Cathal Crowe (Clare, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I conclude by thanking everyone. The pubic relations end of Airbnb could be helped if that headline figure was refined more and if we knew what were full homes versus tree houses or yurts. It would paint a much clearer picture of what is real accommodation. It is all real accommodation if a person is holidaying somewhere in the country for a night or two, but it is an entirely different thing if this has to become a family home and someone is pitching in for it. Refining that headline figure would help Airbnb's cause and our cause and would define things an awful lot better.

There is huge sense to what Ms Ní Mhurchú said earlier. I listened to her contribution and what she interfaced with in terms of the planning difficulties is what I am now starting to hear in my own constituency. What planners, architects and anyone trying to help someone in her situation tell me is that they feel that policy guidance documents are not fully aligned with this legislation at the moment. Maybe one is outpacing the other, and for that reason it might be prudent to get the planning end of things straightened and defined so that Ms Ní Mhurchú can make an informed decision as to whether she wants to remain in short-term and tourism rental versus maybe making that home available for someone. She can only do that if her business is legitimised, and at the moment, the way this is manifesting itself it puts huge question marks over the legitimacy of things. It will not be long before others, including the insurance industry, fall in behind that and start to question the very validity of what people like Ms Ní Mhurchú is doing and suddenly there are major question marks. There needs to be an alignment of two things here. I believe the thrust of this legislation is positive, but how we do it can be better refined. I am sorry I ignored some of the witnesses but my main thrust of questioning was on this headline figure.