Mr. Peter Mullan:

I do not think we do. The notifications will have been dealt with, so we do not. It will have gone through the local authorities and whatever notifications related to that.

On the blackmail issue - I am a former criminal lawyer - we are not an investigative body. We are not there to investigate, but evidence could come to us. Under the old Act and the present Act, we would obviously dismiss an objection that was made for the purpose of blackmail. Generally speaking, we have no investigative powers in that regard. Those are matters for An Garda Síochána. As a matter of course, we might refer something to An Garda Síochána. However, the real issue here is that blackmail was an effective method when delays were one year, 18 months, two years and beyond. That was a real factor and there was an RTÉ programme on it about a year and a half ago. Obviously, if we are getting SOP compliance back to the levels it should be, that is no longer an effective way to delay things.

I am dealing with the questions backwards. On the issue of locus standi and the slatted shed, where it is not necessarily the person next door but might instead be someone in an adjacent county, some parts of that issue have been dealt with, in that there are proposals on who can bring legal proceedings and a judicial review, as set out in Part 9 of the Act. It limits the ability to do that. I accept that there are probably arguments for strengthening some of those provisions. We might engage with the Department on the matter. As a lawyer, I understand the Deputy's interest in the issue of locus standi, but let us be absolutely clear - the one exception to all of that is environmental groups because they have a specific exemption and have not been involved in the planning process. If they see a decision on which they would consider there are environmental grounds to object, they are able to bring judicial reviews at a later stage, despite the Act.

On the 16 months, there are still cases within our system. We are confident that the backlog will be cleared by the end of the year. I have given very detailed answers today.

Senator Flynn asked us to provide the presentation we gave on housing matters. We will provide those figures. There is 100% compliance with the 30-plus LRDs. There are 11 cases left from 2024, but the rest of them are within SOP compliance. We cleared those out of the system and we are doing our very best. There are 41 rural housing cases left within the system. We are working very hard to clear those backlogs. That 16-month period is wrong but we are hoping that, as the year progresses, it will not happen again.

The SHD process was replaced by the then Minister, Deputy O'Brien, and the previous Government with the LRD process. The SHD process had two essential flaws at a very high level. One was that there was no further information, FI, provision, which created enormous difficulties. The second was that it was not particularly liked because it bypassed local decision-making and local authorities, as the applications were made to us. It was not popular. There was a huge amount of litigation with it. After that litigation ended in Easter of last year, we have systematically tried to get through those applications. We gave SHD figures in the papers we supplied. To date, we have decided 42 cases. There are ten-odd at board level and, in the next four-to-six weeks, I am confident we will get them out of the building. Ms Casey has the numbers for how many will remain after that.