Mr. Patrick Robinson:

Before I deal with the memorandum of understanding situation, I would like to make it clear that we collect huge amounts of data from hosts when they list their properties. In the interests of making sure guests to know what they are getting, we seek to ensure properties are accurately described. We ask hosts to provide significant quantities of information about the spaces they are renting out. Guests do not necessarily care whether they are staying in somebody's primary or secondary home. They want to know what kind of place it is. To my knowledge, we have started to ask new hosts for more information about the nature of the properties they are listing. We ask them whether they live at those properties for some of the year, or whether they do not live there at all. We are beginning to gather that information. As there are 3 million properties that come on and off the site, it will take time to get full information from everybody. We already ask a large sample of hosts to elaborate on what they are doing and what they are using. We have already shared that information with the committee.

Some 88% of Airbnb hosts in Dublin say they are renting the homes they live in. The data we have shown the committee about bookings show that this is not wildly inaccurate. We cannot map that information on top of the other information because we have not surveyed every single one of the thousands of hosts whose properties were available on 1 June last. By engaging in a process of interrogation and discussion with a body like the working group, we can begin to build up a picture and figure out what data exist. Crucially, we can also look at the data other people have. A week ago, I did a random search on a well-known booking site for a place to stay in Dublin for a weekend in September. I found 350 properties listed on the site. Some of them will also be available on Airbnb and some of them will not. We are in the room and we are providing lots of information to those who ask for it. I question whether others are doing the same. I urge the working group to get as much comprehensive information as possible.

I would like to finish what I was saying in response to the point that was made about the authorities in Barcelona. Members will not be surprised to learn that we disagree with their interpretation of the law. We think the law - as written - they are trying to enforce against us is contrary to European law.

That is working through the courts right now and we expect that to take some time. What has been seen in places such as Amsterdam, London, Chicago, New Orleans, Hamburg and countless other places around the world is that where we find an alignment between clear rules, our platform and what we can do in partnership with hosts, we can end up delivering a really great result for cities and a great result for us. These kinds of comprehensive deals that result in taxes being collected and devoted to causes such as homelessness, refugee charities or whatever it might be, plus clarity about what happens at the professional end and some certainty and privacy for people engaged in short-term activity, are where we can end up. This is why we have been debating the MOU. We have never seen the MOU as a substitute for regulation - far from it. What we have tried to secure with the Government is a position that primary homes, places where people live, should be subject to a different set of rules from planning.

I also challenge the idea that the ruling Deputy Ó Broin is talking about has much precedence elsewhere. The board was pretty clear that it is based on the facts and circumstances of the particular property in question in the particular area in question. Planning law is absolutely discretionary. It is about whether a change of use has taken place and whether it is a material change of use, and every circumstance is different. We face this situation in a number of places. We have had the same discussions in Toronto in recent years, and we have had the same discussions in London. If we can find some guidance that provides clarity and states that an entire home in a certain area in respect of which the intention or the activity is the receipt of bookings for a certain amount of the year should be subject to planning, at that point we can begin looking at all the data we can see, all the work we can do with hosts and solutions to the effect that we start putting the host in a funnel towards planning permission or some other form of change of use or declarations that allow us to get consent to share information with the cities. We can be very creative about this, and that is where we have been with the MOU, but they must come up with some clear frameworks for us to interact with. Is there anything else Ms Mytton-Mills wants to add on this?