What it is
Bill would let farm insurance cover farmers' income losses
It is a members’ bill. Introduced by parliamentary groups, the Senate, regional governments or citizens. It was introduced on 22 December 2025. Introduced by: Grupo Parlamentario Popular en el Congreso.
Official title: Private member's bill regarding the amendment of Law 87/1978, of December 28, on Combined Agricultural Insurance, to establish insurance on income and rents, and to reinforce the sustainability of agricultural production.
Source: Congreso de los Diputados, file 122/000249· updated 11 Nov
Automatic summary, not yet reviewed
- The bill would amend the Combined Agricultural Insurance Law so that agricultural insurance can also cover risks linked to farm income, something not allowed so far because the law only covered damage from natural causes.
- It would also amend the regulation that develops that law, to include as insurable risks price fluctuations, changes in demand and market access problems that affect farm income.
- ENESA Entidad Estatal de Seguros Agrarios, a public body under the Ministry of Agriculture that manages the agricultural insurance system. would be tasked with creating a working group to design the calculation methods for these income insurance products, with results to be published within six months.
- The Combined Agricultural Insurance Plan would have to be adapted to the new law within one year.
- The law would take effect the day after its publication in the Official State Gazette, except for provisions involving higher spending or lower revenue, which would take effect in the next budget year.
- The explanatory section states that current agricultural insurance protects against weather or health events but does not cover income losses from market prices, and that a change in EU Common Agricultural Policy rules now allows this type of insurance to be subsidized with national funds.
Who it affects
- Farmers and livestock breeders: They could take out insurance covering income losses from falling prices or market problems, while keeping enrollment voluntary.
- ENESA: It would have to create a working group to design the calculation methods for the new insurance products.
- Farms: Their market risks, such as price and demand fluctuations, would become insurable.
Words worth knowing
- ENESA
- Entidad Estatal de Seguros Agrarios, a public body under the Ministry of Agriculture that manages the agricultural insurance system.
- PAC
- Common Agricultural Policy (Política Agrícola Común), the set of European Union rules and subsidies for agriculture.
- Plan de Seguros Agrarios Combinados
- A plan approved each year that defines which agricultural insurance products exist and on what terms.
It summarizes the text as it was introduced. It is written by artificial intelligence and may contain mistakes: the official text is what counts. Read the official text · How we make summaries
Where it stands
How far did it get?
It took 3 of 7 steps. It reached Amendments, and today it is unfinished.
- Introduced22 December 2025Someone registers the text in the Congreso.
- Admitted15 January 2026The Bureau of the Congreso accepts it and, for a members’ bill, the plenary decides whether to consider it.
- Amendments13 April 2026Groups propose changes.
- Committeenot reachedA committee goes through the text in detail.
- Plenarynot reachedAll 350 deputies vote.
- Senatenot reachedThe Senate can pass it, amend it or veto it.
- BOEnot reachedIt is published in the Official State Gazette (BOE) and comes into force.
See the 9 official steps on a timeline
24 March 2026
How did the plenary vote?
Voted on: Private member's bill of the Popular Parliamentary Group in the Congress, regarding the amendment of Law 87/1978, of December 28, on Combined Agricultural Insurance, to establish insurance on income and earnings, and to reinforce the sustainability of agricultural production.
Source: Congreso de los Diputados, vote 2 of sitting 167· updated 10 Nov
Each dot is a seat. Tap one, or use the arrow keys, to see who it is.
Your province
How did the deputies from your province vote?
And your senators: the Senate does not link its votes to this law in its open data, so we cannot put them side by side here.
Or see how most of each province voted
- A Coruña More votes in favour 5 yes · 3 no
- Albacete Tie 2 yes · 2 no
- Alicante/Alacant More votes in favour 7 yes · 5 no
- Almería More votes in favour 4 yes · 2 no
- Araba/Álava Tie 2 yes · 2 no
- Asturias More votes in favour 4 yes · 3 no
- Ávila More votes in favour 2 yes · 1 no
- Badajoz More votes in favour 3 yes · 2 no
- Barcelona More votes against 14 yes · 18 no
- Bizkaia More votes against 3 yes · 5 no
- Burgos Tie 2 yes · 2 no
- Cáceres Tie 2 yes · 2 no
- Cádiz More votes in favour 5 yes · 4 no
- Cantabria More votes in favour 3 yes · 2 no
- Castellón/Castelló More votes in favour 3 yes · 2 no
- Ceuta More votes in favour 1 yes · 0 no
- Ciudad Real More votes in favour 3 yes · 2 no
- Córdoba Tie 3 yes · 3 no
- Cuenca More votes in favour 2 yes · 1 no
- Gipuzkoa More votes against 2 yes · 4 no
- Girona Tie 3 yes · 3 no
- Granada More votes in favour 4 yes · 3 no
- Guadalajara More votes in favour 2 yes · 1 no
- Huelva More votes in favour 3 yes · 2 no
- Huesca More votes in favour 2 yes · 1 no
- Illes Balears Tie 4 yes · 4 no
- Jaén More votes in favour 3 yes · 2 no
- La Rioja Tie 2 yes · 2 no
- Las Palmas Tie 4 yes · 4 no
- León Tie 2 yes · 2 no
- Lleida Tie 2 yes · 2 no
- Lugo More votes in favour 3 yes · 1 no
- Madrid More votes in favour 21 yes · 14 no
- Málaga More votes in favour 7 yes · 4 no
- Melilla More votes in favour 1 yes · 0 no
- Murcia More votes in favour 6 yes · 4 no
- Navarra More votes against 2 yes · 3 no
- Ourense More votes in favour 3 yes · 1 no
- Palencia More votes in favour 2 yes · 1 no
- Pontevedra More votes against 3 yes · 4 no
- Salamanca More votes in favour 3 yes · 1 no
- Santa Cruz de Tenerife Tie 3 yes · 3 no · 1 abst.
- Segovia More votes in favour 2 yes · 1 no
- Sevilla More votes against 5 yes · 6 no
- Soria Tie 1 yes · 1 no
- Tarragona Tie 3 yes · 3 no
- Teruel More votes in favour 2 yes · 1 no
- Toledo More votes in favour 4 yes · 2 no
- Valencia/València More votes in favour 9 yes · 7 no
- Valladolid More votes in favour 3 yes · 2 no
- Zamora More votes in favour 2 yes · 1 no
- Zaragoza More votes in favour 4 yes · 3 no
More details: how each group and each province voted
The groups
Who voted in favour and who against?
In favour, most of Republicano, Vasco (EAJ-PNV), Junts per Catalunya, Popular en el Congreso and VOX. Against, most of Euskal Herria Bildu, Plurinacional SUMAR, Socialista and Mixto. 4 deputies voted differently from their group.
By province: in 32 most voted in favour; in 6, against.
Coloured by how most of each province’s deputies voted.
- In favour: 32
- Against: 6
- Tie: 14
| Group | Seats | How it voted |
|---|---|---|
| Euskal Herria Bildu | 6 | 6 against |
| Plurinacional SUMAR | 26 | 25 against · 1 did not vote |
| Republicano | 7 | 7 in favour |
| Socialista | 121 | 119 against · 2 did not vote |
| Vasco (EAJ-PNV) | 5 | 5 in favour |
| Junts per Catalunya | 7 | 7 in favour |
| Mixto | 8 | 3 in favour · 4 against · 1 abst. |
| Popular en el Congreso | 137 | 137 in favour |
| VOX | 33 | 33 in favour |
What happens next
What happens now?
The legislature ended before it finished. To go on, someone would have to introduce it again in the new Cortes.
It has not been presented again yet.
The same initiative in the other chamber:
Sources
Where does all this come from?
- Congreso de los Diputados, file 122/000249
Official title, type, author, dates and stage.
Retrieved 11 November 2026
- Congreso de los Diputados, procedure
The date of each step, with its official wording.
Retrieved 12 November 2026
- Congreso de los Diputados, vote 2 of sitting 167
The count and every seat’s vote.
Retrieved 10 November 2026
- The data comes from the open files of the Congreso, the Senate and the BOE, unaltered.
- Each deputy’s province is the one of their seat on the day of the vote.
- We only say “passed” or “rejected” when the majority needed is certain; otherwise we say which side had more votes.