The EU contributes millions to regional development but many ask if these funds are spent wisely. Can projects be linked with growth and jobs? Our guests discuss the future.

Focus: Building a future for Europe

This platform in the south of Belgium  was built partly with EU money.

It will be used to unload goods  from lorries, trains and ships,

which will then go to industrial estates  in the region or in other countries.

It was built with public money and 12%  of the cost came from regional funds.

But are we really sure that  the finished project will be fully utilised?

The debate on the future  of regional funds has begun

so that in future European funds can be  linked more closely to growth and jobs.

where European funds haven't always  delivered the expected results.

Wales was built on coal mining and steel.  Both declined. The mines are closed.

The once-thriving communities of West  Wales and the Valleys are now stranded.

It used to be great.  There were shops all around here.

There were shops down there,  a cinema over there, shops up there.

EU funding helped pay to reroute a road  around Crumlin instead of through it.

The new train service doesn't stop.  Most people pass it by.

Further down the valley EU funds  helped construct the Calzaghe Bridge.

The Welsh European Funding Office  says it offers access

to job opportunities, retail, leisure,  cultural and educational services.

But to many it's just a fancy way  to cross a railway line.

If they wanted a footbridge here,  they could have put up a normal one

with access for disability, which has  to be done today. The law requires that.

This elaborate structure  that I'm standing on now,

I would argue, would be  better situated at Alton Towers.

If the platform had been built  on the other side of this single track,

And a means of crossing the line  already existed.

The EU contributed some  four million euros to the construction.

There is a fear that Wales  has not made the most of EU funds.

I have a lot of guests with me today  with a lot of questions.

Can we maintain the same amount  of regional funds

when member states ask  to freeze the next EU budget?

And is there a way to link,  in the future,

the project with the results  in terms of growth and employment?

here with me are Danuta Hübner  from the People's Party Group,

Constanze Krehl from  the Socialists and Democrats Group,

Michael Theurer.  I hope I didn't make a mistake...

...from the Liberals and Democrats Group  and Pieter Cleppe from Open Europe,

a think tank which has a tough opinion  on regional funds.

Danuta Hübner, the Parliament recently  fixed its red lines about regional funds,

what you really would like  to protect and defend in the future.

In advance, because the Commission will  present a proposal after the summer.

Could you tell us briefly what you will ask  governments for the future?

First I think it is important,  and every practitioner will confirm it,

that to have a successful investment  you need a certain amount of funding

So for the European budget we should aim  to keep it at least at today's level

because we need growth,  we need employment, we must invest.

Now we are also working  on simplification.

In this small film you could see  the problems with bureaucracy,

so we need to simplify this policy  further, this is important.

And we must make the policy responsible  for very concrete things,

adjust it to the specificity, because  in every town there's a different problem,

so we also have to combine  the general European objectives

with the concerns of the concrete people  that have those problems.

Pieter Cleppe, do we have to protect  this "patrimoine européen",

In our research we have shown  that only 10% of EU structural funds

are actually going  to the poorest regions,

so that's definitely something  that should be improved.

We've also seen there's a big problem  with the absorption capacity...

So this money is not given  to people who need it?

Exactly. Probably the intentions behind  it are very good, no mistake about that,

but we need to look at the facts  and see how the results are.

If you look at the many studies  that have been made,

in terms of these funds helping these  regions, which should be the objective...

82% goes to the poorest regions,  not 10%. There's a misunderstanding.

I have to contradict that.  That's what our figures show.

They were going there in the end,  which is what matters.

We shouldn't say such things on TV,  because it's completely untrue.

So it's a question  of GDP per inhabitant.

How many poor regions are in Europe  and how much money they receive.

A lot of funds are earmarked  but they are not being spent.

Part of the problem is that, excuse me  for going into absorption capacity,

but I believe in Romania  it was only a very small percentage

that is actually being spent  in countries like Romania.

so what we need to do  is to reduce the bureaucracy

involved in preventing these countries  actually spending the money.

That's probably why there might be  some confusion about the percentage.

Constanze Krehl,  it's true there has been some waste

of some big infrastructure work  which in the end was not useful.

I think we have to give a new framework  for the cohesion policy.

We will start this in the autumn  and I think it's necessary

to increase the support for research  and innovation, for example,

or for education for the people  in the regions.

every decision for every project  is finally made in the region