Deputy Stanley said we should not force through this Bill tonight, and I echo that sentiment, for many reasons. I agree with the amendments that are before us. Let us be honest. I hear a lot of comments about landlords. Landlords, unfortunately, include people who just have one extra house, yet they are still classified as landlords. I think it is very unfair for such people to be called a landlord. At the same time, I deal with landlords quite a lot. I have to deal with them. If a person is coming to you looking for a house, you are not carrying out your duty correctly if you do not speak to everybody concerned, including the council, the landlord and everybody else. Most of the landlords I speak to are decent, honest to God people. We have a real habit in this House of attacking them, as if they were all bad people. Where are we going to get the houses from? I scratch the back of my head when I hear too much criticism of landlords. Where do people think the houses are going to come from? They do not come up through the field like a mushroom in mild weather. They actually have to be built. They cost a lot of money, and people put a lot of time, effort and resources into that. Those people then need to make a genuine profit. These are difficult circumstances. I heard the phrases "unintended consequences" and "one size does not fit all". Unfortunately, this Bill needs a lot of fine-tuning. There are elements of it that we could agree with, but there are other elements that are going to cause problems, and I can see that too. The Bill is locking thousands of tenancies permanently below the market rent. That might sound good on paper, but in the real world, it drives landlords out. The 4% reset over four years is modest, predictable and fair. It gives tenants certainty and landlords a reason to stay. If people can never move, properties leave the market and tenants lose homes. This amendment is about maintaining supply, not enriching anybody. The Bill draws a hard line at three tenancies, with no explanation. That is completely out of step with the existing law. The Tyrrelstown amendment referred to ten units, not three. Many ordinary landlords in towns and villages exceed three units unintentionally. Raising the threshold restores consistency and fairness. Small landlords are not the enemy. They are the backbone of the rental sector, and people must keep that in mind. I am not a landlord. I just have one house, thank God, and that is enough for me. I have been accused online of being on Airbnb. I do not know where people get this cracked-up information, but it keeps them happy, tapping away with their fingers. I have only my own home, and I live there. Property rights do not disappear because someone rents out a home. If a landlord needs a home for a close family member, that should be respected. Grandchildren, siblings, nieces and nephews matter too. The Bill also fails families dealing with bereavement. If a landlord dies, the family should be allowed to sell the property. These amendments are about basic fairness and compassion. The Bill introduces a new criminal offence, including jail time, not for exploitation but for getting complex rent rules wrong. That is completely disproportionate and will scare decent landlords out of the market. Regulation should be firm but it also must be fair. Heavily criminalising people is not a way forward. There are unintentional consequences. I have been very vocal on the short-term lets in recent weeks. This is going to have devastating consequences for short-term lets, Airbnbs in small rural communities. The 20,000 cap came in yesterday, which is very much to be welcomed, but the bottom line is that people still require planning. I would say 98% or 99% of them are running for the last 20 or 30 years. They did not have or need planning. They were quite happy running their business and everything was above board. They had fire safety and all that checked, insurance and everything. Planning is a different game. I was at the committee meeting today, and the planning authority and the tourism board are all over the place. They do not know what they are doing here. The Minister needs to intervene on this matter. I have no problem with regulation. I had a public meeting last Friday and I have another one tomorrow night in Clonakilty on this issue. The rooms are packed. People are concerned they are going to lose their honest incomes. This Bill has unintended consequences. The Minister could look at our amendment, which is a waiver for people who were in business. Any new Airbnbs will have to be fully compliant. That is quite acceptable. Registration is not an issue with them. Communities do not have hotels so they dip in on the Airbnbs to bring tourists into the community. This Bill has positive points. I think it is being rushed through here, not just tonight but in general. It needs to be looked at again. Short-term letting is a very serious area. We welcome the change yesterday of the 20,000 cap but I still think there needs to be more changes here, because people require full planning, and they will. To be compliant, there are two boxes, have you planning or not. I know some people who are 30 years in operation or 40. My mother was doing Airbnb in Schull in the 1970s, believe it or not, although now she has passed on. Everybody loves to visit rural areas. The point is that many people, most of them females - farmers and people who need a little bit of a side income and try to work at home and do this business - are doing it for survival and now they are faced with the dreadful consequences of having to apply for planning permission, which will devastate their business. I would like the Minister to look at that area again. I would plead with every Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and Independent TD not to vote for this until this confusion has been resolved. I do not think they are going to listen to me but I have to push from my angle to the best of my ability. The clock is ticking on this new legislation and we desperately need changes. Airbnb is hugely important and short-term lets are hugely important to people out there. They are contacting each of us in their thousands throughout the country. There are unintended consequences and it needs changing. My worry is if we push through this legislation tonight, the planning legislation is there, it is in place and it has to be acted on and it will be for the Minister, Deputy Peter Burke, to work on it. That is going to be landing on his desk next week, I am told. If this goes the way it seems to be going, we could see Airbnb as we know it ending in rural communities.

Sentiment score: 0.02