Whatever, yes.

That is one example. I will take Senator Martin's point, however. For instance, a Minister may think that there should be planning permission for betting shops and fish and chip shops. Those are two things that a reasonable Minister might decide the residents of a road, or owners of neighbouring shops, have a right to be consulted on because the nature of those two businesses causes problems. That being the case, what does it matter what the premises were in the first place? I cannot understand why it would have to…

It seems section 8 seeks to criminalise short-term lets in a rent pressure zone. It deals with the criminal aspect whereas section 7 deals with what amounts to a change of use. I do not think there is a conflict between the two.

I want clarity on this. Why is the first use being prescribed in order that the second use be prescribed? I want clarity and some explanation of why we are doing this. We are saying that a change from one prescribed use to another is a change of use, which will require planning permission. I want to know why it matters what it was before it becomes a settlement item. Maybe what we are saying is that in order to keep chippers open, they cannot be made into shoe shops. Maybe that is what we are at, but I just do not …

Previously prescribed in relation to this?

I hope we get an explanation on Report Stage

A number of things arise in relation to section 8 as it stands. I know we are not discussing the section at this stage, but it is worthwhile to point out that it refers to short-term lettings and it defines them as "the letting of a house or a part of a house for any period not exceeding 14 days, and includes a licence that permits the licensee to enter and reside in the house or part thereof for any such period in consideration of the making by any person, whether or not the licensee, of a payment or payments to t…

Let us suppose someone is a tenant of a house in Dublin and it is in a rent pressure zone. The individual and two others share the house and his two mates go off to the Continent for two months on holiday and that person is left with the house. As I read it, short-term letting means the letting of a house or part of a house or the licence of a part of a house. If that person takes in another person for a fortnight, he commits an offence. That is serious stuff. He commits an offence and is liable to a class A fine. …

I have problems with section 11 which I think the Minister of State should take on board and he should reconsider this provision. I say that because we are on Committee Stage. There may be Report Stage and the whole Bill has to go back to the Dáil. There is time and no urgency to say this section cannot be looked at. This section reads: A relevant declaration shall be conclusive evidence of the matters stated therein in ...proceedings brought by an enforcement authority...against a person who requested the relevant…

I welcome the Minister. I fully accept that the Bill could, on Second, Third and Fourth Stage, be improved and made more specific and the like. However, the principle of the Bill seems to have universal support in this House. The principle of age limits being monitored by domestic legislation in respect of other member states is already breached, if you like, in the Government's proposed legislation in respect of the sale of tobacco products to persons under the age of 21. In that case, age verification procedures …

I welcome the Minister to the House today. At the heart of this, we do have to call a spade a spade, as Senator Garvey said. There is an essential difference between migration and seeking international protection. They are not the same thing. Just as there are nasty people on the right in Ireland who are stoking up false fears abouts migration, the general replacement of the Irish and the like on one hand, there are people who see themselves as on the left who deliberately confuse the concepts of migration with asy…

I second the amendment.

I do not want to trade legal opinions with anybody else. I see what this section is attempting to do. I am not wholly opposed to what it is attempting to do, which is to secure that the Defence Forces appear to the citizenry of the country to be neutral on matters of politics, not get involved in party politics and the like. It is strange that, for instance, a reservist who is not on full-time duty - the old FCA-type of person - could appear and be identified as a member of the reserve at a political meeting, and i…

It is also for human rights in Ireland. That is going to be considered a charitable purpose under legislation coming from the Government. It does not have to be outside of Ireland and it can be anywhere. The point I am making is that if a society is, for instance, supporting gay rights or LGBTQI+ rights, is that political or not political? Is an address to a society by any member of the Permanent Defence Force to be prohibited? I do not consider that it should be or that it is necessary to do so. When I say that, I…

I welcome the Tánaiste. It occurs to me that it is a bit artificial that the Cabinet should be organising significant changes to the structure of the Defence Forces and here we are discussing a Bill that has some bearing on those matters and we do not have a complete picture of what is proposed. I appreciate that the Tánaiste said he intends to bring his proposals through the normal legislative process, but the Cabinet must have agreed something. The Cabinet must have agreed a memorandum of some kind. The terms of …

It is Committee Stage.

I accept that there is a normal process leading to legislative change. However, if the Cabinet has agreed the principles of that legislative change, I cannot see any reason what the Cabinet agreed should not be laid out for public consideration at this stage. I know that the drafting process involves putting together heads of a Bill and then pre-legislative scrutiny in the ordinary course of events, and then consideration in detail by the Houses. However, I cannot see any reason if decisions in principle have been …

I have no problem with that.

I have no problem-----

There is no White Paper here. We do not know what is really being proposed.