Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)

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.