Mr. Peter Mullan:

No, I am happy to answer those first, if that suits. The first question relates to the scandals of 2022, the difficulties we faced and what assurances we can provide to the public in that regard. Mr. Cussen has already indicated that two reports were done by the OPR and there were ministerial recommendations on foot of that. In conjunction with the OPR we have implemented those recommendations. I am very grateful that Mr. Cussen clarified that. A lot of the inspiration and the governance changes provided for in the Act come from some of those recommendations. For instance, there is a written procedure document which sets out how decisions are made within our organisation and how they progress through the building. That is on our website and is one of the first things the new governing board has to do within that first six months. The code of conduct is there as well. That is very important so people can have an understanding of how decision-making takes place within our organisation and how the files are dealt with.

Regarding the commissioners, I have already indicated that there was a full transparent process for their recruitment through the Public Appointments Service. That was put in place by the new Act. Several commissioners were appointed under the old Act, including Mr. McGarry and two or three others. The vast majority of our commissioners have been appointed under the new process and are only in the building less than two years, with seven there for less than a year.

In respect of the 28% compliance with meeting our statutory deadline, the Senator is right. That was the figure. I have pointed to other graphs that we have provided to the committee regarding our compliance. This year will see 50% and at the end of the month it will be at 62%. We are hoping that will rise as the year progresses. We will improve on that deadline as the year progresses and we hope to meet it. We have already agreed in an open discussion with the Department - it was our suggestion - that we meet that SOP in 80% to 85% of cases by the end of the year.

A third of our budget goes on legal fees. Certainly, that was the case last year. We have pointed out the environment in which those judicial reviews are taking place. It is an environment where, year-on-year, there has been an increase. There is the effect of the Heather Hill decision and the indemnity in taking proceedings against An Bord Pleanála. I indicated that nowhere else within the planning system were judicial reviews taken. They are taken against our decisions.

The Senator is right to point out that, on occasion, some of the decisions we make are flawed. Generally speaking, we can see those quite quickly. We put our hands up, get the cases back into the system and try to rectify our decisions.

Regarding Traveller and marginalised communities, all applications within our organisation are dealt with essentially using the exact same criteria. I do not believe there are any Traveller projects. We had a look and I do not believe there are any or any that have been delayed. If they come in in the next year, they will be dealt with under the normal statutory process but there is certainly no favourable decisions one way or the other on that.

I might point to Mr. Baneham to discuss the judicial review point. The Senator made a comment on our decision-making and the budget for our legal fees.