Government Hospitality Cellars; FOI Request

[JacobH]

Last night we discussed the possibility of a Freedom of Information Act request to UK Government Hospitality Cellars to find out what sorts of Port they have.

A search of the Internet suggests that a similar thing has already been attempted but without much success. That's not to say we shouldn't have a go but I think such questions would have to be phrased carefully. It may be difficult to extract names of shippers without stirring up a "commercial interest" objection under s.43. Perhaps, therefore, we might ask what vintages they have in storage (and for which ones they possess less than a case)? It would be interesting to see how much vintage port they are cellaring and how much gets bought in at maturity. And, of course, whether they have much old stuff.

Thoughts?

[uncle tom]

The objection made to the previous request seems to have centred on the request for purchase price information.

A simple request for the current inventory, making it clear that no financial information is requested; would seem hard for them to object to.

Tom

[g-man]

It seems even current inventory if attached to a particular house is "damaging" to their relationship with distributors
..

What you might get, is just a database of the vintages held but I'd doubt more than that.

[SushiNorth]

Pardon my ignorance, but
a) what is a UK Government Hospitality Cellars?
b) what benefit would the inquiry serve?
c) in the link above, what benefit did pursuit of the inquiry serve, other than to waste a lot of government hours?

[uncle tom]

a) what is a UK Government Hospitality Cellars?
b) what benefit would the inquiry serve?
c) in the link above, what benefit did pursuit of the inquiry serve, other than to waste a lot of government hours?

a) This is wine paid for by the taxpayer and used for state entertainment. Prior to about 100 years ago, the wine for such occasions was normally sourced from someone who had a good cellar, and was known to be eager to obtain a Knighthood or Peerage, and would therefore donate. This was rightly seen to be a seedy arrangement, that tended to leave the government obligated to the underserving. That said, little changes..

b)The government hospitality cellar has some reputation for having housed some very interesting wines, including Noval '31. What it holds today is a bit of a mystery.

c) The Freedom of information Act has resulted in as much abuse as it has worthwhile enquiry, but as the cellar should have an up to date inventory (if not, why not..?) and such an inventory could be emailed in seconds (assuming it is kept electronically), then such an enquiry should not engage the time of public servants to an unreasonable degree.

That they have made such a circus of the last enquiry does not reassure the taxpayer that they are managing the facility with the greatest efficiency. A further enquiry would seem entirely appropriate.

Tom

[JacobH]

c) in the link above, what benefit did pursuit of the inquiry serve, other than to waste a lot of government hours?

As this is publically owned wine, there is a interest in seeing that they are being sensible in what they buy. For instance, have they being buying good Prot or is the cellar full of Cruz 1989?

More importantly, it should also be noted that there is a "general right of access to information held by public authorities" under s1 of the Freedom of Information Act. Therefore the denial of release of information which is readily available should be regarded as a serious issue which makes a full complaint entirely justified. Too many government departments respond to FoI requests with poorly justified refusals and spent far too much time obfuscating and delaying.

The expense in dealing with the request which I linked to was due to the government running around in circles trying to avoid giving out the information (which presumably would just involve printing out the relevant section of a database and emailing it, something that could be achieved in minutes).

[JacobH]

Dear Sir or Madam,

This is a request under s.1 Freedom of Information Act 2000 for information into the Vintage Port currently held in the Government Hospitality Wine Cellar (the ‟Cellar”). This request is to ascertain the amount of mature Vintage Port held in the Cellar.

I would define ‟mature Vintage Port” as Vintage Port which is over 25 years old (i.e. with a date of 1984 or earlier on the bottle).

My understanding is that mature Vintage Port of this age is not generally commercially available. Therefore this request will not fall within the exemption provided by s.43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act as it will not prejudice the commercial interests of any person if it is disclosed.

The specific request is for:

Details of the year, shipper (i.e. the producer) and quantity held of each type of Vintage Port in the Cellar that was bottled in or before 1984.

If, for whatever reason, you are unable to provide this information, I would request, in addition to an explanation of the reasons as required by the Act, that you provide me with as much information about the mature Vintage Port held in the cellar as possible.

If you disagree about the commercial sensitivity of Vintage Port bottled in or before 1984, in addition to providing an explanation of the reasons, as required by the Act, I would also ask that you provide an answer to the request with a date as close to 1984 as you feel is possible to substitute.

[...]

[Alex Bridgeman]

And if we get blanked then we can start asking more targetted questions - like "What is the oldest bottle of vintage port in government cellars?"

[g-man]

And if we get balnked then we can start asking more targetted questions - like "What is the oldest bottle of vintage port in government cellars?"

I'd be more direct, can we buy the oldest bottle of vintage port in government cellars at government paid prices?

[uncle tom]

And if we get blanked then we can start asking more targetted questions - like "What is the oldest bottle of vintage port in government cellars?"

The answer might be depressingly young - like 1977; - but I'd love to know

Tom

[JacobH]

Dear Jacob

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request. It has been passed to the relevant section within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to deal with. They will be in touch with you should your request need clarification.

We received your request on 04 June 2009 and will aim to respond within 20 working days.

Yours sincerely

[JacobH]

Dear Mr Head,
Thank you for your request for information, which we received on 5th June.

The FOI Act obliges us to respond to requests promptly and in any case no later than 20 working days after receiving your request. However, when a qualified exemption is engaged and the public interest test is being considered, the Act allows the time for response to be longer than 20 working days, and a full response must be provided within such time as is reasonable in all circumstances of the case. We do, of course, aim to make all decisions within 20 working days, including in cases where we need to consider where the public interest lies in respect of a request. In this case, however, we have not yet reached a decision on where the balance of the public interest test lies.

In your case we estimate that it will take an additional 10 working days to take a decision on where the balance of the public interest lies. Therefore, we plan to let you have a response by 16th July. It if appears that it will take longer than this to reach a conclusion, we will keep you informed.

The specific exemption which is engaged in relation to your request is Section 43(2) relating to commercial interests, as you had mentioned in your request.

[JacobH]

I received a response from Robert Alexander last week. The FCO declined to provide all the information I requested (i.e. pre-1984 holdings) but, in essence, told me the following:

The Cellar contains between 1 and 30 bottles of VP from the years 1931, 1935, 1945, 1948, 1955 and 1982, with the shippers being Fonseca, Graham, Quinta do Noval, Taylor and Warre.

The only other pre-1984 stocks are about 400 bottles of the 1977, from Dow, Fonseca, Taylor and Warre, and about 420 bottles of 1983 from Cockburn, Dow, Fonseca, Graham, Taylor and Warre.

So, lots of traditional English shippers; very little very old Port (though they could easily have a case or two of Noval ’31 ) and, surprisingly, nothing from the ’60s or ’70.

Now if only we could get in to Buckingham Palace’s cellar!

[JacobH]

Some people with more time than me have been pursuing the Freedom of Information issue for the cellars to the Information Commissioner. They have had some success: a list of wines held and most tasting notes was published following a ruling in December last year (look for ‟December” on the FCO’s FOI Releases page). Another ruling from last month has required current stock levels and estimated current values to be published, finally opening the doors properly to this cellar.

ers might be interested in a fuller list of the Port held and their tasting notes which are as follows. Each wine is graded with A1 being for very special occasions, A being for special occasions, and B being for general use. U represents a single bottle bought for evaluation by the committee. There may be some typos in here from my OCR software: the list was provided as a scanned image.

1931 Quinta do Noval, 1931 A1 Drink on very special occasions only.
Decant very late. Reviewed at lunch in 7/88 and found to be super. No longer to be considered for sale. Review again in 1991 (7/88). Again found to be superb, impeccable; etc should last another 20-50 yrs possibly even longer- a real ‟National Treasure” (91). Sublime - best this century - (2/95). Problems with leaking corks highlighted in 2004 - re-corking options examined. Still spectacular and some could be drunk (7/04)

1935 Graham 1935 A Keep but can use for special occasions - 1/82 Use up slowly 7/02
V good - 10/78 excellent- will not last for ever but certainly to 2000 (5/88). Delicious (3/90 and again 11/93) Terrific but slightly spirty and out of balance? Use up as necessary (7/02).

1945 Graham 1945 A1 Keep but can use for special occasions - 1/82
V good will keep for 10- 20 yrs (10/81). Excellent (8/84). Exceptional and standing up very well (7/90). Tremendous though showing a little spirit (7/03).

1945 Quinta do Noval, 1945 A1 Keep but can use for special occasions - 1/82
Still sweet very good will keep for yrs (2/82). Still fragile and a bit thin (7/89). Very good indeed· no longer to be noted as ‟fragile” and/or thin (5/93). A hint of spin; but soft and creamy - magnificent (5/10)

1945 Warre 1945 A1 Keep but can use for special occasions - 1/82
Superb - 2/78,· again in 5/837 and again 5/90 when it was noted as spicy and delicious but still not improve. Delicious and not over the hill could be kept as a curiosity 2/96 Fascinating no hurry to use (11/02).

1948 Fonseca 1948 A1 Drink for special occasions - see note 7/99
Excellent 5/79; and again in 2/84,· will last for years. 6/88 - found to be fruity young and fresh. Still good but not excellent May not last beyond 5-10 yrs 04/88). Tasted again 11/90. Delicious· but worth monitoring; at its peak and probably needs drinking within 5 yrs or so (1/93) Lovely spicy nose though losing fruity not brandied or fiery Should be slowly drunk (7/99). For very special occasions - wonderful and classy (2/04).

1955 Taylor 1955 A1 Keep but can use for special occasions
Superb - 7/82. And again at lunch 5/89. Will last 10-20 yrs Rich and full at lunch 4/9. Wonderful one of the greatest post- war ports. Perhaps a little brandied but excellent (11/01). Wonderful (5/09).

1977 Dow 1977 A1 Review in 1995 (2/92), May be AAA. Review in 5 yrs, ie 2000 (5/95). Confirmed as AAA. Keep (11/00). Drink - 12/04. No hurry - use (10/09).
Very good wine and confirmed as A1 for the time being. Review again in 3 yrs. Very good and fruity keep (11/00). Ready for release now - very good drink (12/04). Not falling apart at all use as needed (10/08).

1977 Fonseca 1977 A1 Keep - 5/95 (4th review) Drink 11/00 (5th review)
Still closed up. Confirmed as A1 - just - for the time being. Review again in 3 yrs ie 1995 (2/92). Re view in 5 yrs ie 2000 (5/95). Nice; ripe and long - ready to drink (11/00). Delicious one of the finest of the vintage - use after Taylor and Warre (Lunch 5/06).

1977 Taylor 1977 A Keep - 5/95 (4th review) Keep - 2/00 (5th review)
1st class wine and the best all round of the 1977 group. Confirmed as A1. Review again in 3 yrs ie 1995 (2/92). Will still be drinking in 20 yrs ie 2000 (5/95). Excellent, fruity and delicious with plenty of life- still the best of 1977s (2/00). Perhaps showing a little spirit now and some could be swapped for 2003 vintage. Still A (9/05).

1977 Warre 1977 A Drink - 1/98. Drink - 6/05
Very good wine,- one of the stars of the 1977 group; but may not be a very long keeper: Confirmed as A1. Review again in 3 yrs ie 1995 (2/92). Disappointing drink before other 1977s and release in 1998 (5/95) Light but very drinkable & well scented Drink now but will keep - or possibly exchange if large holding not needed perhaps for Quinto do Vesuvio - (1/98) Lovely and a point use (6/05).

1982 Warres Quinta do Cavadinha 1982 A Drink as needed - 11/92 Keep - 11/96. Keep - 11/00, review in 2005. Release and drink -10/05
Intensely fruity and young with vintage character and flavour. Take of drink list & review in 3 years i.e. ’99 (11/96). Powerful fruity and sweet and youthful. Review in 5 yrs (11/00). Dense fruit and ready for drinking (10/05)

1983 Dow 1983 B Drink - 5/97
Attractive. May turn out to be very good and possibly A in due course. Review again in 5 yrs ie 1995 (12/90). Release in 2 yrs ie 1997 (5/95) Sweet and full of fruit Drink now and before the 77s - but no hurry to drink (5/97). Change of view - drink 77s first - no hurry (2/07)

1983 Fonseca 1983 B Keep - 12/90 (1st review). Release in 1997 (5/95) (2nd review) Drink - 2/01
Slightly tannic but very enjoyable. Should be drunk before the 1985 (2/01). Slightly oxidised and a bit figgy (5/07).

1983 Graham 1983 B Keep - 12/90 (1st review) Keep - 5/95 (2nd review) Keep - 11/00 (3rd review)
Very good and potential A1 in due course. Review again in 5 yrs ie 1995 (12/90).Will be very good - no hurry to drink. Review again in 5 yrs ie 2000 (5/95). Big and dark with rigid structure. Review in 2005 (11/00). Regrade to B - no hurry to release; might develop further (705).

1983 Taylor 1983 A Drink - 5/95. Drink - 11/00.
The best of the 1983s - elegant intense and delicious. Probably A1 in due course. Review again in 5 yrs. No longer the best of the 1983s; but maybe 2nd best pale and fine, ready to drink (11/00). Good but ready to use now (10/07).

1983 Warre 1983 B Keep - 12/90 (1st review) Keep - 5/95 (2nd review) Keep - 11/00 (3rd review). Can be used - 5/04
Very fine wine; albeit not quite so good as Taylor. Potential A1 in due course. Review again in 5 yrs. Good potential Review in 5 yrs ie 2000 (5/95). Regrade to A - disappointing and tannic. Maybe more to come - review in 2-3 yrs (11/00). Much improved - no longer disappointing,· lovely. Use (5/04)

1985 Churchill 1985 B Keep -11/00. 2nd Review. Can be used - 12/09
Good fruit· rich, not a blockbuster Review again in 5 yrs ie 1997 (2/92). Could be drunk but will probably keep (11/00) Not a great port - ‟superior LBV”. Can be used (12/09)

1985 Cockburn 1985 B Keep - 2/92 (1st review) Can be drunk - 11/00 (2nd review).
Slightly figgy - could be drunk (11/00).

1985 Croft 1985 B Keep - 2/92 (1st review) Not a keeper - 11/00 (2nd review). Can be used - 8/09
Pale; sweet soft elegant An early drinker? Possibly a little disappointing? Review again in 5 yrs le 1997 (2/92) Confirmed as fine and softening at 2nd review - Drink if needed (11/00). Better than expected surprisingly. Could be drunk now but should keep 10 years (8/09) - NB Comments from Taylors re Croft 85 - RA

1985 Fonseca 1985 A1 Keep - 2/92 (1st review) Keep 11/00 (2nd Review). Drink - 3/06
Young and a bit stalky; but good balance of fruit and flavour. More to come. May tum out to be high quality and perhaps A1. Review again in 5 yrs ie 1997 (2/92) Soft round complex - huge and superb. Keep and review in 5 yrs (11/00). Full and flavoursome, drink now (3/06).


1985 Graham 1985 B Keep 2/92 (1st review) Keep 11/98(2nd review) Keep - 2/03 (3rd review)
Dark; fine on nose; long palate. May turn out to be the best of the 1985 group. Review again in 5 yrs ie 1997 (2/92). Surprisingly forward well balanced & drinkable. May peak in 10 rather than 20 years. Review in 2003 (11/98). Fruity but maybe a bit jammy better in 5 years. Can be used or kept (2/03)

1985 Taylor 1985 A Keep 2/92 (1st review) Keep 2/02 (3rd review)
The best of the 1985 group at present; upgraded to A1 for the time being. Review again in 5 yrs ie 1977 (2/92) Too sweet & too young but good potential could last 25 years. Keep for at least 10 years but review in 5 ie. 2002 (7/97). Excellent keep for 5 yrs ie to 2007 (2/02).

1985 Warre 1985 A Keep - 2/92 (1st review Keep 5/98(2nd review) Keep and review in 2.005 11/00 (3rd review). Keep, no hurry 3/09
Rich and chunky; but elegant and luscious. May turn out to be an A1. Review again in 5 yrs ie 1997 (2/92). Soft smooth & drinkable but no need to drink yet (5/98). Described as huge and good to be kept (11/00). Still very young no rush to use (3/09)

1994 Fonseca 1994 B Keep - 2/08 [1st review]
Still very youthful - a great vintage that will keep for 10 years. No rush (2/08)

1994 Graham 1994 B

1994 Quarles Harris 1994 B

1094 Taylor 1994 B

1994 Warre 1994 B

1996 Quinta do Vesuvio 1996 B Use - 2/10
Very good and enjoyable · a good swap! (2/10).

2000 Croft 2000 U

2000 Dow’s 2000 U

2000 Fonseca 2000 U

2000 Taylor 2000 U

What strikes me is how wildly inaccurate the drinking predictions are. Fonseca 1994 listed as in 1998 as ‟will keep for 10 years”?!? If the Fonseca 1994 becomes mature in 2018, I think everyone who bought some will be demanding their money back. They do seem to have some decent 1977 Dow, though, which I am envious of!

Anyway, there have also been some press releases about the cellar, too. Have a look here on the BBC. It has some nice pictures, of the cellar, of some Dow (I think the 1977) and the 1945 Quinta do Noval which seems to be bottled in Da Silva bottles.

[Glenn E.]

Their ratings also seem suspect to me. '85 Graham is a B, but '85 Taylor is an A (and was an A1)? And every single 1994 that they have is a B???

[JacobH]

Their ratings also seem suspect to me. '85 Graham is a B, but '85 Taylor is an A (and was an A1)? And every single 1994 that they have is a B???

I think, looking at the other wines, new wines start with a B rating until they are tasted (with one or two exceptions for first-growth claret) which might explain the 1994. I don’t understand some of the other ratings, though!

[uncle tom]

Jacob,

Do you know who is in charge of the cellar? - you could note the obvious oddities in the ratings, and then offer our services (free of charge..!) to re-rate their stock..

We could also offer them wholly impartial advice on the selection of young wines for addition.

Tom

[JacobH]

I’m not quite sure what is happening with the cellar’s management. It was run by a quango, the Government Hospitality Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine. The Guardian reported that it was chaired by Sir David Wright (a retired diplomat) and consisting of him, four MWs and a secretary, Robert Alexander OBE (the Head of Government Hospitality, Protocol Directorate). It met four times a year for half a day.

According to the Times and elsewhere, that committee was to be abolished in the ‟bonfire of the quangos” last year but it wasn’t clear who would replace it. I imagine it continues to exist but simply as a FCO Committee rather than a quango.

One further tid-bit from the Times article: ‟mystery surrounds the Croft 1985, however. Item 1883 in the minutes of the December 2009 meeting hints that all may not be well with the vintage, but an official censor has excised details relating to a request to retaste it.”

It strikes me that four committee meetings a year is a pretty low commitment for such a cellar. I presume the committee members already do a lot of en primeur tastings for their other commitments and make their recommendations based on that rather than tastings made directly for the GHC at a committee meeting.

[JacobH]

Further digging found a reference in Hansard to the committee membership (HC 20 Apr 2009, 510W). In 2009 the members were: John Avery (chairman of Avery’s of Bristol), Dee Blackstock (wine buyer of New Zealand, Champagne and sparkling wine for Waitrose), Mark Pardoe (BBR’s Wholesale Manager) and Sebastian Payne (the Wine Society’s Italian, German, Greek, Austrian and Eastern European wine buyer). I wonder how they deal with the obvious conflict of interest potentials?

[benread]

I wonder what they have deemed suitable to serve President "O'Bama" tonight?!

[JacobH]

I wonder what they have deemed suitable to serve President "O'Bama" tonight?!

According to the Obama Foodorama blog and, more prosaically the Royal website, it is ‟Royal Vintage Port 1963”. I wonder what that can be? Surely not Royal Oporto Vintage Port 1963 In any event, it is not from the Government Hospitality Cellars, since they seem not to have bought the 1963 (or drunk it all already)...

[uncle tom]

I assume the word 'Royal' indicates that it came from the palace cellars rather than the hospitality reserves.

The British Association may well have gifted a pipe in celebration of Prince Edward's birth in 1964, which might have been a '63.

Given they were drinking DRC '90, which trades at around £10k a bottle; I'm surprised they didn't crack a few N31's..

Tom

[g-man]

a toast flubbed to the queen