I welcome everyone to the meeting. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they 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.

Our next order of business is engagement in relation to P00010/25 on the reform of insurance for thatched cottage properties, with the Departments of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and Finance. We are joined by Ms Sarah Waters, principal officer, and Ms Jane Wales, senior architectural adviser, from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. From the Department of Finance, we are joined by the Minister of State with special responsibility for financial services, credit unions and insurance, Deputy Robert Troy, Mr. Nicholas Fitzgerald, assistant principal officer, and Mr. Brendan Heeney administrative officer.

Before we start, I want to explain some of the limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses with regard to references that witnesses may make other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses who are 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 to the effect 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 our witnesses, I propose that we publish the opening statements on the committee's website. Is that agreed? Agreed. On behalf of the committee, I extend a warm welcome to the witnesses.

I thank the Cathaoirleach for the invitation to attend. Since the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage was last before this committee in 2023, the national built heritage service has continued to work to help resolve the difficulties being experienced by owners of thatched properties in relation to the accessibility and affordability of insurance. While involvement in the operations of the insurance sector falls outside the remit of the Department of Housing, Local governments and Heritage, the national built heritage service has been working extensively on a range of measures to mitigate against the risk of fire in thatch, and to improve our safety in thatched buildings. The results of these measures are proving very effective and have resulted in a substantial reduction in the incidences of fire in thatch in the last three years.

I will explain the work that the service has undertaken since the Minister for heritage was last before the committee. First, I will summarise the relevant work that has been carried out by the service in the preceding period. The Minister for heritage launched a strategy for built vernacular heritage in December 2021. This strategy includes a specific action for thatched buildings, action 6, which includes reference to thatch insurance. In 2022, the service commissioned and published a report on insurance and fire safety in thatch.

The key finding of this report was that the majority of fires in thatched buildings were caused by solid fuel-burning stoves, not by open fires or electrics, as had been previously assumed.

In 2023, the national built heritage service, NBHS, undertook a national thatch census to establish a baseline and assist the insurance sector in understanding the scale of the market. This survey identified approximately 2,300 thatched buildings, both historic and modern. In 2023, the NBHS published a short booklet, entitled "Fire Safety in Thatched Properties", in conjunction with the national directorate for fire and emergency management. Different insurers attach very different conditions to their thatch policies, indicating that there is no consensus in the industry on what works to prevent fire in thatched buildings. Authoritative fire prevention guidance for owners, occupiers and insurers that is tailored to the Irish context is essential. This booklet offers clear advice on the simple measures that are required to reduce risk. It has been sent directly to the owners of thatched properties, who, following on from the thatch insurance survey that our Department circulated in 2022, indicated that they would like to stay in touch with the Department. Together with architectural conservation officers, heritage officers, housing inspectors, and thatchers, the NBHS continues to ensure that the booklet is circulated as widely as possible. It is also available to download from the our website.

The NBHS has continued to work on risk mitigation in thatched buildings since the then Minister of State was last before this committee in 2023. I will now provide an update on the measures we have taken since then. In 2024, the NBHS introduced a free thatch fire safety advice service to thatch owners and occupiers. An engineer from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage will visit a thatched building and offer the owner bespoke advice on the fire safety improvements that can made at their property. The key advice offered is to please stop using stoves. As many owners are reluctant to accept this advice, other key recommendations usually relate to behavioural changes, for example, only using proper firelighters, making sure that the chimney or flue is well maintained and cleaned regularly, burning seasoned timber, making sure the fire is out before going to bed, etc. As these are clearly behavioural changes that owners may or may not chose to implement, we have no way of verifying if they are made and adhered to, so it is not possible for the Department to certify these aspects of fire safety. The service will be advertised once again in the autumn, in both print and digital media, to encourage owners and occupiers to avail of this free service.

As well as guidance for thatch owners and occupiers on fire prevention, the NBHS has worked with the national directorate for fire and emergency management to develop standard operating guidance for fire in thatched buildings. This type of guidance is not aimed at the general public, but intended for the fire services in local authorities. Standard operating guidance, SOG, 3.16, entitled "Fighting Fires in Thatched Roofs", was developed by the national directorate in 2024. It has been developed to encourage a less destructive approach to firefighting that will reduce the scale of loss to owners and insurers, while ensuring that human safety is paramount. In 2025, the built heritage service was invited to present to the senior fire officers from all local authorities at the fire service central training programme, fire safety and engineering seminars. Traditional roof construction, thatching techniques and regional variations were among the topics covered, all of which can help to inform approaches in thatch firefighting and reduce the scale of loss.

There are very clear indications that the steps taken by the NBHS to improve fire safety in thatch are working. This is demonstrated by the thatch fire statistic that NBHS has been collecting from the chief fire officers in each local authority since 2022. In 2022, we asked the chief fire officers for thatch fire data for the five-year period 2018 to 2022. The returns demonstrated a high incidence of fire in thatch, with an average of 14 fires per year. We were very pleased to see a marked improvement the following year, with six fires reported for the period of 2022 to 2023. Further improvement was seen for 2023 to 2024, with five fires reported, and this trend continued into 2024 to 2025, with five fires reported.

The consistently lower incidence of thatch fires in the last three years clearly indicates that the fire mitigation steps recommended by the NBHS are working. The statistics over the last three years show that the incidence of fire in thatched buildings is now similar to the incidence of fire in non-thatched buildings. While acknowledging that the operations of the insurance sector are outside the remit of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, we continue to worked with owners, occupiers, thatchers, architectural conservation officers, heritage officers, fire officers and our colleagues in the national directorate for fire and emergency management to mitigate risk and improve fire safety for this iconic part of our architectural heritage and for the custodians of these traditional buildings.

I thank Ms Waters and invite the Minister of State to make his statement.

I thank the committee for the invitation to attend today’s meeting to discuss the important issue of insurance for thatched heritage properties. Given the importance of this matter, I am pleased to be in a position to be here to engage with the committee.

I acknowledge the petitioners, and the owners of thatched homes and businesses, who have brought this matter before the committee. The petition reflects very real concerns. It speaks to the difficulty that many owners face in obtaining insurance and, often, the significant cost involved. It also highlights a wider public interest, namely, the preservation of Ireland’s built heritage, the protection of our traditional thatched buildings, and the role that these properties play in local tourism and our national identity. Thatched properties are not simply private assets. In many cases, they form part of the historic fabric of our towns, villages and countryside.

The Department of Finance has been monitoring this issue as an ongoing insurance pinch point. There are an estimated 2,278 thatched buildings in Ireland, including residential homes, commercial premises and other structures. Indeed, the small size of the risk pool is itself one of the factors that makes it particularly difficult. It can limit the number of insurers willing to participate and can make pricing more volatile. In addition, engagement with stakeholders has identified a number of factors contributing to the difficulty in obtaining insurance for thatched properties. These include, but are not limited to, the risk of fire; rural location of such properties and distance from fire stations; limited scope for remedial works compared with modern buildings; and rising rebuild costs and a shortage of skilled professionals. The specialist nature of thatched construction also means that, where a serious loss occurs, the claim can be quite substantial.

That said, I recognise the reality facing owners and am fully aware that premiums for thatched properties can be high. However, it is important to be clear that insurance pricing is based on the risk an insurer is being asked to accept, the level of uncertainty attached to that risk, and the likely cost and severity of claims. The evidence available indicates that fire remains a central concern for insurers. The Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage has done extensive work in this regard over the last number of weeks. I do not intend to rehash what my colleagues have already indicated in respect of the work they have done.

The Irish market for thatched property insurance remains limited and the availability of cover varies considerably. Some providers have indicated that they are not taking on any new business in this area while others may only offer cover subject to significant limitations or strict underwriting criteria. For example, certain products available in the market may exclude key risks such as fire while other offerings may involve premiums calculated by reference to a certain percentage of rebuild costs. One provider has also indicated that, while its underwriters currently have no appetite to write new thatched property insurance business, it may continue cover where an existing insured property is sold and the new owner seeks to remain with that provider. This demonstrates that the market has not disappeared entirely, but it is narrow, constrained and expensive. The challenge before us is how to improve that position in a sustainable way.

It is important to set out clearly what the Government can and cannot do in this area. Making insurance mandatory does not make it more affordable or available. We know from other jurisdictions that compulsory insurance can be expensive and create further problems for people who cannot obtain cover. There is also a real possibility that such intervention could increase premiums, reduce market appetite, create uncertainty or lead insurers to withdraw capacity from parts of the property insurance market, running contrary to the Government’s broader objective of increasing capacity and competition. For these reasons, my view remains that market-based solutions offer the best and most sustainable route forward.

The Government has an important role to play in bringing stakeholders together to find a solution, improving information flows, supporting risk mitigation, encouraging new capacity, and ensuring that all stakeholders understand the Irish market and the steps being taken to reduce risk. That is why I chaired a round-table discussion earlier today, coincidentally, on the issue of thatch insurance. The discussion brought together key stakeholders, including IPB Insurance, the only mutual insurance provider in the country; FBD, which confirmed today that it was currently providing cover for in the region of 500 properties and had an appetite to look at more properties going forward; the Alliance for Insurance Reform; the Thatch Insurance Action Group; my colleagues here from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage; Insurance Ireland; and the national directorate for fire and emergency management. The value of the round-table discussion was that it allowed those perspectives to be heard together, and it helped develop a common understanding of the issues affecting the thatch insurance market, as each stakeholder sees a different part of the problem.

I recognise the importance of preserving thatched heritage properties but I also recognise the burden being carried by owners and businesses that are trying to maintain these buildings for future generations. The most effective response is not to undermine the insurance market but to work with the market, help improve the risk profile, bring stakeholders together and seek practical solutions that can endure.

The petitioners have asked the Government to step up and I believe that is exactly what we are in the process of doing by bringing the relevant parties together, guiding the market to engage constructively, ensuring risk reduction is properly recognised, strengthening the evidence base and working to attract sustainable capacity into this part of the insurance market. These buildings are part of our national story and the people who maintain them are doing an important service not only for themselves but for their communities and for the country. I do not underestimate the difficulty of the challenge but I am clear that the current position should not be accepted as inevitable. The round-table meeting earlier today was an important step but it must be the beginning of a focused process rather than the end of the conversation. My objective is to work with colleagues across government, as well as with owners, heritage and fire safety experts and with the insurance sector to identify the practical actions that can help secure the future of Ireland’s thatched heritage. I look forward to hearing suggestions from committee members now as to what more can be done in this space.

I thank the Minister of State. For the record, the opening statement we had did not have all of that information on the round-table meeting, so I am glad he shared that with us. It sounds like an important meeting and one that will definitely feed into the work we have. If the Minister of State has a copy of that, perhaps we can circulate it. Would that be okay?

Yes, and I took out the whole section that duplicated what my colleague said as well.

That was very kind. I thank the Minister of State.

I will throw the floor open to questions. I will take Deputy Buckley first and then committee members and non-members after.

I thank everyone for coming in and I thank the Minister of State for his attendance here. This has been going on for a very long time. I think this is the second petitions committee term I have been in where we have been dealing with insurance. I accept the Minister of State's bona fides. I am delighted and welcome that he had round-table talks with the insurance companies. This is not a personal attack on anybody or on anybody's statement but what I am listening to here and taking back is that we were in the committee trying to sort out insurance for thatched premises and businesses in Ireland and the owners of these premises are going to get a booklet on how to not light fires. When the owners get that booklet as mentioned, is it a box-ticking exercise or is that if they adhere to all the rules in the booklet, they have a better chance of getting insurance? It is not to be smart or sarcastic. I feel for some of the witnesses who have been here. One owner had a generational family pub that was handed down and they lost all that business because they could not get insurance. As one of the members of this committee and the previous committee, I am worried about going back to say that this owner is going to get a booklet and something is going to happen.

My second question - I will get it all in together - is on the statement by the Minister of State, Deputy Troy. I welcome every bit about protecting our heritage and the whole lot but there have been heritage thatched buildings belonging to the Government over the years. How are they falling under a remit to get insurance? We have thatched villages and stuff that would be protected under heritage and housing and local government. We are talking about approximately 2,100 thatched properties. As the Minister of State said in his statement, with all of these it is about preserving and protecting our heritage. We are going to lose all of these. From my experience, having been in here since 2012 or whenever it was I came in here - I cannot even remember as we have been here for so long now - we seem to be very reactive instead of proactive. In five years' time - even next year will probably be too late for a lot of these thatched buildings - we will be scratching our heads and asking how did this happen when we had been discussing the issue. Surely the importance of this is clear. The Minister of State knows it. When it is gone it is gone. For tourism, you could not put a price on our history and our heritage. We cannot lose that for the sake of insurance companies not being willing. We asked the former Minister this question in the last term but could there be something between the Government and insurance companies that could pull together under the same auspices of the heritage that is already covered under Government policy for Government buildings that are thatched in order that we could come up with some solution for these people?

These people did not buy these properties just to be cool. A lot of it involves costs. They are lucky enough to be in a position that they can afford to maintain their roofs and that, but they do it because they feel proud of the ownership of a building like that and the fact that it is preserving history. Then there is the other side with the businesses. There are a lot of pubs which would have been handed down the generations and they are struggling to keep them open or preserve them. They do not want to lose them but the owners have zero options. I have looked at stuff in Europe and even how they do it in Britain and it seems to be a massive problem. Is there a way whereby the Government and insurance companies can come up with some kind of a deal or a solution? I have racked my head about everything here and I cannot come up with a solution. As I said, I am disappointed we do not have answers for those owners again. I reiterate I am not being derogatory or anything like that but I feel for these thatched building owners. Some people have spent thousands doing interior insulation. I am just picturing another witness who was before the committee. I would not like to be giving him the booklet. That is the first thing he would put into the stove - even if he is not supposed to have a stove - to burn because he would not be happy with it. I am just saying that now. I am very honest. I am worried we are not going to get an answer. I do not expect the witnesses to have all the answers but I would love an answer to that one on the Government and insurance companies. If the Government has properties in this country that are thatched and are insured, surely we can come up with a plan between the Government and insurance companies to insure those other 2,000 properties and protect the heritage. That is the second question. The other one is on the booklet. I am sorry for going on so long.

Not at all. I thank Deputy Buckley for that. I will give those questions to our witnesses in any order they like.

First, I honestly cannot answer with any certainty whether there are any State-owned properties that are thatched. For any insurance the State has, it does not individually insure a premises. It has collective insurance over all its property. I would imagine if there is property of the OPW or of a particular Department that it would fall part of the overall insurance policy. They do not have to go in for an individual insurance policy like a publican or a property owner who has a thatched premises would. I am acutely aware of this. It gives me an opportunity to plug The Three Jolly Pigeons, Tang, County Westmeath. It is a thatched pub between Ballymahon and Athlone.

The Minister of State should plug it while it is open.

The facts of the matter are that on average, 50% of the thatched properties have insurance at the moment. They have insurance for historical reasons. They are with a company and the company is staying loyal to them. FBD Insurance, as part of the round-table discussion, confirmed it is currently insuring about 500. That has increased over the last number of years and it wants to increase it further. However, we have to acknowledge and recognise that where there is risk there is a responsibility to mitigate against that risk. To be fair, and I will let my colleagues answer for themselves, they have done an awful lot more in the Department of heritage than just issue a booklet.

I understand, and I was not being----

I know you were not-----

I am trying to come at the point for the people outside who have been struggling. Sorry for cutting across the Minister of State, but he mentioned companies and historical insurance. I will mention what happened with a particular witness who was here in the last term. Her mother handed down the pub to her daughter. It was insured but the minute it was transferred from the mammy's name to the child's name, we will say, the insurance company would not carry on that insurance. I am just flagging that as a problem.

From engaging with insurance companies, the key thing they want is for property owners to engage in risk-mitigation measures. One thing that has been done is that the Department of heritage has published what the priority actions are to minimise and reduce the risk. It also has made available an audit to be conducted by a relevant professional from the Department who will audit the premises and identify what needs to be done.

During the course of our discussion today, one of the questions I posed was whether, if that audit was done initially and they came back having carried out the works recommended, as advised by the fire authority and the Department of heritage, the insurance companies would look at that as a kind of accreditation and take on the properties. That is something the insurance companies are willing to look at. They would not confirm that they would take them on but it is something we can explore further.

As the officials will confirm, even though that audit is available free of charge, the uptake has been low. That is surprising. It is why they will readvertise it. Even the representative of the thatched insurance industry who was at the committee meeting today was unaware that it was still available. That message needs to get out there. Even if this meeting does nothing else, we should get it out there to people who have a thatched premises that there is an opportunity to get a free audit, conducted by the Department of heritage, that will identify what risk-mitigating measures can be introduced. A number of companies are looking at expanding their risk appetite based on those risk-mitigating measures being introduced.

I thank the Minister of State for that.

I thank the Minister of State. In the remaining time, will the witnesses from the NBHS address the issue of publicly owned buildings and how they are insured? That might be helpful.

I understand that where the OPW owns a small number of buildings, they are covered by the State Claims Agency, like any other public-owned properties.

That is a collective insurance policy, not an individual one.

Exactly.

For the avoidance of any doubt and squaring the circle, is that insurance that covers them available to private buildings in any circumstance? How would that work?

Based on what I know, I think it is ring-fenced for OPW property.

I just wanted to be clear about that because there was a wee bit of chat about that at our last meeting. I wanted to get that onto the record. I call Deputy Smith.

I welcome the witnesses. I thank both Ms Waters and the Minister of State for their contributions. The last day we had this discussion here, it was depressing to listen to the people who could not get cover for their premises. They were in a very difficult position.

As the Minister of State and Ms Waters both said, this is an iconic part of our heritage. It is an important part of our tourism as well. The low numbers of those buildings that we have today need to be retained and maintained as strongly as possible.

It is disappointing to hear that there has been a poor uptake on the opportunities to get people out to give advice. We all develop bad behaviour in everyday work. It is not that many years ago that people did not wear seat belts in the car when they were driving. We can all change our behaviour in our day-to-day activities. A booklet is different, but when you get the offer of a professional to meet you and see on site how you could improve and reduce your risk liability, that is a good measure. It should be encouraged as strongly as possible.

I take it that the figure we have of 2,278 thatched buildings is a good inventory and it is a fairly accurate reflection of the quantum of buildings. It is good to hear that.

Fire mitigation measures are obviously important and they can be done. There is not a building in the country, whether a private house or anything, that would not benefit from mitigation measures. We could all learn from getting in professional advice at different times to look at a building, a vehicle or whatever.

In regard to getting the message out, at times people think everybody is getting messages digitally nowadays. They are not. People are not reading local newspapers. At times there can be a lacuna in getting messages out in regard to what information is available from the Government or whatever. If there was a good inventory, that would help in getting information directly, by post or whatever, to the different owners of the premises, whether they are private houses or business premises.

The Minister of State stated that he had had a useful meeting today and I welcome that. Unless everybody works together, we will surely have no progress. Our only hope is to have everybody around the table with the common objective of making progress on these difficult issues. The Minister of State said that the aim is to get practical solutions and attract sustainable interest on the part of the insurance companies in such a product as well and that that is necessary to secure our thatched heritage.

There is a bigger percentage of thatched buildings proportionately in Northern Ireland and Britain than we have. Are there any lessons to be learned from the availability of insurance in Northern Ireland or Britain to this sector that might be useful for both the Department of Finance and the Department of heritage in working on this particular issue?

I was glad the Minister of State stated that FBD gave the clear impression today that it would be interested in new business and new policyholders because I have been checking locally on this issue and I had gathered that insurance companies were not taking on any new policyholders and that an existing policyholder's renewal would be honoured and that type of thing.

I would say to the Minister of State and the officials from both Departments that it is a very difficult area but progress needs to be made. We heard people here say they are worried. Their homes or business can go on fire, as Senator Brady outlined in the context of what happened in a pub in north Longford. All of us want to see people secure from every point of view. We want them secure in the knowledge that if there is damage to their house, it can be replaced by having insurance cover.

In fairness, I would not have thought the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage would be as active. I welcome the fact that the Department gives that professional advice free to all homeowners or business owners. That should be amplified as much as possible.

The Minister of State mentioned the poor take-up. There should be some way of trying to address that and perhaps landing on their doorstep rather than depending on getting a letter, a phone message or whatever to them. I am sure there are people out there thinking there is no point in engaging. That is the worst message of all to go out.

If the Departments can give some momentum to the work that they are already doing, and I am not taking away from that in any respect, it would be important. In the future, maybe they could check with their counterparts in Northern Ireland and Britain as to whether there is anything we can learn from them. I understand that cover is widely available in Britain through different insurance companies. It is an area, if both Departments have not looked at it yet, that they might look at in the future.

I thank Deputy Smith. Do the witnesses want to respond, specifically in relation to the comparison between the North and Britain and this jurisdiction? There is a big difference and the witnesses at the previous meeting told us that.

I thank the Deputy for those comments. As part of the report we commissioned on insurance and fire safety in 2022, the people who wrote it reviewed research undertaken in other jurisdictions, including Britain and Northern Ireland, on the causes of those thatched fires and on fire prevention measures. They considered that in terms of the risk-mitigation piece.

On the insurance part, while we are not as directly involved in that, I understand based on the discussions today at the round table that one of the key challenges with the Irish market is that it is so small. That differentiates us a lot from that UK market.

Is there no reciprocal arrangement?

They are two different jurisdictions.

I visited the UK with a number of colleagues on 1 October of last year. We met with a number of key insurance and reinsurance companies that are active in the English market - Lloyds, Gallagher Re and Houghton. As my colleagues have said, in the UK there are approximately 55,000 to 80,000 of these properties. When we compare the size of the UK market in the first instance and then the size of the thatched market, it is an attractive proposition in comparison with the Irish market. When we were trying to attract them to come in, someone - I cannot remember who or at which of the meetings - pointed out that some UK cities constitute bigger markets than the entire Republic of Ireland market.

Within that, there are only 2,500 properties. That is the big challenge we have. That said, however, there are requirements from the UK's perspective in the context of maintaining chimneys and introducing fire mitigation measures. The biggest challenge will be finding a way to ensure that we can bring forward a comprehensive schedule of work that can be done to alleviate as much risk as possible and work with existing providers to encourage them increase their appetite. Being frank and honest, I came home from the trip to the UK disheartened about the level of attraction to the Irish market. Those involved just were not interested at all.

Senator Brady is next.

I have a final question.

I apologise. Of course.

I thank Ms Waters and the Minister of State, Deputy Troy. I presume all the insurance business in Northern Ireland is underwritten by providers in London or Britain. Northern Ireland is not a unitary market.

It is not.

It is worth noting that it is like the youth training scheme advertisement from many years ago about not being able to get a job without experience and not being able to get experience without a job. The market cannot grow as a result of the fact that there will be no new thatch because of the insurance issue. The market is constrained and cannot grow. In the North, there are more. The market here cannot grow because people cannot get insurance, which means that-----

It will remain constrained.

Yes. I am not placing all this at the Minister of State's door. I am simply saying that it is cyclical.

I thank the witnesses. It would be remiss of me not to mention the 98 Bar in Ballinamuck, particularly as the Three Jolly Pigeons was mentioned. Last Sunday was fair day in the village of Ballinamuck. The fair is run to show people what happened in olden times, and it is set outside a thatched pub, namely the 98 Bar. It attracts a huge following among the locals. The scene outside the bar on fair day is lovely. The fair relates to 1798. That is how it got its name, from the last known war fought on Irish soil, which was fought in the village of Ballinamuck. The 98 Bar has received a number of grants from different local authorities. We need to have a discussion about that. If the owner of a building can receive heritage grants and funding to protect the structure, we might look at having State-led insurance that would cover heritage, rather than a business. It is the heritage that we are protecting.

I was in the building game, as everyone knows. Fire slabs, including double and triple fire slabs, can be bought now. Kingspan in Cavan has come up with boards and fire protection that lasts two, three and four hours in heat. That is where technology in the building game has brought us. These older buildings have to have up-to-date wiring certificates and fireproof doors. On what was said about having some of the rest of the stuff in place, such as fire slabs and fireproofing under the current regulations if people were to buy into investing in their buildings, it might be a way to have a semi-State insurance policy. It is an issue that will never be solved because the market here is too small, as everyone has said, unless someone grasps it. The people who own the buildings would have to invest in them, but they would be insured.

The brother of a good friend of mine lost his place in Connemara this weekend. It was a lovely pub and post office that did wholesale, meals and everything. This has devastated the whole village in Connemara. The local pub, post office and so on are gone. What that has done to the community there can be seen. There has to be something out there for us. It is bigger in England and the UK, but we certainly need to take our heritage seriously because it is not a question of ripping off the thatch and putting on slates. If slates are put on to get insurance we will lose the whole heritage. It has been said that if a building is not thatched and had a slate roof, it can get insurance, that people can put blue bangers and whatever else on it and it will match up. It does not match up. Thatch is thatch. That is the way it is.

With the new fire regulations and the new technology available, I cannot see why people have not bought into it. There was no uptake. I am disappointed. It is people's livelihoods and they should have bought into it, because any advice people can get to protect their livelihood is lovely. I encourage people who are watching this who have thatched buildings. It is not too late. They should get the advice that is available. It is not only a booklet. It is about the whole wider aspect of it.

The owners of many of these buildings have received heritage grants for the stonework, steel or thatch. I would say that 90%, if not all, of them are listed buildings. A building being listed might provide a way around it where the Government would take responsibility to protect it under a scheme. It is worth having a discussion about that.

Will the Minister of State respond to that suggestion by Senator Brady?

I thank Senator Brady for keeping it local. You cannot beat that.

What is surprising is that in the past four weeks alone, two people in my constituency - it had nothing to do with my role as Minister of State with responsibility for insurance - rang me about having no insurance at all on their properties. The number of people who do not have their biggest assets insured is frightening. They could go up in smoke. I am referring to properties that are worth €200,000 or €250,000. Where can the owners go after that happens? There is nowhere to go. Work needs to be done with insurance Ireland to make people aware of their responsibility for their financial well-being.

It has quite rightly been said that my colleagues on my right from the Department provide good grants on an annual basis to maintain and upgrade heritage buildings. They will be able to speak about the number of people who qualify for them on an annual basis.

The difficulty with creating a State-backed public-private insurance scheme, as was mentioned, is that it would have to comply with the Solvency II directive and with State aid and EU Single Market rules. Such a scheme would still need to charge premiums that reflect the underlying risks, which means it could not simply provide below market rate insurance to ensure it was affordable. There would also be significant practical and fiscal issues, including the need to hold adequate capital reserves, employ suitably qualified staff and manage potential Exchequer exposure. Even if all those challenges were overcome and a new State-backed scheme were introduced, the 50% of people who have cover in the private market at the moment would stop getting cover and the whole lot would be left at the State's door because it would be seen as the insurer of last resort. As opposed to just covering 45%, the State would be left covering 100%

What we are trying to do is work collaboratively with the key stakeholders on what the owners of individual premises can do. The Senator outlined options. Good work has been done in fire slabbing. We really need to get the message out that there is an opportunity to get a free assessment by a suitably qualified person. Everyone knows that if there is any work on a house at the moment, to get a professional to come across the threshold of the door is an expensive thing.

To get somebody coming in independently of the Department to carry out an assessment and give a list of works that could be done to reduce the risk is a very good offering. People should avail of it. It is then down to us working with Insurance Ireland to try to get existing players to increase their appetite to entice in more to say they have seen the trajectory on the downward over the last number of years because of the measures that have been introduced, and that they will now look at taking on more of these properties.

I was not saying it should be State led. I was saying that if something has received a grant but an individual is unable to get a quote for insurance, which we have examples of out there where people received grants but are still not able to get insurance, that the Department could intervene. It could state that if the person has received a grant to protect this heritage, has a fire regulation certificate, which would go with any building, and it has to be brought up to a certain standard of building regulation, there should be no reason it cannot be insured. I think insurance companies are picking and choosing whether they want to insure them or not, and they see some of them as high risk. If it comes to a standard within the building regulations for the fireproof slabs and wiring certificates, there is huge technology out there regarding fire and protection. There should be no reason any building cannot be insured at a normal rate. If there are people finding problems with insurance, they should have somebody in the Department they can call to say they cannot get insurance on their building even though it is up to a certain regulation.

I take those points. I thank Senator Brady and call Senator Byrne.

We have a vote called so I am going to be very brief. I come from County Wexford. I grew up a two-minute walk from a thatched house. There are a huge number of thatched properties across County Wexford, particularly in south Wexford, where there is such a strong tradition. In places like Kilmore on the seaside, it is very much part of the tourist offering in the south east. Anybody who has been to Rosslare and Rosslare strand will have seen so many of these thatched houses on their way down.

People are saying to me how difficult it is, particularly on the point raised earlier about when a house is transferring from a parent to a child, when the parent had insurance for the thatched property but the child cannot get it. I appreciate the work being done and the work that continues to go on to try to secure insurance for these people. Unfortunately, with declining numbers year on year, the barriers to getting insurance and new companies into the market is going to get harder and harder.

I echo what Senator Brady said about the State having to look at some sort of option, if we really do prioritise and cherish the thatched houses we have, in order to ensure they continue into the future. We will have to make some effort somewhere along the line to have State assistance. I appreciate the Minister of State does not have a lever he can pull that will supply private insurance, but perhaps through IPB Insurance or the State Claims Agency somebody will take a look at this. We have a vote. I thank the witnesses.

I understand the Senators have to leave. It is my chance to ask my questions now. Deputy Maxwell can indicate for his chance to come in.

My questions are fairly simple and straightforward. A woman gave evidence to our committee and she spoke about her 85-year-old mother, who is very anxious because she cannot get insurance for her home. I can only imagine what that would be like. She conveyed to us that her mother was finding it incredibly distressing. It is a house that has been in their family for a very long time. It used to be a commercial premises but is not any more.

There is a lot of distress out there. Every person who spoke, all the committee members and everybody who gave evidence, said that this is part of our iconic heritage. I am from north County Dublin and I feel like I should join in with everybody else in terms of the wonderful, thatched buildings in, around and near where I live. They do wonders for our tourist industry. They are very iconic. They are not unique to Ireland but they are something that is very evocative of Irishness.

Is the Minister of State only looking at private solutions? Senator Brady made a point about a person being in receipt of a grant, and the Minister of State responded to say we will very quickly become the only insurer in the market. I then thought of the local authority loan scheme, which can only be accessed if you have been refused by the banks. It is not about being the insurer of first resort but being there in the case where a person cannot get insurance.

The Minister of State has engaged with these people so he will know that they cannot get insurance. The low take-up on that survey is an issue and maybe that can be addressed. Notwithstanding that, the campaigners that were here have done everything to try to get insurance. It is not like they are saying they have tried nothing and are all out of ideas, so the Government should do something. They have tried everything and they have explored every avenue. I am not trying to bounce the Minister of State into giving a definitive answer now, but would he give some consideration to the State perhaps becoming part of the insurer of very last resort, or is it simply the case he believes that a private market solution is the only credible way to address this?

Unfortunately, it is not just thatched buildings that are pinch points in the insurance market at the moment. We have another particularly challenging issue in terms of area flood insurance. The State cannot intervene in every single issue, but we are working with the key stakeholder in this area because we do want to overcome it. I see it as a positive that 50% have insurance at the moment. There is an appetite there but not a strong enough appetite and we want to build on that. I genuinely feel we need more people to avail of the offer that is there from the Department of heritage to give insurance companies certainty that they are reducing their exposure to a claim if they carry out these corrective works.

It is surprising from speaking to the representative of the thatched insurance body today that he said some people do not want to take out a stove or a fire because it makes the ambience or character of the building. My retort was that if I owned a building and was given an offer to get insurance or keep a fire, I know what I would be doing. I would be getting insurance because of the costs associated with replacing it but if it were easily solved, it would have been solved a long time ago.

To be honest, I was pleasantly surprised by the presentation by the Department of heritage today in terms of just how much it has done in the last number of years to help people to help themselves. It was very positive to be able to show that today to Insurance Ireland. They represent the insurance companies. FBD was there in its own right because, to be fair, it is providing cover for 500 houses. That is approximately 25% or 30% of the overall, while they only have 10% of the general residential market, so FBD is covering disproportionately more. We did bring in IPB, which is the only mutual insurance provider in Ireland, to see if we could entice it into taking a greater look into this market.

We are working on it. I would love to say I am confident a solution will be forthcoming. I am more hopeful than confident but there is a commitment to keep the pressure on, work with key stakeholders and hopefully we can get a greater level of cover for the people affected. If anything comes out of this meeting today, it is that people should take advantage of the offers that are there from the Department of heritage and reduce their own risk. Even if they still do not get insurance, they are reducing their risk on a property that is potentially uninsured. That in itself is a benefit to the homeowner.

Absolutely. I thank the Minister of State. I will ask about the suggestion made by Senator Brady, who said he is in the building game.

I will not surprise anybody if I hold my hands up and say I never was. I was taken by the Senator's reference to new technology and the manner in which that is moving fast and can provide a solution. I fully appreciate that there is no need for stoves, etc., but is a scenario envisaged whereby the technology will get to the point that insurance will not be such a problem? I ask that because I am conscious of the numbers. We have seen that there are between 55,000 and 80,000 thatched properties in Britain and the North versus us heading in the direction of having 2,000 or less. We will all miss the thatched cottages when they are gone. There is nobody disagreeing, but the trick here is for us to see if we can explore every single avenue. I wonder about the role of that technology, as described by Senator Brady.

It is an interesting point. The advice we are getting from the fire experts is that the simple measures are the most effective in this because it is all about behaviour. As the Minister of State said, the advice is to take the stoves out. People do not want to do that. The professional advice is that it is not those highly technological solutions but the simple things. If we could get people to buy into that, we could further drive down the incidence of fire.

Following from his meeting today, did the Minister of State get the impression that there would be an appetite among the insurers if the homeowners were to meet them halfway? Do the insurers have any grá for thatch?

I am not on commission for FBD by any manner of means, and it is probably annoyed with me for referring to it so much at this stage, but it was quite clear about this. It was a public meeting and FBD was quite clear that it has increased its appetite. It gave figures. The number has gone from 480-odd to 505, I think, in the past two years alone, so FBD would say it is broadening its appetite based on people taking the corrective action. Insurance Ireland was at the meeting. It is the body that represents the overall insurance industry. Again, it said that if work were done and risk reduced, it would look at it, but it was not providing any huge certainty that it would do so. That is why we had IPB there as well, because there is maybe an opportunity to work with it to provide a new bespoke product. Again, that is in an early stage.

That new bespoke product is something to be hopeful for and would be very much welcomed. We are in a bit of a race against time here, however. We heard from people who are finding it very difficult to maintain the thatched property they are in. I would not like to go to bed at night and not have any insurance - I do not think any of us would - but I also would not like the beautiful thatched cottages in my town, Skerries, or down the road in Rush gone either, nor the many lovely pubs and other places that have been mentioned. This is very hard because nobody is disagreeing, but it is just a question of being able to make that leap.

Deputy Smith was indicating.

FBD, to its credit, has a big footprint in rural Ireland, and a lot of these buildings are in rural Ireland, so I compliment FBD. Hopefully, it can expand its number of customers who are in thatched buildings as well.

I know we cannot give grants for everything. If householders needed to carry out some improvement works or address some mitigation risks, it would be helpful if grant aid were made available, perhaps a once-off payment rather than a recurring thing as if you were to do the annual premium for insurance or that. An additional targeted grant scheme might help some homeowners. I presume some homeowners are reluctant to have inspections because they think they will be told to do this, that and the other and they do not have the resources to do it. Anything that could minimise a person's fears that there are substantial costs ahead, whether through heritage grants or whatever, would be useful. I compliment the Minister of State's division in the Department on making itself available, with the professional help, to go out and assist people. That message needs to be got out to householders and business owners again as strongly as is possible. As the Cathaoirleach said, it is a small number of buildings. We are at a critical stage now and we will lose that heritage unless this issue is addressed. Hopefully, the Minister of State will be able to keep the working group together, working as actively as possible to try to make progress on this difficult but important issue. It is important, as has been said, for the tourism offering of our country as well and for our built heritage.

I respectfully request that the Minister of State keep us updated on the work of that group. The committee is very interested in it and it is an issue we will revisit. While I fully respect the fact that we did not manage to fix it all tonight, we did have a good engagement. I thank the Minister of State for being here in person, giving his time and providing us with an update. We will be in touch again, and I know he will look forward to that, as I do, as Cathaoirleach.

The next time, try not to have the meeting on a lovely summer's evening-----

I will do my best.

-----although it is nice and cool in here.

When you get to my age, you appreciate the cool. I thank our witnesses. The meeting will suspend for a few moments and we will resume in public session in a few minutes.