The retreat of the peasants constitutes a theme fertile in compromise. Thursday 1er December, the National Assembly examines a bill on this subject on the initiative of the group Les Républicains (LR). After bitter debates with a good part of the majority who were initially hostile to it, the text should – except for a dramatic change – be widely approved in a revised version compared to the initial version, the government having closely followed this rewriting . If this scenario is confirmed, it will be the third time, in two and a half years, that the executive, its supporters at the Palais-Bourbon and the opposition vote together for a reform on such a file.
The approach of right-wing elected officials is carried out by Julien Dive, deputy of LR de l’Aisne. The aim is to change the method of calculating farmers’ pensions, taking into account the best twenty-five years of income, just like for private sector employees and the self-employed affiliated to the general scheme. At present, the rights to old-age insurance for farm managers are determined on the whole of their career, which can contribute to the low level of agricultural pensions while being a source of inequity.
It is right to “remedy an injustice that has lasted too long”, declared Mr. Dive, on November 23, during discussions on the text in the Social Affairs Committee of the National Assembly. The bill, originally, was short – with two articles – and looked like a petition of principle: “The Nation has set itself the objective of extending to self-employed agricultural workers, from 2024, the calculation of the basic pension on the only twenty-five best years of income. » It provided that the amendments would be “fixed by decree”.
Rejection in committee
MPs on all sides said they were in favor of the direction of a measure likely to raise the level of pensions received by ex-peasants – this being well below average. But several members of the majority considered that Mr. Dive and his LR colleagues were not going about it the right way. “This bill is unconstitutional since it refers its application to a decree”, objected Didier Le Gac, Renaissance deputy for Finistère, during the debates in committee. This parliamentarian indicated that the reform required a law because “it creates new rights” in matters of social security.
“The way you do (…) displeases me », chained Nicolas Turquois. This elected member of the MoDem of Vienne pointed out that the Mutualité sociale agricole does not have “the history” farmers’ income since 2014. “She is therefore unable to reconstruct [leur] career “he added, before concluding that, as it stands, Mr. Dive’s text was “inapplicable” and it turned out “preferable” not to vote for it, even if it ” share[ait] the bottom “. Charlotte Parmentier-Lecocq (Renaissance, Nord) was even more biting, criticizing the right for not having checked whether “part of the target population” could be disadvantaged by these transformations. She pleaded for the subject to be dealt with within the framework of the pension reform promised by Emmanuel Macron, the main lines of which must be unveiled in mid-December.
You have 47.01% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.