The government’s plan to increase farmers’ incomes did not receive a majority in the Storting

Agriculture Minister Geir Pollestad (Sp) hoped to get the Storting on board with a goal to close the income gap for farmers by 2027, but the majority voted once morest it.

– I register with some surprise that a majority in the Storting, despite the fact that they have expressed great support for it in the debate, are voting once morest a new income target, Pollestad told NTB immediately following the vote.

He emphasizes that the government will still work towards this goal.

– We understand that there is a real majority in the Storting who want it, he says.

As expected, the government only received support for its compromise proposal to reduce the number of hours for farmers’ annual work to 1,750 hours. This had support from SV, MDG, KrF and Rødt.

Before the vote, Pollestad had made a number out of the fact that he perceived that the Storting majority was behind the goal of equalizing the differences between farmers and other income groups by 2027.

– Just nonsense

The disagreement consists in how to calculate the farmers’ income – and thus determine to what extent they will receive an income in line with other occupational groups. The farmers have protested strongly once morest the government’s proposal, and the noise from the demonstrators in front of the Storting threatened at times to drown out the politicians on the podium inside.

SV’s Torgeir Knag Fylkesnes says they would not vote for an income target without what they call credible figures.

– It is just nonsense to create an equalization plan with figures that no one in agriculture believes in. Now they didn’t get it through, so now there will be a new round where they will have the opportunity to set an escalation plan based on proper figures that agriculture believes in, says Fylkesnes to NTB.

He believes the whole question of the income base for farmers will now be a topic in the agricultural settlement.

“Spin”

MDG’s Rasmus Hansson refers to Pollestad’s surprise at not receiving support for the income target as “spin”.

– Most parties agree with the government’s income target in isolation. But Pollestad has wrapped it up in assumptions that will not give more farmers a viable economy. The government’s numerical basis will lead to fewer farmers and weakened food security. MDG cannot agree to that.

It became clear early on in the debate that several key points in the government’s plan to close the income gap would not receive a majority. A first part of the report, which is regarding increasing self-sufficiency, received the Storting’s support.

– Breach of contract

The government had originally entered into an agreement with the Conservatives and Liberals to obtain a majority for the report to the Storting. But when the government went back on the number of man-years that they had agreed on, the two bourgeois parties withdrew their support. Thus, Pollestad ended up in a debate where criticism rained down from both the right and the left for poor craftsmanship, untidy handling and even dishonesty.

– The government breaks the agreement with us. Breaking an agreement is messy and fraudulent, I’m sorry. The proposal that has now been put forward has major financial consequences without it being submitted to us, said Conservative Party member Lene Westgaard-Halle when the debate opened.

Pollestad says he will use the government’s message to the Storting as a basis, with the exception of where the Storting majority is in favor of something else. Thus, the government enters into an agricultural settlement with the farmers without having a majority in the Storting behind it when it comes to which figures should be the basis.

– Iron

– The government’s proposal is failing. KrF wants to close the income gap between farmers and other groups, but what the government proposed today was far from good enough and would not close the real income gap, says KrF leader Olaug Bollestad.

– It is completely absurd that the government does not want to create a majority with us for a numerical basis and an escalation that they say they are in favor of. Now we expect the government to come back to the Storting with a numerical basis that farmers recognize, with a return on equity and without windfall, says Rødt’s Geir Jørgensen.

After the dust had settled in the Storting, Westgaard-Halle concludes that both the government and agriculture have lost.

– The government had entered into an agreement with the Conservatives and Liberals that was historically good for Norwegian farmers. Instead, they brushed aside a comprehensive agreement that might have given the industry predictability across political divides. Now we are left with an increased level of conflict which will affect many agricultural settlements in the future, says

The FRP proposed to postpone the processing of the case until the autumn, but the proposal was voted down.