WINE CLASSIFICATION AND LABELLING
29. The Government shared our disappointment
that the reforms in this area, useful as they are, preserved a
situation which is essentially producer- rather than consumer-oriented.
Lord Rooker felt that the maintenance of the link between wine
quality and region of production failed to recognise that the
mass consumer was "not part of the cognoscenti of wine drinking"
and that he or she was not likely to respond to a system which
required a degree of specialist knowledge of wine. "They
have got to learn", said the Minister, "that this regime
is not for the producer, it is for the consumer" (Q 922).
30. We endorse this view. The proposed new system
of Protected Geographical Indications (PGIs) and Protected Designations
of Origin (PDOs) is, of course, designed to bring the classification
of wine into line with the arrangements which exist for other
foodstuffs. But, as the names themselves imply, the emphasis appears
to be on protecting the producers of such wines rather than on
improving their marketing to consumer. The proposed removal of
labelling restrictions on table wines will certainly help the
marketing of such wines, and that is to be welcomed. Indeed, we
would have wished to see the reforms in this area go further and
permit all wine producers to describe their wines in whatever
ways they wish subject only to the rule that what appears on the
label must be honest and truthful. But maintenance of the link
between quality and geography will do little to commend PGI and
PDO wines to the mass consumer who has the alternative of buying
good-tasting and easily recognisable brands from the New World.
The new classification system has the appearance of a defensive
withdrawal by the EU wine industry into a citadel at a time when
it needs to be out in the field fighting for new customers.
31. There appears to us to be an overlap between
the proposed new rules on wine classification and the proposal
to extend the ban on new plantings until 2013. The Commission's
proposal refers, under the heading of wine classification, to
"expanding the role of the inter-professional organisations
in order to be able to control and manage the quality of the wine
produced in their territories"[10].
It also refers, under the heading of planting bans, to "Member
States' competences regarding access to protected designation
of origin or Geographical Indication status, for example area
delineation, setting maximum yields and other stricter rules on
production, processing and labelling"[11].
If this means simply that Member States and wine-making bodies
will have a role to play in setting the parameters of PGI and
PDO wines, fair and good. The wording, however, seems a little
elastic and we are concerned lest the proposed 'competences' might
be used, even after the end of the current planting ban, to prevent
entrepreneurial wine makers from entering the market in specific
regions.
32. There is a also a linkage between this issue
and the proposal that in future some 10 per cent of the Wine CMO
Budget should be devoted, via national envelopes, to promoting
the sale of EU wines. In our report earlier this year we made
a plea for promotion to be interpreted as marketing in its widest
sense and, in particular, for money to be spent, less on advertising
the perceived virtues of EU wines, and more on connecting the
wine producer with the wine consumer, so that production is structured
around what the market wants. It is clear from the evidence we
have received in the course of our inquiry that one of the things
that the mass consumer wants is wine which is presented to him
in such a way that he can readily understand the product that
he sees on the shelf—what it is made of, for what sort of
occasions it might be suitable and what it is going to taste like.
If the main selling point is going to be that the wine in the
bottle comes from this or that chateau or vineyard, that is unlikely
to make much impact or provide strong motivation for purchase
among ordinary wine consumers.
33. We confirm our earlier view that, while
the proposed relaxations in labelling rules are to be welcomed,
the proposed new wine classification system is unlikely to be
sufficient to reverse the trend of mass consumption of non-EU
wines. We also wish to sound a note of concern lest the new system
could be used to prevent entrepreneurial new wine makers from
entering the market after the ending of the current planting ban.
WINE-MAKING PRACTICES
34. We have taken no further evidence from the
Government on this issue and we confirm our earlier support
for the Commission's proposal that OIV-recommended oenological
techniques should become the benchmark for authorisation of wine-making
practices within the EU.
SINGLE FARM PAYMENT
35. In our earlier report we recorded our initial
interpretation of the Commission's proposals in this area as being
that all wine-growing areas should in future qualify for the Single
Farm Payment (SFP) and that land taken out of production under
the proposed grubbing-up scheme should come within the ambit of
the SFP[12]. Closer examination
of the Commission's proposals, together with evidence from HM
Government, leads us to believe that our initial interpretation
was not entirely correct. Article 95 of the Commission's Legislative
Proposal makes clear that wine growers who grub up all or part
of their vineyards will indeed qualify for the SFP. But, Lord Rooker
told us, "it is not giving Single Farm Payments for existing
vineyards". Robin Manning added that "the only new entitlements
which are being created by the wine reform occur where the farmer
is actually undergoing a fundamental change in land use and, effectively,
going out of wine production" (Q 925).
36. While we consider there would be advantage
in bringing all land producing food and drink, including vineyards,
within the Single Farm Payment system, we nonetheless support
the more modest reform of bringing grubbed-up vineyard land within
the ambit of the SFP.
37. Chapter Three contains a full list of our
final conclusions on the Commission's Legislative Proposal. We
make this report to the House for debate.
1 HL Paper 144, Session 2006-07 Back
2
COM(2007)372 Final Back
3
In principle and subject to the formulation of satisfactory rules
governing the allocation and use of National Envelopes Back
4
But with reservations Back
5
Organisation Internationale des Vins Back
6
See HL 144-I, Paragraphs 60-63 Back
7
See, for example, HL144-II, Q 31 Back
8
HL 144, Paragraphs 30-31 Back
9
See Paragraphs 12-14 Back
10
COM(2007)372 Final, Section 3.1 Back
11
COM(2007)372 Final, Section 3.1 Back
12
HL 144, Paragraph 27 Back
