The European Parliament's Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) committee debated the draft report on the European Social Fund (ESF) for 2028-2034 on 6 May 2026, with a broad majority of political groups opposing the European Commission's proposal to integrate the fund into National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPP). Rapporteur David Casa (Malta, EPP) stated that all groups agreed on keeping the ESF as a standalone fund with an increased budget of €124 billion, diverging from the Commission's €100 billion social allocation under the NRPP framework.
Marit Maij (Netherlands, S&D) criticised the Commission's proposal as an 'empty shell' that would cut social spending by 50% for most member states. Chiara Gemma (Italy, ECR) stressed the need to protect Parliament's budgetary control, while the Greens/EFA insisted on specific objectives and budgets in the regulation. Renew Europe supported keeping the ESF within NRPPs for alignment but pushed for specific objectives. The Left called for a fully funded standalone ESF. Commission representative Ruth Paserman defended the proposal's flexibility and the €100 billion figure, which assumed full uptake of the Catalyst mechanism.
On the performance framework, Gemma (ECR) insisted on efficiency and proportionality, while The Left argued it must be policy-driven. Hristo Petrov (Bulgaria, Renew) proposed a mid-term review with impact indicators. On the Youth Guarantee, Petrov noted inconsistent implementation; Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Ireland, S&D) prioritised reaching the furthest from the labour market with a binding quality framework. Gordan Bosanac (Croatia, Greens/EFA) called for common indicators and a living wage. Kathleen Funchion (Ireland, The Left) said trainees must be recognised as workers. Niels Geuking (Germany, EPP) argued for robust control mechanisms.
Ian Begg's study, commissioned by the committee, estimated ESF funding at €79 billion under current plans, a cut from previous levels, and recommended boosting social funding to 16-20% of the EU budget and keeping the ESF standalone. The Commission representative countered that the €100 billion figure assumed full Catalyst uptake.
Broad consensus existed across groups for a standalone ESF and a more effective Youth Guarantee, but divisions remained on the integration into NRPPs and the budget level. The amendments deadline is 12 May 2026.
Stakeholder impact: Keeping the ESF standalone with a higher budget (€124 billion vs. €100 billion) would benefit EU social policy beneficiaries and member states with high social needs, as it preserves dedicated funding and parliamentary oversight. However, it could reduce flexibility for member states to align ESF spending with broader regional development plans, potentially increasing administrative burden. The Commission's NRPP integration would streamline cohesion policy but risk diluting social objectives. The Youth Guarantee's binding quality framework would improve outcomes for young people not in employment, education, or training (NEETs), but may impose additional compliance costs on member states. The mid-term review proposal adds accountability but could delay adjustments.