is happening. First, this is an Ireland problem. In near markets like the UK and other EU member states, this problem does not exist.

Even in these markets, thatch insurance has never been easy for insurers. The nub of the problem in Ireland appears to be that the number of thatched properties has fallen to such low levels that it is unsustainable as a commercial business proposition. In the 1950s, it is estimated that there were over 55,000 thatched properties in Ireland. Today, that number is down to less than 2,300, a reduction of 95% in 70 years. Ultimately, the thatch population is now too small to sustain a commercial insurance risk pool. This is market failure. The consequences of being uninsured extend far beyond the financial risk for owners. The unavailability of insurance means thatch owners are unable to sell their properties. Potential buyers cannot obtain a mortgage without insurance cover. They are also unable to access lifetime mortgages. An inability to insure also leads to reduced care and investment, with thatch owners being unwilling to invest in their property as they see it as throwing good money after bad. This, in turn, can lead to an increase in cases of dereliction. Protected structure legislation compounds the problem with local authorities insisting that thatch owners be responsible to maintain the special character of their thatched building. Without insurance, the whole building is endangered, through no fault of the owner. With fire risk cited as the pre-eminent insurance risk, Government has been discouraging the use of open fires and solid fuel stoves in thatched properties. Unfortunately, thatch owners have few realistic alternatives. Even with Government grants, investment in heat pumps is not realistic. Thatched buildings tend to be quite leaky from a heating perspective, so heat pumps are not very suitable. Insulating thatched buildings with modern materials can do irreparable damage to the thatch and using modern doors and windows generally requires planning permission, with local authorities advocating the appointment of a traditional building professional by the thatch owner before planning applications can even be submitted. This all adds to the cost of ownership, and many owners are at the end of their tether.

Why should any of us be bothered by all this? Thatch is part of our collective heritage and is a physical reminder of who we are and where we have come from. It is a link to our past, but it is under severe threat. When it is gone, it will be gone forever. Thatch is also a major tourism draw. Many of the tourists who come to Ireland are Irish diaspora who have had their family stories passed down through the generations. They have heard, or even have old photos, of the thatched family homestead. Whey they visit, their connection with Ireland is reinforced by thatched cottages in the landscape. Thatch enriches our communities and the built environment. Our local authorities have seen fit to designate many of them as protected structures. This is not an accident, but if we want to truly protect them, we need to solve the insurance problem.

What could be the solution? We need a different business model for thatch. The market-based, for-profit business model has failed. We suggest a mutual, non-profit model. We already have a possible ready-made solution on our doorstep. IPB, the insurer used by local authorities and county councils, could be the vehicle to implement this change. We have already seen interventions in the private insurance market by IPB. It recently started providing cover for Tidy Towns committees that had struggled to get insurance. This was facilitated by our local authorities, which did not want the Tidy Towns competition to disappear due to the unavailability of insurance. In the same vein, local authorities, the main advocates for protected structure designation, could facilitate a thatch insurance scheme run and managed by IPB. We are not suggesting a big bang approach. The scheme could be introduced on a cautious, phased basis, targeting the current 50% uninsured, and then rolled out more gradually as it becomes more established. We understand this is not going to be easy. To get a solution in place, we need a lot of co-operation from many people and organisations, co-operation between national Government, Deputies and Senators, local government and councillors, IPB and the Heritage Council, and of course the thatch community. It is a big ask. IPB appears to be the best solution but if for any reason it cannot be done, we do have other possible solutions to propose. We can leave those for another day. I thank the members for listening.

I thank Mr. McDonnell. I will invite questions and comments. As is customary, I will take the committee members first and then any other non-members.

I welcome Ms McNelis and Mr. McDonnell again. I recall we were talking about this in 2022 or 2023. I do not have an awful lot to add only that I know their frustration.

They have done an amazing amount of work since the last time they were here. We had that discussion about the local authorities before. As this is part of our heritage, we thought at the time that there could be an avenue, under the Office of Public Works and the buildings it has, for there to be some insurance but it has not moved.

It is not surprising but it is disgusting that insurance companies just pick and choose. If they decide to insure people, they can quote any figure hoping they will go away so it is not their problem. The crux of this is that owners of thatched properties own them because they want to own them. They are normally generational things that have been handed down. It is about preservation of pride but also a preservation of our history and heritage, as we said. If we lose them, they are gone forever. I watched a documentary about three or four weeks ago when I found out there is now investment in training thatchers. While I was watching it, I thought, “Good luck with that”. It is a great and beautiful trade to have, but I do not know where the work is going to be here. Two were somewhere in eastern Europe, and doing a thatched house in County Cork, as part of that documentary. It is an amazing trade, as is seeing it being done.

The crux is that if somebody wants to sell their property, they cannot because the next property buyer cannot get insurance on it. Heat pumps have been suggested but it does not work that way. There does not seem to be any common-sense approach to this issue. I do not understand why we cannot ask the Minister even to try it. Pilot schemes are loved here. We could try it as a pilot scheme in local authorities. Believe it or not, we nearly lost St. Patrick’s Day parades because of insurance. In fairness to the local authorities, they stepped in in a lot of these places and kept them going. I cannot understand why they cannot do so for this, even on a trial basis, as was said.

Mr. McDonnell said there are other possible solutions or proposals but that they are for another day. I would love to know what those proposals are because I genuinely do not know, unless the Government comes in and supports this. I cannot understand why it does not do so. It is our heritage and history. As was said, it does not have to be for profit. We have insurance for our public buildings. I cannot understand why the Government cannot take those thatched buildings in under the same auspices. I am interested to hear about the other solutions proposed because I am genuinely at a loss, since the witnesses were last before this committee.

The solutions proposed came about as a result of the clerk of the previous petitions committee writing to the European Ombudsman who then wrote to the EU Commission. The EU Commission wrote back with a couple of proposals. The first was to make the insurance mandatory, as it is with car insurance. The Minister of State at the time, Deputy Jennifer Carroll MacNeill, basically said she was not prepared to do that. The other proposal was the formation of a public-private partnership. In this case, the idea would be to get a private insurer to effectively run the book but the public, or the State effectively, would be the underwriter. Again, that was decried by the Minister of State as not being possible and that it would reduce competition, which is laughable because there is no competition. There are those other solutions. Maybe now with a different Minister in place, we might see whether we get a different answer to the same question.

We can try again.

Yes.

I welcome our witnesses. I compliment Ms McNelis and Mr. McDonnell on their presentation. I empathise sincerely with the McNelis family. It has to be a worry for all of them that they do not have insurance on their home, particularly for their mother.

As Deputy Buckley has said, thatched cottages and buildings are very much part of our heritage. The limited number of thatched buildings that there are in counties Cavan and Monaghan are all very well kept and the owners take great pride in them. The local community is always glad to bring visitors to see these particular buildings.

I was at the all-Ireland Fleadh Cheoil in Wexford last summer. I went to Kilmore Quay where there is a lovely village of thatched homes. It was joyful to see such a number together. I live in Cavan along the Border and I am very familiar with all of the province of Ulster. I doubt there is a bigger proportion of thatched homes or buildings in Northern Ireland than we have in our State. It is a bit questionable how our differential in insurance can be justified in any way. I presume the insurance companies that are providing cover for such buildings in Northern Ireland also operate here. We all know that a lot of these companies are international. Perhaps Mr. McDonnell can speak on this.

The case to get the IPB involved is very good, as it is necessary at this stage. Our colleague Senator Noonan has great knowledge of heritage, having been Minister of State with that responsibility. He will be able to outline better than any of us the value and important component of our heritage that thatched buildings are. Has the proposal been put to IPB? Did the insurance ombudsman make any recommendation or pursue in any way how there might be a resolution to this policy? The quotations the witnesses have spoken about are absolutely scandalous. It is extortion and is not acceptable. There is no reason that good, honourable, decent citizens who want to do the right thing should be deprived of necessary cover. We should try to speak directly to, and bring before the committee, the IPB or the ombudsman to follow this up.

The committee can strongly endorse the very important element of our heritage that this is. In recent years, there has been huge investment in heritage in this country. A lot of State money has gone into preserving monuments and the built heritage infrastructure. We should not let this particular part of the infrastructure disappear but it will if there continue to be prohibitive costs or a lack of insurance. I remember dealing with a family who had insurance as part of a farm pack through FBD. That was some years ago and I do not know whether it is still available. I compliment the witnesses on their presentation.

A lot of issues have been raised. To deal with the Northern Ireland issue, because it is part of the UK and the larger UK market, even though the density of thatched properties in the North might be the same as in the South, there is not an issue with regard to obtaining insurance cover. To put this in perspective, in the county of Devon there are 40,000 thatched properties. The amount of thatch in the UK is enormous compared to Ireland. This is why I referred to the amount of thatch we had lost in the past 70 years.

Insurance is a numbers game. When we do not have the required numbers in a risk pool, the problem then is that the risk becomes too large because we simply do not have enough premiums to cover the potential claims. That is why we need a different business model. The for-profit model does not work for insurance companies any more. This has been compounded by the introduction of the Solvency II legislation, which happened around the time of the financial crisis back in 2008. The way insurance companies are assessed by the regulator now - this goes back to the financial institution failures that happened at that time - is the regulator looks at what their capital adequacy is based on the various risks they have.

They do that by segmenting the risks into the different types of risks they have and effectively ensure the insurer has an adequate amount of capital in their company to cover the risks. When the regulator is segmenting the risks now, it is drilling down deeper and deeper. It used to be that there would be maybe two risk pools in insurance companies: standard house and non-standard house. Within the non-standard grouping there would be thatched houses, churches, theatres, flat-roof houses, timber-frame houses and whatever. Now the regulator is drilling down into that and the insurance companies are finding that the regulator is saying to them that they do not have enough capital allocated to cover that risk. The insurers are then deciding that if they need to put more capital into that it does not make it profitable for them any more, so they do not want to be in the thatched insurance business any more. That is what is happening.

In the UK it can be different because the risk pool for thatch is so much larger. The North benefits from the fact it is part of the UK. Brexit has also affected it. The other thing with insurance is that because there is no single market for insurance, one cannot have what is called a cross-border risk pool. In other words, Irish thatch cannot be part of a risk pool that has French, Dutch or Belgian thatch or wherever. The insurance companies basically do not do that and, without a single market for financial services, that will never happen. There is the possibility of it happening if we had a single market for insurance services but we are not there yet and we seem to be a long way off that.

I am struggling to remember some of the other points. FBD has a large part, about 17% to 20%, of the market for thatch. A lot of it was because of its historical involvement in insuring farms. FBD is continuing to insure the thatched properties it insured historically but it is not taking on any new customers. Its books are closed. I have heard of cases with FBD where, if somebody sells their thatched property, FBD is not taking on the thatch insurance for the new owner. FBD wants to reduce the amount of thatch risk exposure it has on its books.

I thank Mr. McDonnell. We will have the chance for another round of questions if need be.

I thank the Cathaoirleach. My apologies for being late. I thank Mr. McDonnell and Ms McNelis. I am sorry I missed Ms McNelis's opening statement but I read the written version over the weekend. I pass on my best wishes to her mum and acknowledge the anxiety she is living with as a result of not being insured. Given the extent to which her family has a no-claims history and the property being so well-maintained, it is clear the market has failed here. It is now ultimately about how we get access to insurance, affordability, and then the big issue of the extraordinary gradual loss of our thatched heritage.

Notwithstanding the engagements the witnesses have had to date, I am wondering whether this committee could establish a cross-party delegation and seek a meeting with the Minister who has responsibility for heritage, perhaps with IPB in the room. I am very familiar with the Tidy Towns model. Surely if we all sat around a table, we could reach a consensus. This is about our thatched heritage. I propose that a cross-party delegation of maybe four or five members of this committee meet with the Minister who has responsibility for heritage, with the IPB in the room at the same time, to see if we can find a template for a pilot package. I do not know whether other members would be open to that. It is about our thatched heritage. Mr. McDonnell mentioned there being 55,000 thatched properties back in the 1950s. The most recent figures show 95% loss. I do not know the exact figures.

It is 95%.

There is a 95% loss. I am putting that suggestion before the committee. A cross-party delegation such as that could put a bit of weight behind it. Ultimately, it is about our thatched heritage.

We have seen a significant loss in that heritage and we will see a greater loss. That is my proposal to the committee.

Thank you very much, Deputy Murphy. We will, of course, consider that proposal. We will also consider inviting representatives from IPB in, as well as representatives from the Department. There is a consensus emerging in terms of a potential pilot or whatever like that. The Deputy has made a very good suggestion and we will consider it

I would be supportive of Deputy Murphy's suggestion of a cross-party group. I thank Mr. McDonnell and Ms McNelis for being here. I did not realise Mr. McDonnell and I were neighbours. He is in Kildare and I am in Kildare. It is a pity that the witnesses are back here again. I have to question why that is the case. Something should have been done. I realise there was the dissolution of the Dáil and that circumstances happen. Listening to Ms McNelis's statement being read into the record about having 50 years of no claims, I am thinking about 50 years of premiums that have been paid out and what that adds up to. It is frightening.

Mr. McDonnell was saying that thatches are an endangered species and their number has decreased by 95%. He mentioned Devon and the thousands of thatched cottages over there. What system do they have in place? Do the insurance companies favour heritage properties? How come there is a wonderful success a couple of miles over the water and yet in Ireland we cannot seem to get it over the line?

We recently had people from the Gaeltacht in before the housing committee. They are not able to get houses in the Gaeltacht. The Government has a very strong Irish language policy and yet housing in the Gaeltacht is a disaster. They are sort of fighting against each other. I see the same thing here with heritage properties. It is our past, our history and our heritage and it is something we should be protecting. It seems that the Government's policy to protect heritage is going against what the witnesses are presenting here today.

There is a thatched cottage close to me and they replaced the roof because they could not do anything else. To hear that Ms McNelis's mother could be criminally prosecuted if the house was not put back to its current situation if anything happened is phenomenally questionable, in the extreme.

If thatches are becoming unsustainable, what is the solution going forward? I know the witnesses mentioned that IPB is the current insurer in the market but what fixes this problem so the witnesses will not have to come back in here again?

The Senator made a comparison with Devon. Thatch insurance is not easy in the UK either. Thatch owners pay multiples of other rates. I mentioned it is a multiple of three, in terms of UK insurance. It is more expensive to insure thatch in the UK. The difference in the UK is that they have the numbers. They have enough thatch for numbers of insurance companies to be active in the market. They even have specialist thatch insurers. There is a thatch insurer called the Thatched Owners Group and they only insure thatch properties. There is enough cake for the insurance companies to eat.

The problem we have is that the numbers are down to such low levels now that there is no cake left. It will all be eaten up by cost. What is the answer? Build more thatch may be one answer. They are doing that in the Netherlands. This is another thing we found out when doing our research. I am not suggesting doing that. I think we have to stop the rot first. The first thing we need to do is get an insurance scheme in place. Part of the issue-----

Is there an appetite for that?

The current Minister of State at the Department of Finance with responsibility for insurance, Deputy Robert Troy, is listening. He went to London last September to try to get more market interest in coming over to insure thatch. I am trying to get a meeting with him during the coming weeks. Another part of the problem here is that this is being perceived by some as being a heritage problem when actually it is probably a finance problem.

In the past, at meetings of this type, we have always had the Minister for heritage and the Minister of State with responsibility for insurance before us to speak on the matter. We have a former Minister of State for heritage here. He can probably speak about how it is perceived at Government level. In our experience, it seems that the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance is the one wearing the trousers here.

On costs, what figure are we talking about that would bring insurance back on the market, whether that is through subsidies, a subsidised scheme or whatever?

That is not something we have been able to do. One thing we have been keeping track of is the number of fires that are happening in the thatched houses. Fire is the main risk.

They have decreased.

They have decreased significantly. The Department of heritage published a report in early 2023 which stated that in the previous five years, there had been an average of 14 fires a year in buildings with thatched roofs, which seemed very high. We have been keeping tabs on the number since then. In 2023, we had six. In 2024, we had five. In 2025, we had five. You can put a number based on that as to what the average claims are likely to be in a financial year and work out what premiums would be required to cover those claims on the basis that you could do it on a non-profit basis. That would be a fairly simple exercise. I do not think the calculations are very difficult or insurmountable. It is not rocket science. There could be solutions there with a lot of co-operation. It is getting the co-operation that seems to be the tricky part.

I thank Mrs. McNelis and Mr. McDonnell for being here. The last time I was here I was the Minister of State trying to crack the nut. I was sitting here the witnesses are now. This is an opportunity now to apologise for not being able to crack it. I thought we had made significant progress, through the pilot retrofit schemes, the grant schemes and fire risk assessment. I thought that when you get to a point where you ascertain where the greatest risk is, which was mostly with stoves, and you reduce that risk or put in measures to reduce it significantly, the insurance premiums would come down accordingly. I was naive in thinking that. Again, I support the idea that we go cross-party to try to deal with this once and for all. I would be happy to participate in that if it is of any use. The reality is that in ten years' time the only thatched cottages we are going to see in Ireland will be on John Hinde postcards. We have all talked about heritage, the vernacular and how important all of this is, but these are the owners of these properties with us. They are the ones who are taking on the risk on behalf of the State in terms of our heritage. We have to resolve it. If recommendations come forward from this committee, I would support the proposal that has been made on the IPB. I would strongly support trying that out to see if we would.

Separately, we have made significant progress. A thatching course was run in my county, Kilkenny, in conjunction with the Heritage Council. Twelve graduates came out of that. I am in a working group looking at the materials issue. Again, there is lots of interconnectedness around the nature restoration plan and growing thatching materials in Ireland. I would have been of the view early in my tenure that we could increase the number of thatched properties in Ireland. There is lots of thatch under tin across the country. I stop and photograph the properties involved as I travel across the country. There are also new thatched properties. That is where we should be going because that builds up the numbers that are here. I share the frustration that is here today at the committee. I would ask Mr. McDonnell that point around the fire risk and that we have got to a point where the property owners can retrofit and reduce that risk. Surely that must be an incentive to insurance companies.

If the risk is reduced by 80%, surely the insurance should come down commensurate to that.

In terms of our heritage, it was lost in the mix of all the other activity last week, but the Government halved the grant relating to the tradition farm building scheme. These are other vernacular buildings that are part of our landscape and heritage and the grant relating to them has been halved. We need a commitment from the Government on this. I am more than happy to meet the delegation, but we need a commitment on this.

I would not be against building more thatched properties. In order to do that, you have to make it attractive to own thatch. At the moment, it is all downside as far as thatch owners are concerned. It is all expense. The first thing anybody who comes to my house asks is how much it costs for the upkeep. It is perceived as a high-cost roofing material. My house does not have an open fire or stove. I have a heat pump. It costs me a fortune to run it. When I started this in 2022 with Mrs. McNelis, I had insurance. I do not have insurance now. My insurance company ditched me in 2024. My point here is that time moves on. Insurance companies do not look under the roof. They are only interested in what is on the roof. If it is thatch, that is it. They move on to the next customer. We need change. We need this institution here to start pulling together and acting now. This is our fourth time here. We are no further along than we were when we started this in 2022.

The committee's interest here is in moving this on. We fully appreciate Mrs. McNelis and Mr. McDonnell's time. We hear their frustration. That has been echoed by many of the members. We are not interested in wasting the witnesses' time by asking them to come here repeatedly. We are interested in working with them to try to find a resolution. Some good suggestions have been made. I am definitely in favour of bringing the IPB in. That is a good idea. Separately, if we want to arrange to meet with the relevant Minister and put that case, by doing those two things, that might be good.

I will ask a couple of questions. I know people possibly think that this is not a massive issue in Dublin. It is in the constituency I represent, Dublin Fingal West. It is the part of Dublin where you will see the highest number of thatched cottages. We love them. They are a great asset in terms of tourism. They are also an expression of our heritage. Then you have to balance that on the other side with the fact that while we all love to see the thatched buildings - and they are absolutely stunning - there has to be some sort of quid pro quo on the part of the State that if we are accepting that these are part of the tourism landscape, heritage, etc., then we need to be meeting owners of thatched properties halfway. It is very striking that what the witnesses are saying is that they are recording a reduction in the number of fires and an increase in the premiums. That runs counter to what insurance companies tell us because it is about managing the risk and all of that. If the risk is going down, then it is very hard to understand what the resistance is, except for exactly what Mr. McDonnell has said, which is that there is now no longer any interest among insurance companies in doing that. When that happened with the Tidy Towns, however, we saw local authorities and the IPB moving in and a solution was found.

We know what the problems are. We know how much that we do not want to be just having memories of thatch. We want thatch in our communities. In terms of the IPB, has Mr. McDonnell had any engagement with it? Obviously, our intention is - I do not want to speak on behalf of the committee - to invite the IPB in if we could. What has been Mr. McDonnell's engagement with it? What is his understanding of its position?

As part of what I tried to do, I am in touch with some people in the Heritage Council.

Virginia Teehan, the chief executive of the council, had a meeting with a board member of IPB a couple of weeks ago. Because of the Easter break, I have not heard any feedback yet. I know that for IPB, this would be a challenge. It does not generally deal with what I would call retail insurance. For it to put such a scheme together to insure 2,300 thatched properties, ultimately, is a big ask. That is a reason I said in my statement that every journey begins with a first step.

I do not think anyone is disputing that but there is no solution to this. The let us go to the market and see what the market is providing solution has not worked. The decision is fairly stark. We are either going to work as a committee and as the Oireachtas to try to protect that part of our heritage or somebody will have to hold their hand up and say that is not on the agenda anymore. All parties and Independents are represented here and nobody is saying we want to walk away from that. We just need to harness that positive political consensus and try to see if we can move it forward.

I have another round of questions available if anyone wishes to ask one as I have asked mine. As there are no questions, I thank our witnesses sincerely and acknowledge the fact this is not their first time here. We appreciate their attendance and the information they have given. Clearly, we want to send our best wishes to Ms McNelis's mam because she appears to be right. I think myself of people in my own family and how they would feel about not having insurance. It is not something for which you can say, "Ah, sure, it will be grand." People have insurance for a reason. We acknowledge and thank Ms McNelis for sharing her mam's experience with us.

We have all said the same thing; we want to do something to be able to help. We will have a discussion ourselves on what exactly we can do that is practical and will move this forward. We will have a discussion offline about putting together a delegation to meet the relevant Minister so we can try to operate that on a number of fronts. Our witnesses can hear very clearly the consensus of the committee is we value our heritage and we value thatch as part of that heritage. We will work together to try to do something constructive. As I said, we acknowledge the fact this is not the witnesses first time here and we thank them very sincerely for sharing their experience, information and evidence with us this morning.

I thank the Cathaoirleach.

I will suspend the meeting and we will discuss the petitions when we resume.