Mr. Tony Murphy:

I thank Deputy Howlin for his questions. The difference between the BAR and the RRF is that the payments are not actually linked to implementation. They are pre-finance instalments and are not linked to implementation in the same way as the RRF. In terms of pre-clearance with us, we had some concerns about the way the BAR was constructed, one of which was the fact that we will not see the expenditure for three years or more. We do not know what is actually going on. We got some assurances from the Commission that there would be ongoing correspondence between it and the member states to check how things were progressing. It is one of the issues that we raised in our opinion. We said we were worried because it is not like the MFF, where we have OPPs and everything is approved upfront. Here, there was a certain amount of leeway or flexibility given to the member states, which is good. What we were saying was that we were worried there could be some legal uncertainty as to the eligibility of the projects when ultimately they are claimed because there was no pre-approval process. That is more a question for the Commission and the Deputy was right to address it to the chief of staff of the Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy, REGIO, as to how it is monitoring and managing that. We can only intervene when the expenditure is claimed, in a way.