Another pointless article about the UK’s strategic wine reserves
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
In January, we wrote about the UK’s government’s secret-but-not-really-secret-at-all wine cellar.
If you haven’t already done so, we’d obviously recommend you go back and read that piece, but here (in order of ascending revelatory effort and descending revelatory interest) are some facts from the piece:
— The UK Government has a £3.66mn wine cellar operated by the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, which is primarily used to get visiting dignitaries crunk
— The wines are picked by a retired diplomat and a coterie of four ‘Masters of Wine’ (part of the Government Wine Committee)
— The wines they have picked seem to be generally really good, from both a value and quality perspective
— The most common type are French reds
— It recently sold some nice port
You’ll have diligently noted we said the most common type of wine, rather than the wine they have the most of.
It’s a subtle and probably unimportant difference: although the Government Hospitality wine cellar annexes are remarkably detailed in terms of the bottles held, they don’t specify quantities.
So we tried to do some public-service journalism, writing then:
…we’ve put in a freedom of information request to find out more about the specific quantities in the Cellar, so we’ll return in 20 working days with even more charts!!!
How naïve we were. The Freedom of Information act was brought in by Tony Blair’s government in 2000, and hated by them shortly after. Its effectiveness has been gradually eroded by a combination of disregard for transparency, lapsing levels of resourcing in public bodies, and the interventions of Conservative special advisors.
So perhaps we should not have been surprised that — even though we sent our request to the FCDO on January 12, and authorities are supposed to reply within 20 working days — we didn’t get a reply until April 10 (yes, we have been sat on this for over a fortnight, we’ve been busy). Still, we can’t complain too much because, let’s be honest, nobody really needed this information.
This is what we asked for:
— 1) The current and past membership of the Government Wine Committee
— 2) All meeting minutes and reports of the Government Wine Committee since 2013
— 3) The terms of reference for the Government Wine Committee
— 4) A copy of Government Hospitality’s wine cellar stocklist that includes the count of each type of drink.
The bad news
Let’s lead with our failures: on request 4, the FCDO refused to disclose the quantities of each kind of wine they hold (or the prices, which we hadn’t asked for), citing the FOI exemption for information of commercial interest. Here’s the reasoning (our emphasis):
The use of this exemption was carefully considered. The factors in favour of disclosure of this information, including the general public interest and greater transparency and accountability, were carefully weighed against the need to allow the FCDO to conduct their business competitively and without fear of disclosure of sensitive commercial information. As detailed above, failure to protect such commercially sensitive information would limit the interlocutors available to the FCDO and limit the FCDO’s ability to provide the best value for money to the taxpayer. In this case, after such consideration, we believe that the public interest in withholding the redacted information outweighs the public interest in its release.
Tl;dr, if we tell you how much wine we already bought, it will make it harder for us to buy more wine. Sure, ok.
The point about taxpayers is interesting — as we noted in January, the whole idea of trying to extract value from the cellar (by selling some bottles) is fairly novel, so the notion of taxpayer value here is, well, open to discussion.
What does this mean? Sadly, no fancy charts: we don’t have much more data than we had before. We’d understand if you don’t want to read any further, but please do.
The neutral news
We asked, as point 3, for the Government Wine Committee’s terms of reference. OK, but not yet, says the FCDO:
This information is exempt from disclosure under Section 22 (1) (a, b and c) of the FOIA (2000). For, the information is intended for future publication as a part of the next Bi-Annual Report on the GH Wine Cellar 2022-24, which will issue before the summer recess…
…given that there is a planned reporting and publication procedure in place for the information requested, to release the information via a Freedom of Information Request would not prove a cost-effective strategy.
We’re sure it would have been extraordinarily expensive to attach that PDF. But, hey, that means there’s a guaranteed opportunity for future wine cellar coverage!!!!!1!!!! ʰᵉʸ ᶜᵒᵐᵉ ᵇᵃᶜᵏ
The news-before-the-news
Points 1 and 2 — more interesting. The FCDO tackled these together, and gave Alphaville a partial response. As a reminder, we were after current and former membership, and any minutes of reports from the GWC.
They invoked three exemptions here:
Section 35 (1) (a): for information that “directly relates to the formulation and development of government policy”
The FCDO says:
When assessing whether or not it was in the public interest to disclose the information to you, we took into account the following factors:
— We accept there might be a benefit to the public in releasing the details of the GWC’s discussions regarding Committee-related policy. For, increased transparency around decision-making processes ensures accountability within Public Authorities.
— However, officials need to be able to conduct rigorous and candid assessments of their policies and programmes without there being premature disclosure, which might inhibit the free and frank discussion of all policy options. The candour of all involved would be affected by their assessment of whether the content of their discussions would be disclosed prematurely. Such candour is vital to the effective formulation and execution of government policy.
Honestly. The wording here makes it sound like they’re talking about drone strike capabilities or the use of military rendition. It’s a committee that buys wine for diplomatic knees-ups.
Section 40 (2) (3A) (a): for information relating to third parties
In this case, our view is that disclosure would breach the data protection principle that personal data should be processed lawfully, fairly, and transparently. It is the fairness aspect of this principle, which, in our view, would be breached by disclosure. In such circumstances, Section 40 confers an absolute exemption on disclosure. There is, therefore, no public interest test to apply.
And therefore the (paid) mandarins and (unpaid) Masters of Wine who serve on this Government committee shall remain shrouded in a level of secrecy normally saved for members of the Illuminati and whom Liverpool’s next manager is going to be.
…and finally, again, Section 43 (2): commercial interests
…where disclosure would make it less likely that companies or individuals would provide the department with information in the future or where disclosure would make it more difficult for individuals to be able to conduct commercial transactions, or have future dealings with public bodies, without fear of suffering commercially as a result, these are factors that may weigh in favour of non-disclosure…
…In considering this case and the details required, we consider that the public interest in favour of disclosing such information is outweighed by the obligation to protect the commercial interests of third parties.
It’s not abundantly clear to us who these third parties are. Is the issue that the Masters of Wine, despite seemingly being amazing at choosing wine, could be too embarrassed to participate in the future if certain information about the wine-picking process is released?
Or is it that by the committee criticising certain wines, the reputation of the suppliers could implicitly be harmed?
Who knows? Who cares? Onward…
The news
So what did we get?
Well, minutes. The FCDO sent Alphaville 37 pages of pretty heavily redacted minutes from the GWC, covering the past decade or so. There’s quite a lot of information in there, but also… not very much information in there.
Here’s what we learned.
GWC meetings have become somewhat sporadic
Here are the meeting dates of the GWC according to these minutes:
It had the same chair for a really long time
Sir David Wright, the former British ambassador to Korea and, later, Japan, was chair of the GWC from at least 2013 until last summer. Because we have no terms of reference, we have no idea how appropriately long a tenure this is.
They sometimes have guests over for lunch!
March 2013:
March 2014:
June 2016:
February 2018:
May 2018:
May 2019:
You’ll recall that this is a committee with no budget, so we’re intrigued as what kind of arrangement these lunches are taking place under. Are these distinguished luminaries — such as Andrew Mitchell MP, the head of a UK wine lobby group or the private secretary of the minister for the armed forces — just rocking up with a meal deal?
We asked an FCDO spokesperson, who refused to give us anything beyond basic biographical details about the wine cellar. However, a person with knowledge of the cellar’s operations said the GWC includes stakeholders from across a range of organisations, with guests included at the chair’s discretion.
Who are these other stakeholders? Basically, we don’t know, because the attendance lists are redacted. At the latest meeting we have minutes for, last August’s, it appears eight people could theoretically have attended:
The only other clue we have is the December 2018 minutes, which list the FCDO’s director of protocol (Neil Holland, according to a FCDO bio) as being in attendance:
Whoever’s going — it seems like nice work, if you can get it.
A section about Andrew Mitchell
You’ll have noticed that Andrew Mitchell, the Tory MP for Sutton Coldfield and deputy foreign secretary, rocked up to the latest meeting:
On top of his other duties, he’s managed to get himself appointed as Minister for the Government Hospitality wine cellar. Our first response to this was “you lucky bastard”, but then we had further thoughts.
Here’s a section we have memorised from the October 11th 2011 entry of Diary of an MP’s Wife: Inside and Outside Power, a memoir by Baroness (Sasha) Swire:
We are the guests of Andrew Mitchell, who is a member of the Confrérie des Chevaliers du Tastevin, a kind of weird order of wine buffs which translates roughly as the Brotherhood of Knights of Wine-Tasting Cups. Andrew, whose father was not only an MP but also a wine merchant, proudly dons a grand yellow and red ribbon. Essentially, it’s an exclusive bacchanalian fraternity of Burgundy wine enthusiasts who gather for several banquets a year in the incredibly beautiful twelfth-century Château du Clos de Vougeot.
On one level, it seems fitting that the UK’s wine minister is part of a Bacchanalian fraternity, and from wine-selling stock. But the Confrérie’s website says:
Since 1934, the Confrérie des Chevaliers du Tastevin has set itself the mission of promoting all things Burgundian, in particular its great wines and traditional cuisine…
With 12,000 Chevaliers around the world, the Confrérie is committed to defending the reputation of Burgundy — and burgundy — in a spirit of Grand Cru conviviality.
An agent of Big Burgundy! Which, as findable in our previous reporting…
…is already the second most-represented region in the cellars, after Bordeaux.
The big question is, can Mitchell be trusted to balance his duties as an evangelical Burgundian Chevalier with a role on a committee that must select the best wine for diplomats, and produce the best value for money for taxpayers?
The answer to that big question
The FCDO declined to comment on our speculation that Andrew Mitchell is in thrall to Dijonnais vinting interests.
However, a person with knowledge of the GWC’s operations told us that the Minister for wine offers advice and helps set the strategy for the committee, but has no role in choosing which wines are purchased.
The person also told us that oversight of the wine cellar had always been part of a ministerial portfolio, so it’s mildly interesting that Mitchell is the only MP whose name we’ve been given across a decade of meetings.
Moving on…
Most of the discussions are, yes, really quite boring
September 2019:
July 2015:
March 2015:
…or are redacted to the point of absurdity
November 2014:
January 2016:
February 2017:
May 2018:
How controversial can a bullet point about an unsold lot from 2014 really be? Come on.
It all ends up feeling like a bit of a white (or red, or rosé) wash. Interestingly, the GWC is seemingly kept regularly updated on how many FOI requests it has been receiving, which seems a bit weird given the execution of statutory transparency legislation isn’t really within the purview of a retired diplomat and a bunch of credentialed plonk enthusiasts. But then again, it’s probably nice to talk about something that isn’t wine.
Does the public deserve more information about what the wine committee of its elected government is up to? We’d say yes, and will appeal this response when we can be bothered.
Does the public want more information about what the wine committee of its elected government is up to? We’d guess probably not, and will stop writing now.
Comments