They ended up losing patience. Invited to Matignon, Friday March 15, for a new meeting on pensions, representatives of the National Federation of Farmers’ Unions (FNSEA) left before the end of the discussion time to show their exasperation. The main farmers’ organization criticizes the government for wanting to postpone a reform on the calculation of pensions. Criticisms joined by parliamentarians from the Les Républicains (LR) party.
The file is now one of the themes of concern – such as water, the rules on the use of phytosanitary products or administrative simplification – on which the executive is accused by the profession of not living up to its commitments. .
If the FNSEA says it has “clack[é] the door “ Friday, it’s because she has the unpleasant impression of being pushed around on the implementation of provisions resulting from a bill adopted in February 2023. Carried by Julien Dive, LR deputy for Aisne, the text aims to determine, from 2026, the basic retirement of “non-agricultural employees” – that is to say the operators, for the most part – “based on the most advantageous twenty-five years of insurance”and no longer over the entire career.
Potential losers
The goal is to put an end to an injustice by introducing the same rules as for private sector employees. In the eyes of its supporters, such a mechanism presents, moreover, the advantage of eliminating from the calculation of pensions the years in which farmers have earned low income, due, for example, to a bad harvest or the drop in the price of the products they sold.
The “Dive law” was passed unanimously by the National Assembly and the Senate, with the blessing of those in power, which seemed to demonstrate great momentum. But its application turns out to be more laborious than its defenders would like. She had planned for the government to submit, before the start of summer 2023, a report detailing the conditions for its entry into force, with different scenarios at stake.
Carried out jointly by the General Inspectorate of Social Affairs and the General Council for Food, Agriculture and Rural Areas, this expertise was finally transmitted to Parliament at the end of January. These delays constituted a first source of annoyance.
The very content of the report also displeased. Presenting a panel of hypotheses, he explored three in greater detail, which show that the rule of the twenty-five best years could create losers, more or less numerous depending on the options chosen. Right-wing elected officials – Mr. Dive in the lead – objected that other solutions were possible, without causing the slightest harm to farmers.
You have 39.75% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.