The purpose of the structural funds is to target the poorest areas of the European union - those those in greatest need of development - with extra money to help them to begin to rebuild the economy, create jobs, improve the environment and regenerate their poorer communities.

The principle of additionality is meant to ensure that happens - to prevent governments from using EU funding merely to replace their own structural aid. That defeats the whole object of the funding because the regions in question actually get nothing additional - just the same amount of funding from central government which they had previously.

This is the case in Wales. The granting of EU Objective 1 status to west Wales and the Valleys was an acknowledgement of the poverty that exists in three quarters of the country and which has worsened under successive governments in London. Having the opportunity of this amount of European funding is seen as a real opportunity.

However, this is not the case. Despite being an Objective 1 area, in theory receiving £1.2 billion over six years, there will be no more spending in West Wales and the Valleys next year with Objective 1 than there is this year before Objective 1. The budget of the National Assembly for Wales has not increased this year and will not increase in the coming year to reflect the extra European funding. For the first fifteen months of the new programming period there are no additional resources to cover the EU funds.

In March 1999, before we got Objective 1, the total expenditure for Wales for 2000-2001 was £7.9 billion and for 2001-2002 was £8.3 billion.

By the first budget of the newly elected Assembly in November 1999 the totals were still £7.9 billion and £8.3 billion - there was no change despite the announcement of Objective 1 status. ffered the prospect of a brighter future and new opportunities for communities which have suffered terrible economic decline and human hardship over the past decades. Structural Funds are the principle means by which Europe can, harmonise the quality of life of its citizens and promote equality of opportunity across national boundaries.

"Spending from the structural funds must be additional at all times and so long as the member state does not reduce its overall expenditure this will be added to the national expenditure and we think this principle of additionality is respected." Barnier.

In 1992 the Uk government signed an agreement with the European Commission to ensure that EU spending actually reached the areas for which it was intended and was actually additional.

Governments should not be allowed the opportunity to give with one hand and to take with the other. The failure of the government in London and in the National Assembly for Wales to provide a cast iron guarantee that Objective 1 European Funding for West Wales and the Valleys will be matched by additional money from the UK Treasury rather than plundered from the government's existing budget for public spending in Wales has led to the removal from office of the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales. Pressure should also now be applied from the Commission on the European level.

The issue of the proper application of the principle of additionality as highlighted in Wales and replicated in other nations and regions throughout the EU is about ensuring that the funds are targetted and spent effectively. Experience over the lasy ten years has shown us that the poorer regions have got poorer and the richer regions have got richer. We have to ask how and why that happens. Indeed, how an area like West Wales and the Valleys which has received millions of pounds in funding under Objective 2 and 5b schemes could have deteriorated to the level os an Objective 1 area.

We need an overhaul of the system and a central part of that, I believe, is looking at additionality at the programme level rather than at the member state level only. Commissioner Barnier said himself in a written reply to me that

It is a question of whether the European Union and this Parliament is prepared to allow Member States to get away with short changing economically deprived communities of the life line offered by Structural Funds.

In the process of submitting claims for Structural Funds, the Commission quite rightly insisted that the Member States followed strictly defined criteria. The Commission should now make it crystal clear to Member States that the same high standards are expected on the additionality question. Mechanisms need to be in place to ensure that member states respect the principle and the spirit of additionality.

Put simply, the Commission must insist that Member States recognise that Structural Funds are a hand up for Europe“s poorest communities and not a hand out to Member States to allow them to reduce their public expenditure.