Good evening everyone. I will read some formal notices now regarding privilege. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that members must be physically present within the confines of the place in which Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where the member is 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 our engagement in relation to No. P00020/25, Pearse House regeneration, with Mr. Neil Maloney, petitioner and secretary of the Pearse House Residents Association. Before we start, I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege, and the practice of the Houses as regards reference witnesses and members 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. The witness is reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that he 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 the witness' statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, he will be directed to discontinue his remarks. It is imperative that he comply with any such direction.

Before we hear from our witness, I propose we publish his opening statement on the committee’s website. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On behalf of the committee, I extend a very warm welcome to our witness, Mr. Neil Maloney, who is the petitioner and secretary of the Pearse House Residents Association. Mr. Maloney will read his opening statement, which should take about ten minutes. We will then have an opportunity for questions and answers. Each member will have a chance to make a contribution. I thank Mr. Maloney very much for being here. I now invite him to make his submission.

I shared a document with members. I do not know whether it has been circulated.

It has.

Pearse House is a flat complex within this area of 345 flats, with a vast and historic community that is generational - probably over decades if not over a century - including my own family. It was built 90 years ago and we have been openly looking for the regeneration of this flat complex. We have, to date, an agreement that it will be deep retrofitted, which is not exactly what we wanted but it is something that is going to happen. What was going to happen on this site was that if we were able to knock two into one and make bigger flats, we were going to lose flats. Unfortunately, the Government said last March that it was looking for additionality, so this led us back to where we are today.

I will read out what I have prepared on this. We are based in the south-east area, a Dublin stronghold, and we engage with Dublin City Council and local politicians, including councillors, in relation to making our community better, with housing being a focus of this effort. We have progressed a plan for our flat complex regeneration but there is a serious concern with the need for bigger homes to alleviate the overcrowding currently experienced within the Pearse Street area and the wider district, area M. This is having a serious impact on the community as families are struggling to access social homes to suit their needs in our area. Many tenants living in our complex are generational tenants, whose roots have been set in the community for decades and, in some cases, for over a century. We in the association are seeking to help new and existing residents through our housing and community facilities. In the past 20 years, we have seen the area gentrified, with a focus on commercial retail and transient accommodation through bed and breakfast accommodation, Airbnb, hotels and hostels. This, unfortunately, has led to restricted opportunities for residents to live in their own community. Most recently, two hostels with 600 beds are currently being built - or planning approval has been granted - and not one home has been secured on those sights, which is an absolute shame.

While we would welcome business into the area, the need for social and affordable housing is not only confined to our area; it is a national issue. Overcrowding is having a deteriorating impact on residents' mental health and expectations to grow. It is also having an effect on the children as they regress from these situations. We need to look at families and their needs to be able reach their expectations through their housing needs.

Pearse House Residents Association received news in March 2025 that the Government had rejected our proposal for the regeneration project. It was noted that there would be 36 flats lost in the first phase. This was a bitter blow to residents' hopes and expectations. This has led to Dublin City Council revising the drawings to be presented to the Department. We in the association have identified several vacant properties within the area which would provide additionality and a vital link between the existing complex and the new development.

We have identified a vacant potential development lot that could be transformed into accommodation for families with a focus on bigger three- and four-bedroom dwellings. Images 1 to 7 in the document shared show the vacant site and its proximity to the current complex. We would argue that this is an ideal site to redevelop this eyesore and breathe life back into the main thoroughfare into the city. This site has been vacant for several years and could be bought by Dublin City Council, which already owns J.P. Motorcycles, shown in image 6. This development could be a mix: on the front, at Pearse Street, of commercial, with apartments over and a setback that would allow us to rise to four- to five-storey blocks, in line with Dublin City Council's guidelines. Access to these apartments could be achieved through the lane facing Pearse House. We would argue that this is possibly one of the last opportunities for this Government and the council to add social homes within the Pearse Street area - an opportunity we cannot let slip.

On that note, we were hoping to have more residents here tonight. Unfortunately, because of the news that came out in March, they are disillusioned with everything that has happened here. It has been a cruel blow. It is something that has been hard for us, even to push on. Two of the committee members are here this evening with us. We still believe in the project. We still believe that there is something that can be achieved out of this as well in the area that we have identified.

I thank the committee members for their time and I would welcome any questions.

I thank Mr. Maloney and call Senator Andrews.

I thank Mr. Maloney and the other committee members. I wanted to acknowledge the work that the committee had done. For years, they have been to the forefront of trying to bring about some sort of change and improvement in the incredible conditions for those living in Pearse House. I will go through some of the stuff. Members have probably seen the account from residents. Their work and professionalism, even though they are all volunteers, has been incredible. It is deflating when there is almost no progress year after year, yet the residents have kept at it. It is really challenging. It is important to acknowledge that.

The building, as I mentioned the last time, was built in the mid-1930s by Simms. Herbert Simms built a lot. Ireland had very little money at that stage and yet it built fantastic housing for that time, but the housing it built is not fit for purpose any more. Anybody who has gone in and looked at it will have seen that it simply is not fit for purpose - even the size of it.

There is a conservation order on it. Some people say it should be knocked down because it is not fit for purpose, but there is a conservation order. I always feel that the people who are most strongly in support of a conservation order are readers of The Irish Times and people who do not have to live in the flats and do not have to tolerate the shocking conditions. That is unfair on the residents. The residents have to pay the price for other more affluent individuals having delusions of grandeur and what they see fit, but they do not have live in the flats.

It is important that the voice of residents is heard. Every week there are sewage leaks from residences. They have to move out. They have to get all their furniture out. The council does not do a proper job of maintenance. It is incredible how poor Dublin City Council's maintenance section is. It has effectively privatised the maintenance now and it gets people coming in. It is not right to leave any family in the conditions that families are left in in Pearse House.

It is not only Pearse House. It is right across. There is Oliver Bond, with which, I know, they have had contact. One of the residents of Countess Markievicz House, Adrienne Clarke, contacted me. She said, "You never mention Markievicz House." I can tell the committee Countess Markievicz House is just as bad. On the size of the flats, if you go into the bathroom of one of those flats, they are absolutely tiny. I mean tiny. I would stand in one. I can barely turn in it. The shower head is down at my shoulders. It is completely unacceptable. The bricks used in the construction are now porous and dampness and mould are a constant for almost every resident, I think it is fair to say. They have to face dampness and mould and it is unacceptable. As I say, it is not only Markievicz House. Mercer House, which is located near here and was also built by Simms, is the same. These are beautiful buildings but the issue is the condition and the size of the flats.

The Government is saying it wants additionality. You cannot have it every way. It wants to conserve the building and yet it wants additionality. It wants it every way. The residents have identified a site right in front of the small flats - one block of flats in Pearse House. They have identified a site that could easily be used for development and you would get additionality on that site. That could be used to start de-tenanting residents and doing up the premises.

The Government has decided to drop the regeneration programme and do a refurbishment programme. Honestly, you can mark it down here. Within a year or two, they will have the same problems in those flats because of the size of the flats and because of the overcrowding. As Mr. Maloney said, there are 600 new bedrooms being built in the area and not one of them is a new home. That is an indictment of Government policy. It is bonkers that the Government can allow and facilitate the construction of 600 beds in one small area and not one of them is a home. Not one of the 1,500 families, or the 5,000 children, will benefit from those new beds. None of them will benefit from the construction of the hotels and aparthotels. It is frustrating.

As I say, it is not only Pearse House. Pearse House is obviously first in line but, after Pearse House, there is Mercer House and Markievicz House. They will all have to be done, as well as Beech Hill and Rathmines Avenue. These are the ones I know personally. It is not right that, in 2025, families are expected to bring up their children in these conditions - overcrowded, mould, damp, rats and sewage problems.

It is really frustrating. I can only imagine how frustrating it is for residents who have been fighting for years and, unfortunately, have received nothing but negativity from Government. I hear some Government TDs saying that they are here to help, they will do what they can and they will support the residents, as if they were commentators and observing the whole thing. The reality is the Government can do something and has refused to do something and that is not acceptable for tenants who have been neglected and forgotten about for years. I get really frustrated by that. It is something that needs to change. I know what it is and, hopefully, at the next election the public will do that.

There are sites other than the ones Mr. Maloney identified. You have Verschoyle Place and Power's Court not too far from there. They have massive potential for additionality in the area and redevelopment and that would resolve the issues for Pearse House residents.

On the site the residents have identified, how many new units would fit in there? How many homes would fit in there? That is what is important. It is about getting homes for the community.

Looking it, 30 homes could probably go in there if three-bedroom houses were built. Four-bedroom homes would probably be aspirational, but it is the demand that there. The Senator rightly mentioned Markievicz House. Strategically, the Government and local government are not looking at these sites. With Markievicz House, one of the buildings going in there is a 100-bed hostel on the corner of Lombard Street and Townsend Street. That should have been redeveloped and tied into the existing complex. That would have aided with a regeneration project that could have happened at Markievicz House as well.

Unfortunately, these buildings are sometimes just being left there. Nobody is doing anything with them and then when residents start kicking up, someone wants to push all of a sudden and do something that is totally against what we are trying to do. The area we live in is saturated with bed and breakfast accommodation and hotels. We always welcome business coming in - it is a fundamental part of any country - but there is a community and there is a voice there that need to be heard. That is what we are about. We are trying to bring everybody together. There are new communities coming in all the time, including people from across the world, looking for homes. Integration needs to happen. We need to have the social and other facilities to go with that. That will be for another day when I come back.

That is a good point and well made. I will come back to Senator Andrews later, if that is okay. Deputy Hayes has indicated.

I thank Mr. Maloney for his contribution and the evidence he has given. This was a lot to prepare and put together. I thank the association for coming in. I am continually shocked by this every time I hear about it. I just cannot believe that it has gone on for as long as it has. As Senator Andrews said, this is 2025. I am trying to understand a little bit more because it goes beyond old comprehension that it has gone on this long.

I will try to ask some questions so that I do not take up too much time speaking. On the maintenance issue, this is probably the thing that frustrates me the most because Dublin City Council has an obligation to honour the human rights of its residents, as Mr. Maloney well knows and has been lobbying for. What is the timeline between when something is reported and when it is dealt with? Some issues go on forever, which is completely unacceptable, but what is the state of play with maintenance right now for Dublin City Council?

On regular maintenance, how long is a piece of string? There might be someone who arrives to somebody's home unannounced, have a look at a certain issue and then go off. For example, I had a fella out looking at the mould about three or four weeks ago. He still has not come back. That is what we are putting up with. That is the reality of it. With any investment or any project that goes ahead, the model of maintenance has to change. Pearse House is a big site. If it was a hospital, there would be a dedicated maintenance team on the ground. We should be treating these complexes in the same way. We should have dedicated people on the ground to deal with the reactive maintenance all the time. It is a no-brainer in my eyes. With local government, I do not know whether there is an appetite for change in that regard. Looking to get staff out is a huge frustration for people. When they do come out, people then have to go chasing for a follow-up.

I rent privately. I will call my landlord and say there is leak or something. It is usually taken care of pretty quickly. I expect the same from Dublin City Council. It is outrageous that it would not be doing that.

I agree. Unfortunately, we do not have the rights that private tenants have. They can go off to the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB. They can go to the various outlets and engage with these people. We do not have that option. There is no accountability with Dublin City Council in that regard. Given the social charter and people's human rights, we should not be living in these conditions. Pearse House was built to alleviate the slums of Dublin. My family lived in it and came from what is Markievicz House now and was the Asylum Yard then. They moved in with great hope and expectation. They did not mind that there was overcrowding. They were of the view that it was better than where they had been. People's expectations have moved on.

Senator Andrews is right about the way the bathrooms are and stuff like that. That is one concern that I have raised about any potential redevelopment or deep retrofit that happens, in that they need to be made bigger. There has to be more sustainability in the design as well. If these bathrooms are being turned into a wet room, then grab bars can be put in for older people and they can be easily converted. It is about future-proofing them.

Regarding maintenance, there is a reactive aspect and a commitment there from them to address it. I have been speaking to people from Dolphin House. They have said that the new houses were built but the same maintenance happens. They are having more problems than what the older homes have. We are not learning a lesson from it. We are repeating the same things and looking for different answers.

I agree with Deputy Hayes. We should have a place to go to highlight these issues and to have forum where we can argue our rights as tenants and see an outcome from that just as in the private sector.

How has that interaction with Dublin City Council gone? There has been back and forth, lobbying and people have got involved, but what about formalising that relationship and so on?

When I set this up with the girls, that was our focus. It was not to roar and shout but to put a structure around it. In fairness, we have done that. We are only dealing with one face in Dublin City Council. When we get through the layers, people do not know or do not want to know. They will come back when it suits them. There is no follow-up. There is no way of looking at a live register and seeing that the issue has been reported or what its status is. There is nothing. There is absolutely no follow-up. People will have to go chasing them. Doing that costs people time, effort and frustration. That is not acceptable,-----

That is not right.

-----especially given the conditions we are living in. Senator Andrews is right about the bricks and the way they are now. It was during the recent rainstorms that I started to see the weather coming through because bricks were allowing leaks into the building. That is happening all through the place. I do not know what they are going to do to alleviate that problem. It is no good coming out and having a look at something if there is no follow-up. It is down to the tenant to go chasing that. That should not be happening. There should be a dedicated follow-up. We should be able to see a live system-----

Definitely.

-----that shows exactly where we are and when it is going to get done. People are taking time off from their jobs. There is this perception that we do not work; we do. We have some very good jobs. We cannot be staying in all of the time waiting in the hope that somebody might turn up. It needs to be addressed.

I wish to say to Mr. Maloney and all the residents that I am sorry that the State has failed them so badly. This is unconscionable. I take some heart from the exceptional level of resilience that Mr. Maloney and all the residents have had to keep on fighting this. I said this at the previous meeting, but I would like to see Dublin City Council come to the committee and we exercise that accountability. It is absolutely unacceptable that people are dealing with this kind of stuff. People should get those structures and they should get those maintenance issues sorted, and a plan should be put in place for the residents over the medium and long terms to get them into better housing across the area, whether that includes through compulsory purchase orders, CPOs, of vacant buildings or building more social housing.

About that area, I know the owner has been looking to sell two sites for the past few years. He has sorted out of the land registry issues with them. I do not know who owns the Mattress Mick site, but that has been vacant for several years now. It is a huge opportunity because they stretch right back. It would give us bigger and better homes for people to live.

I thank Mr. Maloney for his contribution. I appreciate it.

I thank Mr. Maloney for coming in, the ladies I was talking to a while ago and everybody who has been involved in this. Mr. Maloney knows by my accent that I am not a Dub.

I thank the Deputy for clarifying that.

We would always have to say where we were from. On a serious note, having listened to previous speakers and Mr. Maloney, I gather the big thing missing here is the common-sense approach. That is a massive issue within these buildings. Common sense does not exist 99.9% of the time. Other speakers spoke about maintenance crew privatisation. In the healthcare service and in the nursing home sector, privatisation is for profit, not patients. The principle is the same here.

I was very interested in the response from Dublin City Council on 14 August 2025. It stated that full-time caretaking services operate daily within the estate and that duties include maintaining common areas, presenting waste for collection and reporting any repairs and accidents in the complex. The important line was that all maintenance and repair requests are responded to in accordance with the housing maintenance procedures. Is Mr. Maloney telling me that does not happen?

It does not.

I thank Mr. Maloney. It is the same in every county. I am delighted the committee has invited Mr. Maloney here, because this is what I call the lastchance.com committee for people. It is where people can air genuine grievances. I heard Mr. Maloney say that even in his parents’ time, there was an attitude of hope. That perception is because he is living in a specific area. I know it well, believe it or not. I will tell Mr. Maloney afterwards why; I will not mention it here on live television. My saying that will start rumours, but anyway. The approach is built on hope and respect; it is not about kicking down doors or rattling and banging things. Mr. Maloney and his team are asking to be heard and for what they are actually entitled to, which is for people to be able to live in a place they call home. As he said, there is a generational dimension. I cannot understand what is happening. I have read many of the responses about this or that plan having been designed, but anyone will tell you the experts on a local area are the people who live there. They have the local knowledge. If you live in an area where the conditions are so bad, you are the expert who can state what is wrong. The council can get experts to fix the problems.

Pearse House is in a very bad situation. Who do we call in for accountability on this and to get answers? Who is responsible? In my experience over the years, everyone points the finger at someone else and nobody is made accountable for the failings. It is not rocket science. I worked in construction for years. I nearly got sacked one time below in Kildare because I would not clean an inspection chamber. I told my boss, "I will, yeah." Four days later, he told me I did not do the job. I said I was not doing it. He said I told him I would and I said that in Cork "I will, yeah" means "No". However, I still put my hand up. Do people know what I am saying? The accountability part must be so frustrating regarding Pearse House. If someone responsible cannot be got to take complaints, where does it move then? If it is Dublin City Council that is responsible, then its officials should be in here to answer questions. I would like this, but it has to be agreed by the committee.

I will leave it at that. I know where Mr. Maloney is coming from. Well done to him for sticking with this. It is not easy. All his group is looking for are the simple things, including a bit of respect and plenty of hope.

On Deputy Buckley’s suggestion that we ask Dublin City Council officials to appear before us, I believe it would represent a worthwhile use of our time. Our interest is in advancing the petition and trying to get some answers for the group.

I thank our guests for attending. Every week since I have entered my office upstairs, Senator Chris Andrews has been talking about Pearse House. Therefore, although I am a fairly new Senator, I have got to know it fairly well. I knew the ladies were coming in today because the Senator arrived with a fancy tie. He is definitely out to impress.

I run the Lighthouse on Pearse Street. Normally at a facility like that, the labourers might say “Come on, what are you doing?”, but with regard to what I do at Pearse House the residents are key volunteers. They have been so supportive over the years. I thank Mr. Maloney for doing something in his community. He mentioned that it is about community. He referred to the position with the retrofit and what is coming down the line. We are doing housing in Bluebell, Dublin 12, with the Land Development Agency. I am chair of Bluebell Community Council. We made sure the community and residents would be engaged from day one throughout the consultation process, and that has worked fantastically. There is a sense of the community and everyone else all doing it together. Was the community in Pearse House consulted or brought along with Dublin City Council in the process for the new regeneration plans? Will the retrofit proposed by the council reduce the number of units or will it just mean painting and insulating the existing ones?

I will answer the second question first. The retrofit will guarantee the existence of flats currently in the complex. The 345 flats will be the subject of a deep retrofit, and that number will remain. We will not be gaining anything; there will just be an investment in the existing flats.

On the question on regeneration, the idea actually came from the residents first, and also through various councils over the years. Senator Chris Andrews pushed for it. We highlighted that the Pearse House flats had not had real, deep investment since the common areas were done back in 2006. We were thinking about bigger homes. A collective complaint went to Europe through Community Action Network, CAN. That highlighted how bad Pearse House was, how much overcrowding was there and the extent of the need for bigger homes. Our hope was that regeneration would result in bigger flats. I envisaged that the exterior would be protected and that the balconies would be broken in to make bigger flats within the complex itself. That was rejected, however, because we were losing homes in the first phase. There was a big panic. I saw additionality as the decanting of the people and additional homes within the area. I refer to the site we have examined here, potentially. The other two sites related to hostels. These are what we should have been considering, and what the Government and the council should have been considering. They should have been saying they identified these sites and should have put a plan in place to get this off the ground.

We have had engagement with the tenants ourselves. We update them. In fairness, Dublin City Council engaged as we went along. We got a roadmap last year and potential new designs until we found out in March what was happening. In fairness, the council has been engaging with us and the tenants. We have not released the deep retrofit details yet. We are holding a meeting next Wednesday at which we will tell people exactly what is being proposed. After that, there will be consultations with Dublin City Council again.

Does Mr. Maloney know the square footage of a two-bedroom unit?

I do not know off the top of my head, but it is a lot smaller than a standard two-bedroom unit.

Like the Cathaoirleach and my colleagues, I welcome Mr. Maloney and his colleagues. Any building that is 90 years old needs substantial upgrading. I have just a few questions. Was there any major investment over the years in the individual flats?

No. In the early 1990s, probably, the windows were changed. There was a heating upgrade, because there used to be open fires. Central heating was put in. Again, however, that was 30-odd years ago. We have had no real investment at all. Any investment made is by the tenants.

Deputy Hayes asked about maintenance.

If we put a kitchen in, for example, and there is a leak or anything like that, maintenance will not touch it and they will say, "Well, you put that in; that is your problem." That is what we face. With any investment people make in their homes, they are crucified because the minute they do anything like that they are told they put it in, it is their responsibility and they have to get it fixed.

It goes without saying that housing stock should be up to a proper standard. It is not acceptable. I read the background note Mr. Maloney provided. It is clear there is a long-standing need to have this regeneration done. In the original regeneration proposal, Mr. Maloney said that in the first phase, 36 existing flats would be lost.

That was in the original plan presented to the Government last year. It was presented in the final quarter, November I think. They were going to knock two into one and potentially, out of 78 flats in the first phase, 36 would have been lost by making places bigger. When that was presented to the Government, it said it was looking for additionality, not a reduction in homes. That is why that plan was shelved and it is now looking at a deep retrofit.

The note states there are 345 dwellings at present. If the original proposal went ahead, would the figure reduce to 170 apartments, or by roughly half?

No. I think 90 altogether would have been lost. There still would have been over 300 homes.

In Mr. Maloney's view, and in the view of his group, that would have been satisfactory.

It would have been, yes. It would have offset where people decanted to. They would have had new homes as well. That would have been the offset of what was lost on that site. My view has always been that because it is listed, it has protected the community. My fear was always a certain developer would come in, take the whole place and we would be lucky if we got a third of the people back. That would decimate the community.

I can understand that at times, in terms of buildings, the protection is great but it can be extremely expensive to get jobs done and it slows up some projects. There is a balance to be struck. Mr. Maloney's point that the site remains in public ownership is important. Mr. Maloney mentioned planning for 600 hostel beds. Presumably, Dublin City Council granted that planning.

Yes, and we put objections in about it. Again, our voice was not heard.

It is the council that made that decision, not the Government as such. I am not clear from the answers to Deputy Hayes and Senator McCarthy. Dublin City Council and Mr. Maloney's organisation are not exactly on the same wavelength in regard to the regeneration proposal, are they?

What is has now proposed is not what we wanted. It is looking at a deep retrofit because-----

That is Dublin City Council.

Dublin City Council is looking at that. That is what will be proposed to the Government. The Government said to the council it does not want to lose anything; it wants additionality in the area. I do not think anyone realises just how complex this project is and what exactly it entails. You can look at the art deco from outside and say that is great but if we can get something bigger on the inside, happy days. That is what we are looking for. Unfortunately, the Government will not sign off on funding at present because there will be losses. For the place I identified and other places in the community like Verschoyle Court, as was said, we need to start looking outside the box and providing additionality in other places where we can.

There should be proper standards for people.

Of course there should. St. Andrew's Court has taken forever to be built. I believe the project will start next year. We were at one stage hoping that would help our decanting. That still has not happened. It is supposed to be built next year.

Mr. Maloney will gather from my accent that I am not from Dublin Bay South. I was down in that area delivering leaflets for the late Seán Moore TD and helping out in that area when I was a young student. He was the TD in the area at that time. Mr. Maloney mentioned other complexes; I am not familiar with them. He makes a very strong case. I can understand the frustration for him and his fellow residents in regard to getting a proper job done. What our Cathaoirleach said about having the city council in would be a good idea. I thank Mr. Maloney and his colleagues.

It is great to see Mr. Maloney and the ladies with him at the committee. I was down with them and inside some of the apartments. Senator Andrews and I walked around and met the residents. There is an unbelievable community down there. It is a great place to have neighbours, family and friends. I come from an area in Cork where we have a regeneration project, the north-west regeneration in Knocknaheeny. It has taken 25 years. A bad regeneration project can destroy a community. Great work is being done but it is taking too long and that has an effect.

In the report and from what Mr. Maloney has said, these buildings were built 90 years ago, so they were of a different time. The group spoke to the previous Minister, Deputy O'Brien. The Minister should come down and walk through the community, go into the homes and see. I was down there. Some of the houses I saw were immaculate. It is just that they were tiny and they are not fit for purpose now. That is why a regeneration plan is really needed. Mr. Maloney made a point about the dampness that can come through the bricks. The people down there have fierce pride in their homes and in their community.

I believe this was a decision taken by the Department of housing, supported by the Minister, and Dublin City Council is caught in the crossfire. It knows a solution has been forward but it does not have the money to do what Pearse House Residents' Association requested. It would reduce the number of units but the people who live there would have a much better quality of life. As identified, there is other additionality. When I hear that word, it is about this group, their families and neighbours and their quality of life. Does Mr. Maloney know how many units are currently empty? Is it 345?

There are 345 flats there. About 15 are empty.

Are they being turned around with families in them quickly or are they left idle for long periods?

Some are taking a good while to turn around. There is a two-bedroom flat facing me up on the top that has been idle for months. The council has gone in to do some work on it. A few are still boarded up now. In the small flats, where I met Deputy Gould, no more will be handed out any to anyone else because of the project that will potentially happen. With the big flats, some are boarded up and it is months before they are turned around.

I have a huge issue with that. It has a negative effect on the community, the people living there and the children. This is the environment they are growing up in. People are making decisions that have a dramatic impact on the lives of residents and their families. The Chair is correct that Dublin City Council should come before the committee. I also think the Minister should come to answer questions about why this regeneration plan is not being funded. I came straight in here from a meeting of the housing committee. One thing being discussed was the density. The block is because the number of units is reduced, or the number of homes - I do not like the word "units". These are homes. It goes against the density figures of the Department but I think Pearse House has an exceptional case.

Noonan's Road in Cork was probably in a worse condition. It has now been knocked down and all the residents have been taken out. The residents to whom I spoke loved their community. They want to see this regeneration take place but they want to stay in Pearse House. They want to stay with their neighbours and friends. The previous Minister stated two years ago that local authorities would move away from housing maintenance and go into planned maintenance and preventative maintenance. In the past five years, what planned or preventative maintenance, if any, has taken place in all the apartments? I am not talking about once-off measures such as fixing a window or door. I am talking about local authorities coming in. Heating was mentioned. How many years ago was that?

It was about 30 years ago.

Has that been upgraded during those 30 years?

It is slowly being done. They put as much as they can into it. Certain people are getting it done now.

But everyone is not getting it done.

Not everyone. The heating systems are in bits. They are trying to revive them. I told one of the engineers who came out two years ago that "this thing is on its last legs". They kept coming back and coming back. I told them that for the amount of times they had come back and the cost of it, they could have put in a new boiler. They eventually put a new one in but the only time when planned maintenance happens is when they come around possibly once a year to service the boiler. That is the only thing you see and that is because legislation says they have to do that. Nothing else gets done.

One issue I have raised in the Oireachtas Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage is the fact that local authorities are covering for the Government. Dublin City Council has to be honest and say that the residents need it 100%. I see it myself. The Government is not giving the council the money to carry out the regeneration. We need to get the Minister, the Department and Dublin City Council in here and get to the bottom of this because it is completely unfair for the residents to live the way they live. This does not just affect the residents of this flat complex. There are other affected flat complexes in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and probably Waterford and Galway. I definitely know about Dublin, Cork and Limerick because people come to me. The regeneration should be given the go-ahead.

The deep retrofit is only a short-term solution. I have spoken to people down there. A lot of them are older people. Regarding accessibility, Mr. Maloney mentioned bathrooms and kitchens. That surely must be a big issue.

That is a big issue. Older people have to use stairs to get up there. We cannot even put a lift in at the moment. We spoke about this when we were there last week and asked whether there was any way we could do this. The answer was "No". They cannot even put in a lift. This is internal. What we see outside is grand but internally, we should be able to have bigger homes and more accessibility. The oldest tenant in there must be nearly 90. They are looking at her going around and she is grand but there will come a stage when she will struggle to get up and she is only on the first floor.

She probably wants to live there as long as she can.

Of course she does.

The day will come when because of her age and mobility, she will not be able to access the stairs. There are concrete steps. I walked up those steps. We are not talking about mahogany stairs. These are concrete steps where older people or anyone with a disability might struggle. There is an onus on Dublin City Council to ensure accessibility for all its tenants. The argument made by Mr. Maloney was that if it involved a private landlord, residents would be able to go to the RTB. It might not be today or tomorrow but if Sinn Féin is ever in power, we would bring all local authorities under the remit of the RTB because no landlord should be able to get away with what Mr. Maloney's landlord is getting away with.

I am familiar with the complex. Regarding the report from the Community Action Network that was brought to the Council of Europe, looking at it from the outside in, we do not see the type of conditions people are living in. I know this report went into some detail about not just the type of conditions but also the impact. We are talking about this number of units, additionality and this site and that site but as Deputy Gould referenced, the steps are very real if someone is not able. I welcome our guests in the Public Gallery. It is very real if someone is unable to physically get up the stairs. Could Mr. Maloney expand on the human face behind what we are discussing today?

The stairwells are very narrow. They are concrete steps going all the way up. If someone is old or living at the top, there will come a stage where he or she will be unable to live up there. We have already spoken about the deep retrofit and asked whether there is any way we can give them gardens at the back with access to them through double doors. That is not even happening. We are looking at a holistic approach to this. Regarding going into the toilets, the width is from the middle of my chest to the end of my hand. That is how much of a space someone has and that is being generous.

And the ceilings are low.

The ceilings are actually high but they are low in the shower because there is a tank over it for water because it is an electric shower. They are just so small when someone gets into a cubicle because the wall is set back in again because the cubicle is where the old water heater was.

It is a press really.

That is exactly what it is like. The kitchen measures 2 m going across, if even that; maybe 1.8 m, which is probably about my height. It really is small. There is room for only one person in there. If it was looking at retrofit, opening up the "opes" would bring more light into the flats. I live on the bottom. There are six of us in a two-bedroom flat. Our youngest son has autism and that is a constant battle. I am not the only one. There are an awful lot of people like that. You feel at times as though the walls are closing in around you. You go to the toilet or for a shower and someone else wants to use the toilet. There is nowhere for us to go. An awful lot of people are experiencing that overcrowding. There really is nowhere for us to go. You have a sitting room and a toilet. Some of our children actually go and sit on the toilet on the phone-----

For privacy.

-----just to give themselves a break and even that is not enough. We are overcrowded in our bedrooms. I always say that I would rather be overcrowded in a three-bedroom flat than in a two-bedroom flat. They have told me that I need a certain size for our family. So many people in our community are in that situation and are really struggling with day-to-day living in those facilities. It is soul destroying.

I hear that. I thank Mr. Maloney very much for coming in and sharing the human face of this issue. It is easy to read a report and not understand that there are real living breathing human beings behind every single line of it.

Retrofitting is a bit like the new house syndrome. If you are going to move or get an extension, you say "we'll do that after we go to the new house" or "we'll do that after we get the extension". I have a sense that any kind of repair work will be put on hold, which means more and more flats will be boarded up, essentially, while residents await the retrofit. One would have to wonder about the wisdom of that in the middle of a housing crisis. I hear what Mr. Maloney is saying about retrofitting. Any enhancement will be welcome. Certainly anything that could deal with the mould would be welcome.

We all know the damage that can be caused by mould. There is only so much Cillit Bang can do. I get that it is like trying to hoover the Sahara when it is coming back at you. In terms of the retrofit, has Mr. Maloney been given any kind of a timeline for that?

It has not been released yet, because we have to go to the residents first, but what they are talking about is this time next year to start the project.

Okay.

I have also said to them that we have to look at the under-occupancy of some of the flats. There are people living in three-bedroom flats who do not need them. There are also people living in two-bedroom flats who do not need them either. We need to look at that as well. That is a policy that probably needs to change within the council. We need to be able to house people who badly need it.

When the Community Action Network, CAN, report came out, what stood out for me that there is a block around the corner from me, where 20 families were in a block of 36 flats with two bedrooms. I was absolutely shocked because I never even noticed that. The work CAN did with us really opened our eyes to exactly the problems we are living with and the issues that are coming down the line if we do not start addressing this.

We know that a lot of the three-bedroom flats are under-occupied. We also know there are families who could move into them after the regeneration or deep retrofitting, whatever name we want to put on it now. There needs to be sustainability in the project.

We find that older people sometimes want to stay in their area and because moving sometimes means moving outside of their area, people just do not want that. It will be very hard for people to trust the process. I do not mean this disrespectfully because I have plenty of family working in Dublin City Council. This is not meant to be disrespectful of Dublin City Council, but it is very hard to trust Dublin City Council after all of this time if it promises people the sunny uplands of a new place. It is very hard to relinquish what you have, even if you know in your heart you are one person in a three-bed, you think that if you give it up it is a leap into the unknown that you are not willing to take in the middle of a housing crisis. I completely understand that. A project that brings everyone along is one where people can take that leap of faith because they have that trust, but we are a bit away from that.

With the agreement of the committee, it would be our intention to bring Dublin City Council in and to put to it the issues the witnesses have raised with us. To be fair as well, the council also has a perspective, and we should hear from it. If the committee agrees, that is what we will do.

The number of boarded up homes is likely to rise in the intervening time. I do not want to talk about vacancy and dereliction within Deputy Gould's hearing because it is something he talks about a lot and I will probably get something wrong. It should be a crime to have an empty house in the middle of a housing crisis. Perhaps we will get a chance to discuss that if the committee agrees to invite Dublin City Council in.

I thank Mr. Maloney. I also thank the people in the Gallery because we can see how much it means. Senator Andrews is waiting patiently to come back in.

It is important that many voices are heard on it. As Mr. Maloney mentioned, there are 345 flats. Given the condition of the 345 flats, there should be a maintenance crew designated to them. It would be a big maintenance crew because there is a lot of maintenance to do in the flats, so they would be kept busy. Sometimes I despair when it comes to maintenance because people could be waiting for a call-out for weeks and they might never hear anything. They get ghosted. It is demoralising for me as a public representative having so many people contact me. I am sure it is ten times worse for residents who have to put up with it.

I was contacted by someone today – not in Pearse House – who had a leak, which was reported yesterday. The leak has now gone into three flats in total and they are still waiting for somebody to call out. It is absolutely insane.

Another example is new doors. My understanding is that if you are a long-standing tenant who has been paying rent for 20, 30 or 40 years, you will have a 30-year old or 40-year old door, almost irrespective of how bad its condition is. There is talk about the environment and all of that, but the reality is that the condition of so many doors is unacceptable. There are such big gaps that the postman could put the letters in through the side of the door, under the door or over the door, yet people are paying rent every single week and they cannot get a new door. When people move out, the flat gets a new door. That is just unfair on residents who are paying rent week after week and that is the sort of service they get. It is unacceptable. A new door is about insulation, which is important.

Has the current Minister for housing met the group?

No.

That kind of sums it up. It is complete disregard. He has pulled the proposal for the regeneration, yet he has not met residents. It is easy to know that there is not an election for a few years. I can tell Mr. Maloney he would meet the group if there was an election on the horizon.

There have been several attempts to meet him.

That is just not acceptable. I strongly feel the retrofitting is a short-term view because of the size of the units. Someone in a wheelchair cannot live in Pearse House because they cannot get in and out of the bathroom. Mr. Maloney mentioned the distance involved. The shower is one half of it and then the sink is beside it.

Yes, it is.

How is that acceptable in 2025? I find it staggering. There are 600 new bedrooms in the area and not one home. That is insane, in this day and age and given we have a housing crisis. I have said that before. The size of the flats after the retrofitting will not be any bigger. They will still be overcrowded. The problems are going to come back within a year or two. That has happened in other developments where there were deep retrofitting plans.

The trouble is that those homes were built with bricks 90 years ago and the bricks are porous now. The natural sealant has gone so there is constant dampness and mould. It just beggars belief that the Minister would not meet with the residents of Pearse House. I find that almost arrogant. It is arrogant that he would not meet with the residents, knowing that he was going to pull the regeneration proposal. I propose that the Minister would come in here and answer questions, along with the Department of housing. Deputy Buckley proposed that the council would come in and I would add that it should be the council, the Department of housing and the Minister who would come in here and answer the concerns of residents. I find it so disheartening, and I am not a resident. I see the conditions that people are in, yet despite all of that, they have such strength and determination to keep going month after month and year after year.

St. Andrew's Court was mentioned. I was in St. Andrew's Resource Centre about seven or eight years ago and the council said it would provide about 15 flats. It said new homes there would be ready for people to move into in about three years. It is seven or eight years since that meeting and it will be another couple of years. In fairness to Mick Mulhern, the new housing manager in Dublin City Council, he has engaged. The difficulty is he can only do what the Government allows him to do. The Minister has shown that he is arrogant and does not care about the inner city communities whom he has neglected and let down so badly. I propose that we would have the Minister in.

I second that.

That will be a matter for the committee to discuss but I absolutely take that point. I do note that is a fairly stark statistic - 600 new beds and not a single home. I do not think we have a hotel bed crisis at the moment. I see there is a lot of agreement in the Gallery with me there. I do not think we have a hotel bed crisis. We have a crisis of a different type. We have a crisis of there not being enough homes. I absolutely commend Mr. Maloney and the members of the residents' association and its committee for, as Senator Andrews said, sticking with this. It is not easy; it really is not. I know sometimes when one is involved in a campaign like this it feels like nobody listens or one is shouting into a void but I want them to know, very sincerely, that they have been heard this evening and I thank them for taking the time to come in and share with us.

I thank the Chair.

We will follow up. We have a number of suggestions from committee members. We will follow that up and we will be in touch. As we get information, we will be in a position to share it with the residents' association. We thank them most sincerely for coming in and thank our guests in the Visitors Gallery.

We will now suspend the meeting for a few minutes to allow our witnesses to leave and then we will resume the meeting for a further discussion.