Skip to content
DRAFT BUDGETARY ASSESSMENT (COM(2025)0558 – C100172/2025 – 2025/0239(COD))

On the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Social Fund as part of the National and Regional Partnership Plan set out in Regulation (EU) […] [NRPPlan] establishing conditions for the implementation of the Union support to quality employment, skills and social inclusion for the period from 2028 to 2034

BUDG-PA-787632

Committee on Budgets · Rapporteur: Giuseppe Lupo

Official HTML ↗ PDF DOCX
✦ In shortFull text
✦ In short · AI summary of this text, generated 1 Oct 2026

Written by a language model from the full text only; every figure comes from the text. The paragraph links open the paragraph a statement rests on — check the text itself before relying on it.

The Committee on Budgets gives its budgetary assessment of the proposed European Social Fund (ESF) Regulation for 2028-2034, which makes the ESF part of National and Regional Partnership Plans. It finds no dedicated financial amount for the ESF, a 14 % horizontal social expenditure target, and too much discretion for member states on objectives and funding. It says the ESF must remain a standalone programme with its own financial envelope, and calls for dedicated budget lines, sufficient staff and detailed budgetary nomenclature. It insists that complementarity with other funds must not weaken traceability or Parliament's budgetary powers, and that changes must be reflected in the performance regulation.

Committee position. The Committee on Budgets concludes that the ESF must remain a standalone programme with a dedicated financial envelope, that the basic act must include dedicated budget lines and sufficient staff, and that detailed budgetary nomenclature and oversight must be ensured.

Key points

  1. The Committee on Budgets carried out a budgetary assessment of the proposed ESF Regulation under Rule 58 of the Rules of Procedure.
  2. It notes that Article 162 TFEU establishes a European Social Fund and that the proposal places the ESF in the National and Regional Partnership Plans for 2028-2034.
  3. It notes a 14 % horizontal target for social expenditure for the whole Fund, excluding certain amounts and external assigned revenue from the Social Climate Fund.
  4. It finds no clearly dedicated financial amount for the ESF and notes the European Child Guarantee aims to prevent and combat social exclusion of children in need.
  5. It considers that merging policies into one plan per member state creates unnecessary competition for money and regrets the weak social dimension and the large discretion left to member states.
  6. It stresses that the exact level of ESF resources cannot be determined in advance because no dedicated envelope is set in the basic act, hampering the budgetary authority's oversight.
  7. It considers the ESF must remain a standalone programme with a dedicated financial envelope no lower than a number to be inserted from the interim MFF report, and calls on the lead committee to coordinate amendments.
  8. It considers sufficient human resources must be available from the outset and throughout the next multiannual financial framework programming period.
  9. It deplores the lack of detailed indicative budgetary nomenclature for the ESF and warns that an overly aggregated architecture would allow transfers not subject to budgetary authority decision.
  10. It recommends that the ESF Regulation allocate defined shares to specific objectives and include dedicated budget lines with reference amounts for those objectives.
  11. It insists on detailed legislation and governance for budgetary decision-making and parliamentary oversight, and says a steering mechanism cannot replace Parliament's legislative, budgetary or discharge powers.
  12. It stresses that complementarity with other instruments must not harm expenditure traceability or budgetary authority prerogatives, and that any change in architecture must be reflected in the performance regulation's monitoring provisions.

Who is affected

  • Member states, which would design national plans and decide funding details under the proposed NRP Regulation.
  • The budgetary authority, which would be hampered in assessing, monitoring and defending social cohesion investment.
  • The European Social Fund, which the committee says must remain a standalone programme with a dedicated envelope.
  • Social partners and civil society, for whom capacity building is named as a specific objective to be funded.
  • Children in need, covered by the European Child Guarantee against social exclusion.

Figures and deadlines

  • 14 % horizontal target for social expenditure for the whole Fund
  • period from 2028 to 2034

Legal basis: Article 162 TFEU