DISCLOSURE / FILE
UK MoD Sec(AS) UFO desk file covering 1998–2000 correspondence on press handling, 30-year-rule file releases, and ministerial briefings around the Bonnybridge/Falkirk Triangle era.
UK MoD Sec(AS) UFO desk file covering 1998–2000 correspondence on press handling, 30-year-rule file releases, and ministerial briefings around the Bonnybridge/Falkirk Triangle era.
DEFE 24/2006 is a Sec(AS)2 policy file collecting late-1990s and 2000 loose minutes, press lines, and newspaper cuttings about MoD's handling of UFO reports and the release of older files to the Public Record Office. The papers record roughly 230 sighting reports and 250 letters received in a recent year, the 1 January 2000 release of 13 1969 UFO files under the 30-year rule, and an October 2000 decision by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence not to grant a face-to-face press briefing. An 11 October 2000 fax from DAS 4a(Sec) flags that an entire run of 'UFO' volumes appears to have been sent for destruction in March 1990, and asks records staff to search for files up to and including number 17.
There is no evidence to support the view that the UK Air Defence Region is being breached by hostile foreign military activity or anything else. There are no plans to change Government policy on 'UFOs'.p.10
Prior to 1967 it was the case that 'UFO' files were destroyed after five years as there was insufficient interest in the subject to warrant their retention but since 1967 all 'UFO' files have been preserved and routinely released to the Public Record Office at the 30-year point.p.10
Mr Pope was an EO in Sec(AS)2; he left the Branch in Jul 94. The views expressed by Mr Pope in books and the media are entirely his own.p.10
I attach a list of files, all 'UFO' volumes, that appear to have been sent for destruction during March 1990.p.17
A face-to-face briefing in any circumstances poses a significant risk. There will be no control over what cascades from it so far as the tabloids and specialist press are concerned.p.6
Under the 30-year rule, a total of 13 'UFO' files from 1969 have been passed to the Public Record Office and will be released on 1 January 2000.p.9
Extracted text · Page 1
Page 1 · vision OCR
THIS FILE IS MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE DECLASSIFICATION EFFORTS AND RESEARCH OF: THE BLACK VAULT THE BLACK VAULT IS THE LARGEST ONLINE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT / GOVERNMENT RECORD CLEARING HOUSE IN THE WORLD. THE RESEARCH EFFORTS HERE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DECLASSIFICATION OF THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS THROUGHOUT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, AND ALL CAN BE DOWNLOADED BY VISITING: HTTP://WWW.BLACKVAULT.COM YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO FORWARD THIS DOCUMENT TO YOUR FRIENDS, BUT PLEASE KEEP THIS IDENTIFYING IMAGE AT THE TOP OF THE .PDF SO OTHERS CAN DOWNLOAD MORE!
Page 2 · vision OCR
PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR DEFENCE
LOOSE MINUTE
D/US of S/LM 7/1/2/1
12th October 2000
DAS 4a(Sec)
Copy to:
Hd of DR
'UFOs' - ENQUIRY BY [Section 40]
Reference: D/DAS(SEC)/64/1 dated 6 October 2000
The Under Secretary of State was grateful for your minute at
reference. The Minister does not wish to pursue this matter
further and will not be taking this forward with [Section 40]
... [Section 40] am returning the two files that you forwarded to
this office.
[Section 40]
APS/US of S
MB6215 [Section 40]
CHOTS: USofS/Mailbox
[stamp: FILE
15 OCT 2000]
Private OfficePage 235 · vision OCR
UNCLASSIFIED of privacy. The first option was considered time-consuming and, given the fact that we would be attempting to trace individuals whose addresses were 25 plus years old, impractical. Option two, is possible, but would represent a major diversion of resources as each file would have to be re-reviewed, a note made of every page requiring extraction/deletion of personally sensitive information and for these actions to be carried out. It is estimated some 200 man hours would be required and so as not to adversely affect our existing review and transfer programme the task spread over a six month period. For the third option advice was sought from MOD's Legal Advisers. Their advice is that the Public Record Act gives an implied override of the Department's duty to protect third party confidentiality by use of the 30 year rule. Release of records pertaining to that period are, therefore, not a problem but the Department would be at risk of legal action for breach of confidence if it released documents containing the personal details of members of the public before the 30 year point. We have therefore concluded that, having rejected options (a) and (b), we are unable to make a block release of the files before the 30 year point. A draft letter to Lord Hill-Norton to this effect is attached. [REDACTED] Hd CS(RM) MTA8/3[REDACTED]
Concatenated page-by-page transcript. Born-digital pages came through pdf.js; scanned pages were transcribed by Claude vision OCR. Pages marked unreadable failed multiple OCR retries (heavy redaction, microfilm artifacts, or blank separators) and are kept in place for audit.
THIS FILE IS MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE DECLASSIFICATION EFFORTS AND RESEARCH OF: THE BLACK VAULT THE BLACK VAULT IS THE LARGEST ONLINE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT / GOVERNMENT RECORD CLEARING HOUSE IN THE WORLD. THE RESEARCH EFFORTS HERE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DECLASSIFICATION OF THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS THROUGHOUT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, AND ALL CAN BE DOWNLOADED BY VISITING: HTTP://WWW.BLACKVAULT.COM YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO FORWARD THIS DOCUMENT TO YOUR FRIENDS, BUT PLEASE KEEP THIS IDENTIFYING IMAGE AT THE TOP OF THE .PDF SO OTHERS CAN DOWNLOAD MORE!
PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR DEFENCE
LOOSE MINUTE
D/US of S/LM 7/1/2/1
12th October 2000
DAS 4a(Sec)
Copy to:
Hd of DR
'UFOs' - ENQUIRY BY [Section 40]
Reference: D/DAS(SEC)/64/1 dated 6 October 2000
The Under Secretary of State was grateful for your minute at
reference. The Minister does not wish to pursue this matter
further and will not be taking this forward with [Section 40]
... [Section 40] am returning the two files that you forwarded to
this office.
[Section 40]
APS/US of S
MB6215 [Section 40]
CHOTS: USofS/Mailbox
[stamp: FILE
15 OCT 2000]
Private OfficePARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR DEFENCE
LOOSE MINUTE
D/US of S/LM 7/1/2/1
12th October 2000
Departmental Record Officer - [Section 40]
Copy to:
D Info(Exp)
[struck through: DAS 4a(Sec)]
UFOs - ENQUIRY BY [Section 40]
Reference: D Info(Exp)R/3/7/8 dated 9 October 2000
The Under Secretary of State was grateful for your minute at
reference the contents of which he has noted. The Minister does
not wish to pursue this matter further at this stage.
[Section 40]
APS/US of S
MB6215 [Section 40]
CHOTS: USofS/Mailbox
Private Office^) e) .) 4) 6-gL.:|- 6.r"t-l F* - ETc-torr,re’ i D."ft ra(,’!a- + ?s1o! osS - ’ac’LJure’ "Ls"’e- 3? &o4.^s- +t /slt’:s 4 S - L.\I* g.^ fs/u "f S - 6"l"su’1 33 S ---
UNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTED - MANAGEMENT Loose Minute D/Sec(AS)/64/1 18 November 1999 PS/USofS Copy to: APS/SofS APS/Minister(DP) APS/Minister(AF) PS/2nd PUS DAO D News D Fin Pol DCC(RAF) D News (RAF) PCB(Air) DCC(RAF)SIO DRO DR1 'UFOs': NEWSPAPER ARTICLES Reference: D/USofS/PK/7/1/2/1 dated 15 November 1999 Issue 1. Should [Section 40] of The Sunday Times be granted a face-to-face briefing on the Department's interest in 'UFOs'? Recommendation 2. USofS declines. A briefing by officials might be offered instead. Timing 3. Routine. Background 4. Earlier this week the News of the World, Daily Mail and Sun ran speculative articles on the early release of MOD 'UFO' files. There is no substance to the articles. Files are routinely released to the Public Record Office under the 30-year rule and MOD 'UFO' files from 1969 will be made available in January. 5. Public interest in 'UFOs' and science fiction related issues (alien abduction, animal mutilation, crop circles etc) has grown rapidly in recent years fuelled by films, RESTRICTED - MANAGEMENT UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTED - MANAGEMENT TV programmes, books and media articles purporting to relate actual experiences or reconstruct alleged 'UFO' sightings. This in turn has prompted a small but vociferous number of 'ufologists' to demand MOD investigates all sighting reports whether or any defence-related interest has been reported. All attempts to explain MOD's limited interest are met with scepticism and, where these explanations do not accord with the inquirer's own views or interpretations, allegations of a cover-up or that information is held on secret files are made. No amount of reasoned explanation will convince them. The absence of substantiated information does not deter some journalists from filing fictitious articles illustrated with eye-catching pictures. Briefing Options 6. USofS's name has already been quoted in highly speculative newspaper articles. If Minister was now to grant even a single journalist an interview about 'UFOs' it would be a scoop (no previous Minister has done so). It is highly likely to be interpreted by the lightweight press and sci-fi magazines as a subject in which he has a special interest and they will continue to lobby for interviews and 'quote' him. There is nothing Minister can say to any journalist about MOD's interest in 'UFOs' that has not already been said. Minister is strongly advised to decline all requests and distance himself from this subject. 7. USofS may wish instead to offer [Section 40] off-the-record briefing by officials. Sec(AS)2 could explain the policy aspects of the Department's limited interest in the subject and provide some sanitised examples of the sort of material held on Departmental files. A Departmental Records expert might sit in to answer any questions about early release of MOD files; and a member of D News's staff would need to be present. However, not even a briefing on these lines is without risk. Other journalists are likely to insist on similar facilities. Requests are received on a regular basis but because of the Department's limited interest in the subject all are refused and a written statement provided instead in an effort to avoid misleading and speculative reporting. Conclusion 8. A face-to-face briefing in any circumstances poses a significant risk. There will be no control over what cascades from it so far as the tabloids and specialist press are concerned. Nevertheless, should Minister consider [Section 40] wants special treatment, a briefing by officials is recommended. Presentational Aspects 9. The routine release of MOD 'UFO' files in January will be of further interest to the media. Any briefing of a journalist will add to this interest. It is therefore likely that Minister's name will continue to be reported in connection with this subject unless the Department does all it can to prevent it. As a first step, the Department in their dealings with the media should stop repeating his name; use of the press line at para 4 [sic] of the reference should be discontinued immediately. The lines provided in the News Brief (D/Sec(AS)64/1 of 15 Nov), should continue to be used. In the event Minister approves a briefing by officials, additional lines to take as necessary will be provided nearer the time. RESTRICTED - MANAGEMENT UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTED - MANAGEMENT [signed] [Section 40] Sec(AS)2 MB 8247 [Section 40] RESTRICTED - MANAGEMENT UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED Covering RESTRICTED Loose Minute D/Sec(AS)64/1 15 November 1999 APS/USofS Copy to: •APS/SofS •APS/Minister(DP) •APS/Minister(AF) •PS/2nd PUS •DAO •D News •D Fin Pol •DCC(RAF) •D News (RAF) •PCB(Air) •DCC(RAF)SIO Hd of CS(RM)1 'UFOs': NEWSPAPER ARTICLES Issue 1. News of the World (14 Nov) and Daily Mail (15 Nov) articles about 'UFOs'. Recommendation 2. To note. Timing 3. As soon as possible in the event of any further media interest. Background 4. It is standard practice to release to the Public Record office at the 30-year point MOD 'UFO' files. The files are withheld until that time to protect the personal details (names and addresses) of members of the public reporting what they have seen and themselves failed to identify. The files do not contain highly classified material (two examples are provided herewith). The issue of early release of files was address in Hill Norton's last year (CS(RM)/4/6/37 – copy attached for USofS) in response to Lord Hill Norton's request; legal advice was that the Department would be at risk of legal action for breach of confidence if it did so. Covering RESTRICTED UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED Covering RESTRICTED 5. Under the 30-year rule, a total of 13 'UFO' files from 1969 have been passed to the Public Record Office and will be released on 1 January 2000. The files contain sighting reports, public correspondence and associated papers. As I explained (D/Sec(AS)/64/1 of 8 September copy also attached), it is simply not possible to say whether other 'UFO'-related papers might be filed elsewhere in MOD archives. 6. There is little factual information in the two newspaper articles. It is likely they are misrepresenting the arrangements for the Department's release of files, perhaps hoping to force MOD into expanding their limited interest in publicly reported unidentified sightings. I attach lines to take in the event of any further media interest. [Section 40] [Section 40] Sec(AS)2 MB 8247 [Section 40] Covering RESTRICTED UNCLASSIFIED
------------------------------------------------------------
NEWS BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------
DTG: 15 NOVEMBER 1999
SUBJECT: 'NEWSPAPER ARTICLES: 'UFOs'
SOURCE: Branch: Sec(AS)2: [Section 40] MB87065
PRESS OFFICER: [Section 40] D News RAF)
------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND
'News of the World' (14 Nov) and Daily Mail (15 Nov) have printed speculative
articles that MOD is about to release all 'UFO' files.
------------------------------------------------------------
KEY MESSAGE
MOD routinely releases files containing information from the public about alleged
'UFO' sightings under the 30-year rule. We are unable to release more recent files
because there is a need to maintain third party confidentiality (ie the personal details
of those providing information). There is no evidence to support the view that the UK
Air Defence Region is being breached by hostile foreign military activity or anything
else. There are no plans to change Government policy on 'UFOs'.
------------------------------------------------------------
KEY POINTS
* As is the case with other Government files, MOD files are subject to the provisions
of the Public Records Act of 1958 and 1967 and official files generally remain closed
for 30 years. Prior to 1967 it was the case that 'UFO' files were destroyed after five
years as there was insufficient interest in the subject to warrant their retention but
since 1967 all 'UFO' files have been preserved and routinely released to the Public
Record Office at the 30-year point.
* We have looked carefully to see whether early release of 'UFO' files is possible.
However, the files contain personal details of all those contacting and corresponding
with the Department. MOD has a duty to protect the third party confidentiality. Staff
would need to be diverted from essential tasks to manually scrutinise and remove all
personal details on the files and the knock-on effect would be a major disruption to
MOD's overall programme for release of files to the PRO. It cannot be justified.
* Mr Pope was an EO in Sec(AS)2; he left the Branch in Jul 94. The views
expressed by Mr Pope in books and the media are entirely his own.
* It is Government policy that any air defence or air traffic implications of 'UFOs'
are a matter for MOD and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) respectively. MOD's
interest is limited to establishing from any reported sightings it receives whether
the UK Air Defence Region has been breached by hostile military activity, and
responding to any associated public correspondence.the national archives (c) crown copyright
UNCLASSIFIED
RESTRICTED [MANAGEMENT]
MOD Form 329D
(Revised 5/97)
PPQ = 100
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
DIVISION/ESTABLISHMENT/UNIT/BRANCH
[Dated:] MAY 1998
[Registered file number:] D/[Sec(AS)]6[4/1]
Part No.: D
1. Attention is drawn to the notes on the inside flap.
2. Enter notes of related files on page 2 of this jacket
SEC(AS)2A
SUBJECT: "UFOs"
POLICY
[Referral grid table - columns: Referred to / Date / Min/Encl - mostly blank rows]
[Handwritten:] d on:-
D/DAS(SEC)64/1
49
FOR DRO USE ONLY
1st Review date
2nd Review date
PA ACTION
(MOD Form 262F must be completed)
RESTRICTED/UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIEDSUBSIDIARY POINTS particular circumstances at the time (it migbt, if deem.ed appropriatg involve the scrambling or diversion of RAF air deftnce aircraft). Mlitary Task 9 is to mahtain the i:rtegrity of the UK’s airspace. This require,ment is met by the coatinuous recognised air pictrue (radar) and an air policing capability. Any threat to the UK Air Defence Region would be handled in the light of the * Alleged sightings sent to us are examined but consulation with air defence staff and others ats ncessary is considered only where there is suffrcient evidence to suggest a breach of tIK air space. Only a handful of reports have been received in recent years that warranted any firrther investigatiol atrd no evidence was found of any threat. * Where there is no evidence in a report of defence concern, no action is taken to try and ideirti$ what migbt have been seen. From the types of descriptions gererally received" aircraft or uatural phenomena probably account for most of the observations. * SeclaS)z is the Air Statt Secretariat. lt deals wrth a wrde range of RA!’-reiated issues. It also acts as the focal point within MOD for the Government’s limited interest ia ’lJFOs’. A 24-hou’enqwerphone is provided so that members of the public can telephone througb sighting reports. Reports made elsewhere, either to military establisbments, air trafflc control centres or the civilian police are forwarded to Sec(AS)2. Some 230 sighting reports and 250 letters were received last year Where a military or civilian pilot considers his aircraft has 6sen eo.Jangered by the proximity of another aircraft (including any flying object he is unable to identifu), or in regulated ainpace where an Air Traffrc Controller believes there has been the risk of a collision, the pilot or ATC would be obliged to file an airmiss report (Airprox). ; *
ovsmbsr 15, lg99 rage rl J DoCUMENTS and photogrtphs detailing UFO rnvasltgalions |n Edlafn orrer 50 yealt are at last being made avallable for public scrutiny und,er New Labour’s policy of grealer openness in Government, according to reports at the weekend. Here. NICK POPE, the Ministry of Defence otlicial f ormerly rsponsible for investigating ertra- lerrestrial visitations, previews the eagerly awaited contenls. British airspace. it soon became clear that there were other more exotlc craft oDeratins in - War, visii from Martians. llut in keeping an eye out fot llr{: Soviet, aircraft that rlll|tinely probed our aif (lrf.nccs during the Cold There has been a steady f ^4. I I I l I vz t est in Utr’OS has always had more FFICIAL inter- o do with the Russians than any impending - l)r’twccn 200 to 300 each year, ’l’ho!, fill more than 200 files, filcs l,o which I have had i{r.cess. I[, and when, they are rnude available publicly, I can promiEe 6ome exciting revel&I’lons. FQr t hree years over the past 50 yearc stream of UFO reports sent to the Ministry of Defence in Secret.ariat (Air Staln 2A at it was my iob lllc found exDlanations for loD to investigate such rcport.s. [o determinc nny t)t|l.nnLial l,hreat to lhe UK. I 90 pc of oui rof been a fhat c( pollc by tl.ere core CK where sE (}n I of the most faseinattns E\i-q be POPE omcers and Dllots havs ^i.ralned seen unldentlfied dratt dolnE speeds and manoeuyres wai beyond our cspabll es. Britaln’s most sensaHonal UFO caae occurrd ln 1980 ln RendleEham Forest. near the IISAF/r..AF airbase at Wbod- bridge ln Suffo (. IrFO actJv- Ity waa wltnessed oveE a serles of ght8, then on December 26 at, zqm two patmlrnen on a iour of the camD Derlmeter saw bright lights amons the trees and went to investfgate. observers such rldted to an Incldent that )din the early hours of r that I investisateii a big Burprise, and I belleve that, like me, they wlll come to see that this ls a serlous aublect srhlch ralses imDor- tan[ mtloaaj securlty lssues. As far as these flles ate con- cemed . . . the truth 16 in there! TNIClrPOPE’S Lat4stboohis .’ Owrat,/8 ntundtr ChiLt (Sinon & Schusteri N.99) . fueUed interest tn the subject, and led to accusatlons U.g. sbnply A stmllar initia ve in the that other more Initlally, they thoupht an aircraft had overshot, the Hfiry#’Hffho"fr’ou’"*’* -The- U.S. government’a o_enlal nraa not helped by re cratms of a fortner U,S. armv colonel, PhrllD Corso. who sata lncident from 194? in whlch - aueEedly alen corpses were seen at an alr force base lir runway, although there was no accompanylng noise. But what they saw waa like no alF craft, they had ever encoun- tred before; a larse metallic. chased befor losinc It arnonL the tree8- that the so-called Roswetl triangular object which thev - of a IIFO- lnvolve the ffash Colonel Corso claimed that he’d seen the bodles, and that nan- was New Mex|co reallv dld pentaEon number of RAF Tomado j-ets wer wele overtaken overDaxen W Dty a UF1C uF C, over the North Sea In November 1900. No Bdequate exDlana- Almost 40 yeara later. a of crop local Edgecombe and submltted tion was Last ver\ forthcorrdnc- conversa0lon8 between Halt and hls men as they moved to lS.rdnute tape, whlch reveals wlthin yards of the moylnc - red and yellow ltghts. 150 There ls also an eerle detail UFOs wena the to ’explode’ In fragments of Ir 1995, the Dtlots ofs Boetnc n’hlte ltsht. Immedlatelv. Lt- ?37 encountered what thei Col HaIt observed fhree descrtbed ds a bdEhtlv m UfO gbJects ln the slw’ llke stars. crhile on thelr aDDioach to but givbg ofi rcd, green an<i Manchester Afrpbrt, and suddenly the ltshts irDDeared The report saya that botJr why lle many are hoaxes, r those whlch have vet plalned; for exa-rllple, crop samples taken one which- save the UPO link-snd that then Prime on tlrc revlewed all the about crop clrcles I, a r routlne proge- roume Droce- and reports rhe subJect of 8,"%"lor"" My three years of ofncial research lnto the UFO believe that some ItIEs misht weU be extra-terrestdal - If these es are to be mflde pubuc, I thlnk people are ln ior support thefu own tlreories. But there really isn,t anv cover-up ltr the UK. slthoush a lettr sent liom the MoD Io th u.S. gwemment tn 1965 admtts- that MoD pollcy .ts to uditely to be satk-ned by anv release of papers that doesnt thls sort of thlns, and are shorHy alter sotnc pubtic wlth these ctalms. s6 took the sesrets to lris qrave. Consplracy theorlsii love tne technologlcal secreta greaned fom the debria ofthe craft. He dled of a heart attack hvolved nndlng ways to use his .lob at the as a sceptic, but came’to phenomenon chansed mv life for ever. IU come tnto thbiobd’3r *P! a.* :.+R Ci=,t Hi* fE E ai6qegdqiu5dg’:*’=9 r { 4 e; oE 5 i-:!’,8: :.E ; - i’ &+p;. g =; !.i6IelE-* !’rs Ffl$ g;i;Ai=:;= sF3.t Fd E [1e e,’r ? P n l-ra’+E j e i a.r =4 :* 9 -xdg rec +H;3FElE*E-EFE;i lFo EE;:q fEFi q 16: i ;Ei:i3;fE 3S= iB*5; =-. ;;-f irrr -.rJ r _- r d; t i6: =: ln.g’FF uiEsE:;:.9" r:o 3*: Fi 6e3 iI l;: itifrtlqai :rl ii3* -s E i;FF i, ?H?f$aai{5 =’ 86 i iaE EBd \ rl d I’ z rA F o tr E iffiffiffilffiffiigl lliiiir*rfEr*Eif: HliHEiii;ffiiii:iFi F F = r g I\ 1 ! rt 3 o = \ I o rl I g g 3 = E o = 3 E D D t= II C o m lr lo lr tg} f = g I =!! I’ o IO ! - ..,-\ =’ o - it E. E o E E o o f ia ’iE lrl to IE lrt trl ili*ffi*im;ffi$ 6’ !, Ff?t;iicii:igiga;lgE 1t3 c o ! .J: ls III l= g; a’ E’? +i ;-6 e f’c 6o- -; :;’ 15 9 r:5 q;:F :HE "F :; r:; ieE r!;’i += - 3g+ H - ia:E o It ;:lsi ; ’SL 9E’ ii:E; s E;E; *3 -; eg *-q 9F*= :; o’l3 pd’ s! 3a 3o 3e5 6’; - o 6; i’5 ; : 3; ":9 -f;Eq : g.; 5E q-, 33o. i -:9 EE: ^ E t;’3 q!9" 49 3.;+ lF BE 89.! ;g T5iia= t9 E5rE"- 9F’ Ft:-’ -6:’ ;-e i :9:i’; 1: s.s i iiY qi *,.- * T! =rE g e:< ;tE _f EZ *E i esg; =ii’8. 7: :gE I i.6- 9 -" r- :-3’ l. * i;i E .:?g igF r6 i iE ei i; D E D f gf=f1g F*$i o a =ES - o 5 [$3Bg; i fr*d r[f; I’ E I a 6 O c E i;pfgffifiel3iglill| o rr + F E3: rf 3 ;ir: liTI; sif; rt C - {r - o 3 o o ar o e = !l o g !l g’ *i{ fF [[Es;j 15; FFE-""*e,f,i x +i’E li g=;$[aat:=:flE sll e fq; 5l+9 SHs t$ o x E o o lg ;; [*[[iis[[iii _ onXS’ aEdr-d_ +:.H; i igil iggE’ENEWS OF THE WORLD, Novgmber 14, lgSg 7 IflDIIAP nap scare la3t nlgtt 8ft9r a bloo+6teln6d van eha !ra3 bundled Into w’. tomd abaD don6d, A YOUIIG rrrst ry won.n w.. at the cantr! ol . klG TERROR scaCamlng Two mon had earllgr roughly drrgggsd hsr acnolt a galtgo torecourt at Rsadlr, Ecrtr, durlng the rushlto{f. She was vlchurly b.rtrn and throwr Ir o tha van, A wltne!6 told pollc tho woman, aged rbout m, 8ut- iored taclal In urle3. Tlevor Davles said: "We are extremely wolriod. It thla woman can got In touch Detectlve Supadrltendent wlth u5 Bhe should." A toam ot alatectlvca t{6.6 trylng to ldertuay the womarl and scou.ing misslng pa’son rcpoTts. The CCIV iootage from the ga.aie has been seen by pollce. n,ho tti?d to sove his lhitialt tu l,uadon Jare l,.|’ r,(lSTl,tC trif’rss4 qnt (uuqht sho in lhp ir in.t ofii. e and I’ss r"ien fu Jtv Ee.ks. t,r.l: Si Chung, 26, MODET ROBBED A of GAiIG po(nced on Andaea Fo!lke6. the QVC Shoppirg channel nrodel. as ch Darked hel cfir in the early ho{rs. wn$ Erabbed by the throat THE Rolex mbbera The 2g-yearokl blondc hv on lnan while anothea snatched her 92,51’0 Cartlt 3"11’,Jf,1?,LrlJT,* Ti’drtd and mlde ofr In a i.r!i:. car $ith her ilag.eolF itv.sion of Ldodon llti,l will also be unveiled. The liles, s.:Fred in a nuclea ? bo rnb - p I oof brn - Plans by milllery expefts for action in lhe event of an alien truth about whether al- iens have ever vasited Brit- ain is to be revealed at last. Top secret government X- Files on thousands of ’space- ship’ riddles will be opened up to public gaze by Defence Minister Peter Kilfoyle. The), will include nhotos and de- de- it tails of cvery. Ul’O investigalion in !’ the past :j0 ieers. Every year. around 300 alien sightings are repotted. b KINBY Pi)t rr, -At c( rli(I :,{i()f.tl rf N J hnt RAF Fcltwoll in Suffolk the UFO look off al an incredible But the facts about most later at’e still locked away. irclude the truth altout claims defence chipf L(Jrd Hill-Nor- rsdar, built by the US Ail , to track Ulfos. quizzed minislers abou( the base. uses l: S ittiienrTJt,* struck as In Sloane Souare. London, And.ea pullod up ket deep helol white- discovercd a -and blofl-up u6ed ao mon colloDged lnsld’ a cdt in Ltong, I’rance, to ftscua a fool cor-jockeft, dumm! COPS smashed into ted flyinE in zig-zsgs ofl Britain’s North Sea coast last year. The 900ft UFO shot off at to learn sectets about: aA MASSIVE craft spot- ’lhe movc. jtart of a governmenl drive to end unnecessafy se- crecy. is sure to send UFO spotterr inlo a frnzy. They will hope in lhree monlhs. hall. should. bi released our X-h-iles follows simi- Lot moves in Ametica. The pledge Io open up ’l he Yanks recently re- a report of th dent in 194?, in which alien corpses wcle allcg- edl!, seen al a secrea New Mexico air base. They explained the ’’bodies’ wele dummies from B secrt westher balloon, but UFO theo- rists still believe there lcased notorious Roswell inci- has been a covr-up. IIIURDER OF BABY boy AN elght-week-old aclAl s ahit selven UFOS have crached in Britain since World War Il. aSlGHTlllGS oI a trlangu- sued by two tiEhter lets. l?,000mph wher| pur- Grank Britain’s fil6 wre pre- pared by the MoD’s hush-hush Aircralt Sec- retariat. set up to inve6li- gate UFOs. Amazingly. lar three-legged space- ship in Rendlesham For- e6t, murdred yesterday in hig home by a Lenzid was Suflolk, in 1980. Police found little Bradldy Geo,Ee being cradled by his soblring mother. He died tour hours laler ifl hospital from objecl rose hovering out of lhe t rees. then blasled into space al ah US sirmen fro;1 two nearby bases claim (he dliving in Florida. He kepl num urhile in his iob lor leot ol betno - Iob;IIel a ;tank’ But after lesvihg the $ecret unit. he wrole a aborr! alien incidents. its one-time boss Nick ducted by aliens while Pope believes llE was ab- series of bestsellets He said: "Mt, experi- attack et the trobed cou$ cil hous In t||edlryt Tydfl, Soulh Walos- The tot’s murn Samanlha 20, and. brothet Christopher, fiv6, elao sr|’- fered had Inlurla3 h th George, their findings are still s closely- guafded secret. Some details of UFO sightings in the Fifties and Sir-(ties have already been Rule appled to sensitive ddcuments. Anong ahem is the lomo$s 1962 inci- dent in vhich l6-rear-old Anne Hetton rrco srf,orn to geciecy after she rcpoded seeing a star-llke object shootitrg oua red and green.flomes aboue het home in Tauaton, Somerse| Ten yesrs earlier, RAF Flight Lieuten- ant John Kilburn 6sw e shining object in the sky above a West Yorkr sir bese. incredible soesd. RAF invesligator6_cordoned off the area. b t sro a lesl snd lhreatening phe- t|oh. We ale nol alohe. rce l$:r9. the MoD hss heard of encs convinced me lhat made public under the - Thidy-Year Hussey 3ald: "l hoard a $,oman screamlng and a yo(ng boy crylng. Samantha Nelghbour Joan[ott. cane oul rillh hci lecc co$ rod In blood aod waa takon away In an anbulance." 2Gyoar-old tn9n wag Jolleagues that, after o careful re- of the files. he is "not convinced" the existenc ol alienr, MoD slaff say he wonlj people to to tnoke uo theh ovn minds- lence Minister Mr Kilfoyle cnly the tip of the iceberg." UFO sightings, though that’s prob- haB iource seid: -These Iiles rre of tionGd ycstaday. a.rested btr pollce at the house and was bolng qu+ A g public interest. They paint a fasci- when jets were scrahbled to investi- pictur of how UFO reports rvstigated-and what would hap- allens ever did land in Blitain," Our Vie$’: Poge 22 I ::[Fax transmission header - degraded] FROM: [Section 40] DAS 4a(Sec) MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Secretariat (Air Staff) Room 8243 Main Building, Whitehall LONDON SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) 020 7218 [Section 40] (Switchboard) 020 7218 9000 (Fax) 020 7218 [Section 40] FAX MESSAGE TO: [Section 40] 'Files Out' SUBJECT: Location of closed files DATE: 11 Oct 00 NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER: [ILLEGIBLE] [stamp: MINISTRY OF DEFENCE DAS 4(SEC) 10 NOV 2000 FILE] LOCATION OF CLOSED FILES I attach a list of files, all 'UFO' volumes, that appear to have been sent for destruction during March 1990. Numbers 1-2 and 5-6 you have already searched for and confirmed that you still have 6 (D/DS8/75/1). I would be grateful if you would now check your records to see if you have any of those files up to and including number 17 and let me know the result of your search. With thanks. [Section 40]
[Fax transmission header - degraded]
FROM [ILLEGIBLE] TO [ILLEGIBLE] [Section 40]
UFO FILES AND THEIR STATUS
KEY: D=Destroyed
C=Current
D/=not quoted
hir=held in room
Title & Date of Last Encl Number Part Status
1. UFO Policy & Policy
Statements-22/2/69 AF/X58/64 1 DESTROYED [handwritten annotations]
2. UFO Policy & Policy
Statements-31/3/70 AF/X58/64 2 [D] D [handwritten]
3. Parliamentary Enquiries
on UFOs- Prime Minister's
(JJA Hennessey)-1/7/70 AF/1505 2 [D] D[handwritten]
4. Parliamentary Questions and
Enquires on UFO's-13/1/77 AF/1505 3 [D] D[handwritten]
5. UFOs- Policy Statements
18/1/79 D/DS8/75/1A A [D] D[handwritten]
6. UFOs- Policy Statements
4/12/79 D/DS8/75/1 B [D] D- [handwritten, annotation "located"]
x7. UFOs- Reports Correspondence
25/8/78 D/DS8/75/2/1 D [X] D[handwritten]
8. UFOs- Reports Correspondence
10/1/79 D/DS8/75/2/1 E [D] D[handwritten]
9. UFOs- Reports Correspondence
JJA Hennessey-11/1/78 D/DS8/75/2/1/1 I [D] D[handwritten]
10. UFOs- Correspondence-12/2/82 D/DS8/75/2/1 J [D] D[handwritten]
11. UFOs- Reports Correspondence
M.D.Davies-13/1/77 D/DS8/75/2/1/2 A [D] D[handwritten]
12. UFOs Reports June-Oct 79
24/9/79 D/DS8/75/2/4 C [D] [handwritten]
13. UFOs Parliamentary
Correspondence-25/1/79 D/DS8/75/3 B D: [handwritten]
14. UFOs Parliamentary
Correspondence-11/2/82 D/DS8/75/3 C [D] [handwritten]
15. UFOs Parliamentary
Correspondence- House of
Lords-[ILLEGIBLE]/1/79 D/DS8/75/3/1 D D [handwritten][Fax transmission header - degraded]
[ILLEGIBLE] [Section 40]
UFOs Parliamentary
Correspondence - House of Lords
[ILLEGIBLE]/1/79 D/DS8/75/3/1 B DS [handwritten]
[16?] UFO Parliamentary Correspondence
Station AGS [ILLEGIBLE] D/DS8/75/5 [B/A] D [handwritten] [ILLEGIBLE]
[Arrows/checkmarks next to following entries:]
General Briefs + Reports
UFO Correspondence-10/7/81 D/DS8/10/209 A NR [handwritten] A[ILLEGIBLE]
General Briefs + Reports
UFO Correspondence-30/12/81 D/DS8/10/209 B N|R [ILLEGIBLE]
General Briefs + Reports
UFO Correspondence-30/6/8[ILLEGIBLE] [Section 40]
General Briefs + Reports
UFO Correspondence-29/10/82 D/DS8/10/209 D N/R [ILLEGIBLE]
General Briefs + Reports
UFO Correspondence-10/5/83 D/DS8/10/209 E N/R [ILLEGIBLE]
General Briefs + Reports
UFO Correspondence-22/2/84 D/DS8/10/209 F N/R [ILLEGIBLE]
General Briefs + Reports
UFO Correspondence-6/8/8[ILLEGIBLE] [Section 40]
General Briefs + Reports
UFO Correspondence-24/12/84 D/DS8/10/209 H N/R: D [ILLEGIBLE]
General Briefs + Reports
UFO Correspondence. Reports
23/10/[ILLEGIBLE] [D/DS8/10/209?] [handwritten annotations]
General Briefs + Reports
UFO Correspondence. Reports
No date quoted [Section 40] [handwritten annotations]
General Briefs + Reports
UFO Correspondence. Reports
No date quoted [Section 40] [handwritten annotations]
UFOs- Policy [Section 40] AT HAYES S/R.
UFOs- Reports D/DSec(AS)12/2 A hir
" " B hir
" " C hir
" " D hir
" " E hir
" " [F] hir
" " [G] hirLoose Minute
D Info(Exp)R/3/7/8
9 October 2000
APS/USofS
Copy to:
D Info(Exp)
DAS 4a(Sec)
"UFOs" – ENQUIRY BY [Section 40]
Reference: A. D/DAS(SEC)/64/1 dated 6 October 2000
B. CS(RM)/4/6/37 September 1998
File → C. D/Sec(AS)/64/1 dated 18 November 1999
1. Reference A advised that as the information contained in reference B was more
than two years old you might need an update.
2. As a consequence of a recent enquiry from a member of the public on this same
subject the earlier advice has been reaffirmed. The files in question consist, in the
main, of correspondence from and replies to members of the public. The MOD is
obliged to protect the confidentiality of such third parties. This obligation may be
overridden by consent, where it is in the overriding public interest, or where
statutory law (eg the Public Records Act) allows. In order to release these 'UFO'
records earlier than the 30-year point it would be necessary to delete from
correspondence the personal information details of members of the public.
3. Over the years, and in support of the greater openness initiative, we have been
able to release a significant volume of records by undertaking this type of action, but
generally this has been by making a limited number of deletions, usually on defence
security or intelligence sensitivity grounds. To undertake a special exercise to
sanitise identifiable 'UFO' files would take several months to the detriment of other
business.
[Section 40]
Departmental Record Officer
MT7/36 [Section 40]LOOSE MINUTE D/DAS(SEC)/64/1 6 October 2000 APS/US of S copy to: Hd of DR 'UFOs' - ENQUIRY BY [Section 40] Reference: A. CS(RM)/4/6/37 undated in Sept 98 B. D/Sec(AS)/64/1 dtd 18 Nov 99 1. As requested I attach copies of the above minutes. Reference A is a copy of a submission from Hd of CS(RM) (now Hd of DR) to PS/USofS advising on the subject of the early release of files. Reference B is a submission from Sec(AS) (now DAS(Sec)) to PS/USofS on the question of a face-to-face briefing for [Section 40] on the Department's interest in 'UFOs'. The DAS(Sec) position remains as indicated at Reference B. 2. You mentioned that [Section 40]'s current interest, raised informally with USofS, might centre on the possible early release of files to the PRO. As the submission at Reference A is now two years old you may also wish to speak with Hd of DR, to whom I am copying this minute. 3. At your request two of our files accompany these papers. D/Sec(AS)/64/3 containing letters from the Secretariat to members of the public and D/Sec(AS)/64/2 containing 'reports' of 'UFO' sightings. [Section 40] DAS 4a (Sec) MB8243 [Section 40]
/ 6rye"^ Loose Minute e7l3 D/Sec(AS/64l1 1 August 2000 pcc(RAF) - so2(Ec) Copy to: Gp Capt CC, HQSTC DAO.ADGEI REQUEST FOR FILMING _ REAL WORLD PICTURES ’RA,F UFO WATCH’ Reference: DCC(RAFy337 I 04 dated 24 July 2000 1. Thank you for your minute about Real Worid’s request and the attachment setting out tleir plans for a two-hour special investigating claims of ’llF0s’ and alien abductions. I note that the company’s aim is to show that there is no evidence to support claims of ’UFOs’ and aliens; that belief in such claims can be ’deeply destructive’ and that despite claims that ’thousands ofpeople are being abducted by aliens and seei:rg UFOs, national defence systems are not picking up any alien space craft’. A laudable aim but we know from a wealth of experience that those who believe in the ’UFO’ phenomena are not swayed by facts that do not meet their own interpretation of events . 2. Real World say that as part of their effort to bring people ’back to reality’ they want to ask questions of someone responsible for the security of ’British Air Space’ and film in a radar room. Howwer, the questions they have in mind are wide of any MOD interests in alleged sigbtings of ’UFOs’. To date the Depaxmetrt has not accepted any media requests to participate in ’UFO’-related initiatives because ofthe very limited interest it (and the Government) has in tlese matters. Agreeing to this request would compromise the Deparftnent’s integrity and we cannot support it. In reaching this decision I dlscussed the request with DAO staff; their view was that there was no value for the RAF in participating in the programme. 3. It might be helpful instead to offer Real World a note about our limited interest and you may wish to draw on the following paragraphs in your reply: The integrity of the UK’s airspace in peacetime is maintained through continuous surveillance of the UK Air Defence Region and the MOD remains vigilant for any potential military theat. MOD’s interest in reports it receives from members of the public witnessing something they are unable to identify is limited to establishing whether what has been seen might be of defence significancg namely whether the integrity of the UK Air Defence Region has been compromised by hostile or unauthorized air activity. Ali alleged sighting reports are looked at individually and examined in detail commensurate with the amount of information provided; the vast majority of
reports however, are very sketchy and vague. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat, and to date no report has revealed such evidence, no attempt is made to identify the nature of the sighting reported. MOD believes that rational explanations could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose but it is not the function of the Department to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if it was to do so. MOD has no expertise or role in respect of 'UFO'/flying saucer matters, or the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial life forms about which it remains open minded. To date, however, it is unaware of any evidence to prove that these phenomena exist. Abduction is not a matter for MOD; it is a criminal matter and, therefore a civil police/Home Office issue. [Section 40] [Section 40] AD/Sec(AS)2 MB 8247 [Section 40]
LOOSE MINUTE
D/Sec(AS)64/3
25 July 2000
Wing Commander [Section 40]
DAO – AD GE1
Copy for information to: Gp Capt CC –HQ STC – by CHOTS
DCC(RAF)SO2(EC)1 – by CHOTS
REAL WORLD PICTURES –REQUEST FOR FILMING
1. Please see attached a request we have received via DCC(RAF), from a production
company who are making a programme for the Discovery Communications Channel on 'UFOs' and
'alien abductions'.
2. They say that the aim of the programme is to show that there is no evidence that aliens exist and
that despite the claims of thousands of people that they have seen UFOs, national defence systems are
not picking up any alien space craft. They have asked if they can film in a radar room and interview
someone who is "responsible for the security of British Air Space". The questions they would ask
the interviewee are also given in the request.
3. DCC(RAF) supports this request, but given the Department's limited interest in this subject I
would be grateful for your thoughts as to whether you think it would be a good idea for the MOD to
take part and if so, where could they film and who could they interview.
4. I would appreciate an early reply and please give me a call if you need any further information.
[Section 40]
SEC(AS)2A1
MB8245 [Section 40]24 JUL '00 17:47 FROM DPR ARMY TO [Section 40] P.01
FAX LEADER
DIRECTORATE OF CORPORATE COMMUNICATION
(ROYAL AIR FORCE)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Room 0356 Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB
Telephone: 020-721-8[Section 40] Mobile: 0802-20[Section 40] Fax: 020-721-8[Section 40]
To: For the attention of: Tel: Fax:
MOD Sec(AS)2a1 MB [Section 40] [Section 40]
[Section 40]
HQ STC Gp Capt [Section 40] 95221-[Section 40] 95221-[Section 40]
Gp Capt [Section 40] [Section 40] [Section 40]
Number of pages including leader: 2 24 Jul 00 DCC(RAF)/337/04
Please reply to: Wg Cdr [Section 40] AE MIPR RAFR [DCC(RAF) SO2(EC)]
REAL WORLD PICTURES: RAF 'UFO WATCH' REQUEST FOR FILMING
References:
A. Fax Steff – Sec [Section 40] 17 Jul 00 – copy attached
B. Discussion – Gp Capt CC 24 Jul 00
C. Telcon [Section 40] Sec(AS)2a1 24 Jul 00 [Section 40]
1. My apologies for the delay in passing on the Real World request but initially I sought
advice – in error – from Sec(AS)1 who, in any case, is on leave. Good start.
2. Discovery Channel is not one of our main target broadcasters, but, nonetheless
DCC(RAF) supports the Real World request, in principle, subject to Sec(AS)2 advice,
Command approval, operational convenience, and Security considerations.
3. As a next step it is requested that Sec(AS)2a1 advises Gp Capt CC direct for further
action or refusal, copying Wg Cdr [Section 40] (PP & Media Ops) at HQ STC (Fax
95221-6077).
4. If filming and interview are agreed, it is recommended that Gp Capt CC liaises with
Real World and that the facility should be closely 'minded'. The interviewee will need to be
well-prepared for any sensitive issues which may arise.
[Section 40]
Wg Cdr RAFR
for
DCC(RAF)24 JUL '00 17:47 FROM DPR ARMY TO [Section 40] P.02
REAL WORLD PICTURES
FAX TRANSMISSION:
If you experience transmission problems, please call [Section 40]
Our Fax Number: [Section 40] E-mail: [Section 40]
TO: Wing Commander [Section 40] FAX: [Section 40]
AT: RAF DATE: 17th July 2000
FROM: [Section 40] PAGES: 1 (inc)
Dear Wing Commander [Section 40]
I enjoyed speaking to you and am now putting my request on a fax as you suggested.
We are making a 2 hour special for Discovery Communications. It will be shown on The
Learning Channel in the USA, Discovery Europe and Discovery International. Discovery
Communications usually show their programmes at least 10 times and they reach an
audience of 175 million people worldwide. The film we are making is being heavily
promoted so we expect high audience figures.
Our film is investigating claims of UFOs and alien abductions and showing there is
absolutely no evidence for them. More than that our film suggests that belief in UFOs and
alien visitation can be deeply destructive. One key argument that we want to portray is that,
despite the claims that thousands of people are being abducted by aliens and are seeing
UFOs, national defence systems are not picking up any alien space craft.
As part of this effort to bring people back to reality we would like to interview somebody
who is responsible for the security of British Air Space. We would like to film in a radar room and
the questions we would ask an interviewee would go along the following lines:
1) To what extent are our skies watched?
2) What kind of objects can you see in the skies?
3) How many objects are not human-made aeroplanes?
4) Of the objects that are not aeroplanes have you seen any that you have thought
were space craft from another civilization?
5) Do you think that your monitoring devices could pick up space-craft that were from
another civilization?
Any help you can give me will be much appreciated and I can assure you that the RAF will
get extremely wide exposure from this film.
I look forward to hearing from you and please call if you have any other questions.
Yours sincerely
[Section 40]
Assistant Producer
[Handwritten:] Nota 18 Jul 00
1. Arrange [ILLEGIBLE] with Sec(AS)1/ [Section 40]
2. [ILLEGIBLE]microphone.
Nota
24 Jul 00
1. Spoke C/c cc – explained calls to Sec 45
for advice C/c cc has been approached via [ILLEGIBLE]
2. Spoke Sec(AS)2 – Sec[ILLEGIBLE] [Section 40]
[Section 40]
Priory House, 85 Priory Grove, London SW8 2PD
Tel: 020 7978 [Section 40] Fax: [Section 40][Section 40]
[ILLEGIBLE]
** TOTAL PAGE.02 **16-JUN-2000 11:53 FROM AMPSEC HQ PTC INNESWORTH TO [REDACTED] P.01/02
Classification U/C F Sigs 927
(Int. 9/92)
45
Caveat
Covering
Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet
Transmission Details Document Details
Serial No: Date and Time of Transmission: Reference:
16 June 2000 PTC/356977/AMP Sec
From: Fax Number: Subject:
AMP(Sec)2b 95471 5986 Article For 'Unopened Files' Magazine – Final Letter
To: Fax Number:
D News 9621[REDACTED] Total number of pages including this cover sheet: 2
AD/Sec(AS)2 9621[REDACTED]
DCC(RAF)SO1(EC) 9621[REDACTED]
OC JSU Corsham 9544[REDACTED]
Authorizing Officer Transmit Operators
Rank, Name and Appointment: Rank/Grade and Name:
HEO[REDACTED]AMP(Sec)2b AA[REDACTED]AMP(Sec)2b1a
Signature: Signature:
Message/Remarks: [REDACTED]
File.
Covering
Caveat
Classification U/C16-JUN-2000 11:54 FROM AMPSEC HQ PTC INNESWORTH TO 962[REDACTED] P.02/02
** P.01d **
Amp SEC 1 b [REDACTED] 12/6
AmpSec dist:
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
WHITEHALL LONDON SW1A 2HB
Telephone 020 721 62111/2/3
P10/AOA
D News
AO/Sec (AS)2
Hld of EC (Ptc)
DCC (RAF) SO1(EC
OC JSU Corsham
Editor RAFNw
SECRETARY OF STATE
MO 22
7 June 2000
Dear [REDACTED]
Thank you for your letter to the Defence Secretary of 26 April asking for
permission to reprint an article on the underground facility at Corsham which
was featured in the 17 March issue of RAF News.
I am advised by the RAF that they do not think that it would be appropriate for
you to reproduce the RAF News article because it features several RAF
personnel. However, if you are interested in the facility at Corsham,
[REDACTED][REDACTED], the Head of External Communications at the RAF Personnel &
Training Command will be able to provide you with more information.
Her address is:
[REDACTED]
Head of External Communications
RAF Innsworth
Gloucester
GL3 1EZ
[REDACTED]
Private Secretary
[REDACTED]Esq
Editor
[REDACTED]
TOTAL P.02F.A.O PTC –[REDACTED]
I understand you spoke to [REDACTED] earlier today regarding Quest International
and their interest in UFO's.
We know that Quest International publish a magazine which is aptly named
"UFO Magazine". We believe they also publish another magazine called "Unopened
Files". According to their letterhead Quest International was established in 1989 and
has four Directors, all members of the [REDACTED]. Their letterhead also claims
that UFO Magazine is available in over 30 countries worldwide.
Our only direct contact with them was in February 1998 when the Features Editor,
[REDACTED], wrote to Sec(AS) about white lights in the sky over Leeds on
2 February 1998. According to [REDACTED] over 100 people had seen two bright
lights in the sky over the Leeds ring road, over Headingley and towards Garforth. The
lights were apparently hovering and emanating a low humming sound. He also
included a number of local newspaper cuttings about this incident. [REDACTED] asked
for our assistance in identifying these objects and asked for copies of any UFO reports
we had received for that day.
We wrote to [REDACTED] on 25 March explaining our limited interest in this subject
and informing him that we had not received any reports for 2 February 1998 from
anywhere in the UK.
To my knowledge we have had no further enquiries from this organisation. However,
if we receive any telephone calls from the Press, Magazine or Media people we
usually refer them to the Press Office and it is therefore possible that the Press Office
might have knowledge of them. If you want to check their telephone number is
MB[REDACTED]
I hope this is helpful.
[REDACTED]
Sec(AS)2A1
Room 8245MB [REDACTED]
To [REDACTED]
Company PTC-Rm Filo, Building 255
From [REDACTED]
Company Sec(AS)2a
Tel No MB[REDACTED] Ref No 7688
[REDACTED] 954 71 [REDACTED]
17th May 2000SEC(AS)2 From: DCC(RAF) SO1(EC) Sent: 11 May 2000 10:13 To: SEC(AS)2 Subject: RE: Quest International [REDACTED] Thank you for this. In the words of the RAF News Editor: 'We wouldn't touch this with a barge pole!' However, I will wait to see what transpires and if we are 'directed' to provide assistance. Otherwise, it is not something I wish to be involved with. [REDACTED] -----Original Message----- From: SEC(AS)2 Sent: 10 May 2000 16:34 To: DCC(RAF) SO1(EC) Subject: Quest International Apologies for the e-mail but I cannot raise you on the telephone. I have spoken with [REDACTED], DGCC Head of Comm Planning, about the copy of the correspondence from Secretary of State's office that you left with me. I have explained to [REDACTED] that although we know something about Quest International's UFO interests (and could provide a sentence or two on that), we cannot answer the question in their letter to SofS. Whether a third party (ie Quest Publications) can 'have permission to reproduce an article that first appeared in RAF News and use the associated photos' is surely a straightforward matter of copyright and, therefore, for the author, Editor of RAF News, and DGCC's staff to take a view on. [REDACTED] AD/Sec(AS)2 1
EC(AS)2 From: SEC(AS)2 Sent: 10 May 2000 16:34 To: DCC(RAF) SO1(EC) Subject: Quest International Apologies for the e-mail but I cannot raise you on the telephone. I have spoken with [REDACTED], DGCC Head of Comm Planning, about the copy of the correspondence from Secretary of State's office that you left with me. I have explained to [REDACTED] that although we know something about Quest International's UFO interests (and could provide a sentence or two on that), we cannot answer the question in their letter to SofS. Whether a third party (ie Quest Publications) can 'have permission to reproduce an article that first appeared in RAF News and use the associated photos' is surely a straightforward matter of copyright and, therefore, for the author, Editor of RAF News, and DGCC's staff to take a view on. [REDACTED] AD/Sec(AS)2 1
fficffiHffiffiffiEAcroNsLrP EERrlcel ffi I DO NOT DESTROY lpATFpf F/os/rooo E@ffi Effi FOR UNOPENED FILES MAGAZINE SO1 COMMENTS ACTIOI’l INFO DGG(RAF) PS ACTIOI’l INFO ACTION INFO SOI(lC+E) sol(Ec) so2(Ec) DPR COMMENTS ACTION INFO ACT|Ol{ INFO sro s03(Ec) so3(lc+E) sGT(rNT) ACTION INFO ACTION INFO ACTION ACTION INFO INFO GENERAL REA’ARKS SGT(PHOT) ACTtOI{ ACTION ACTION ACTIOH ACTION ACTlON INFO INFO INFO INFO INFO INFO ADMIN DPO(RAF) GC CC STC coPtEs ONLY GC CC PTC GC CG (RES) DEADUNE RESPONSE DATE DPR STAFF DETAII.ED:Spoke [REDACTED] [REDACTED] 10/10 (pm) + said we had an interest BUT could not answer the question [REDACTED] [REDACTED] /10
MINISTERIAL BUSINESS: TO BE GIVEN PRIORITY AT ALL TIMES
CLASSIFICATION: U/C
PRIVATE OFFICE REFERENCE: MO 22/9
D News
ARTICLE FOR UNOPENED FILES MAGAZINE
1. I should be grateful for your advice on the attached correspondence from [REDACTED]
[REDACTED] Director Quest Publications dated 26 April
together with a draft reply, if appropriate. Other Departments or MOD Divisions should be consulted
as necessary and the attachment should be placed on a Departmental Registered file.
2. Please submit your advice by no later than 17 May 00
3. Drafts should be sent by electronic mail to: SOFS-Private Office (for Unclassified and Restricted)
or: SOFS-Private Office-S (for Confidential and above). Please use the "View Acknowledgement" or
"Read Receipt" mechanism, in which case a separate hard copy should not normally be necessary.
4. I am sending copies of this minute, together with the attachment, to:
DCC (RAF)
5. The Open Government Code of Practice came into force on 4 April 1994. You should ensure that
all replies to members of the public are provided in accordance with the procedures as set out in the
Code. For further information see DCI(Gen) 223/99 or phone MB[REDACTED]
6. Please provide a Private Secretary reply.
Date: 3 May 2000
[REDACTED]
APS/S of S
MB6165 Sect[REDACTED]
CHOTS: SOFS-Private Office
SOFS-Private Office-S
MINISTERIAL BUSINESS: TO BE GIVEN PRIORITY AT ALL TIMESQuest Publications International Ltd UFO MAGAZINE™
The Unopened Files
Est. 1989
Mark [REDACTED]
Editor: The Unopened Files [REDACTED] ILKLEY,
Features Editor: UFO Magazine [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE AGENDA, THE UFO DIRECTORY, UFO MAGAZINE VIDEO COLLECTION, PHOTOGRAPHIC LIBRARY, MICROFILMING SERVICE, UFO INTELLIGENCE RECORDS, CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
Tel: [REDACTED] (6 lines) Fax: [REDACTED] E-mail [REDACTED] World Wide Web: http://www.ufomag.co.uk
Geoffrey Hoon Esq
Secretary of State for Defence
Ministry of Defence
Main Building
Whitehall
London
SW1A 2HB
26 April 2000
Dear Mr Hoon
I am writing to ask permission to reprint an article that first appeared in RAF News, and to
use the associated photographs. I should like to reproduce these in Quest's own
Unopened Files.
The feature concerned ran in the March 17 issue of RAF News and concerns the under-
ground facility at Corsham, beneath the former station at Rudloe Manor. In the past, there
have been some bizarre rumours about activities at RAF Rudloe Manor, and it would be of
great interest to our readers to hear the official side of the story. We have featured an arti-
cle about this facility in a previous issue, and the recent publication of Nicholas
McCamley's book, Secret Underground Cities illustrates the level of public interest in such
matters.
Unopened Files runs a wide range of government, military and intelligence issues, and
while we are sometimes critical of what we see as excessive secrecy and official intrusion,
we are deeply patriotic and loyal to our country. Many of our articles take a line entirely
consistent with UK government policy, such as our features highlighting the threat posed
to Earth by comets and asteroids – an issue on which the government is taking action. We
also give prominence to articles on mysteries such as the search for the remains of Noah's
Ark, and general matters of interest such as NASA's Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence
programme.
I am sorry to trouble you with this matter, but I have had quite a frustrating time trying to
track down who I need to ask, and what procedure I should follow when seeking permis-
sion. Given the Ministry of Defence's stated commitment to heritage issues on the defence
estate, and in view of the wider commitment to open government, I hope that permission
will be granted. Giving this article wider prominence can only result in good PR for the
MOD and the RAF. I will ensure that the appropriate credits and details of copyright are
clearly given.
Available in over 30 countries worldwide. For an information and media pack, telephone or fax any of the above lines
Head Office: UFO Magazine, Quest Publications International Ltd, [REDACTED] Ilkley, West Yorks,
England. Registered Company No. 2377181. Registered for VAT [REDACTED] Tel: [REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED]
Directors: [REDACTED]- 2 -
We do not have a massive budget, but I am prepared to pay a small fee if necessary, either to
RAF News or to the RAF Benevolent Fund. And indeed, on this matter, Quest's sister title
UFO Magazine denotes $3,000 of free advertising each year to support the Royal Interna-
tional Air Tattoo (copy enclosed). We have been told by the RAF Benevolent Fund Enterprises
committee, that Quest's advert is the best and most supportive in the country on this event.
I do look forward to hearing from you.
[REDACTED]
Director QPIL30 MAR '00 14:02 FROM RAF NEWS TO 962[REDACTED] P.01/02
Classification F Sigs 927
(Rev. R/93)
Caveat
Covering
Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet
Transmission Details Document Details
Serial No: Date and Time of Transmission: Reference:
30 MRcD 13.17
From: Fax Number: Subject:
[REDACTED] 95471 [REDACTED] UNDPENED FILES
RAF NEWS
To: Fax Number:
W&Cor 9621 8[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
SO1 DCC RAF
Total number of pages including this cover sheet: 2
Authorizing Officer Transmit Operators
Rank, Name and Appointment: Rank/Grade, Name and Telephone No.:
Signature: [REDACTED] Signature:
Message/Remarks:
DCC (RAF) SO1 (IC&E)
Please see attached request. I'm not inclined to
accede to this request, but felt The MOD
should be kept in the loop – particularly as
the word 'conspiracy' crops up on almost every
page of his publication!! best rgds [REDACTED]
Covering
Caveat
Classification
f:\copy\nsec.a43emc30 MAR '00 14:02 FROM RAF NEWS TO 962[REDACTED] P.02/02
Quest Publications International Ltd UFO MAGAZINE™
The Unopened Files
Est. 1989
Mark [REDACTED]
Editor: The Unopened Files [REDACTED] ILKLEY,
Features Editor: UFO Magazine [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE AGENDA, THE UFO DIRECTORY, UFO MAGAZINE VIDEO COLLECTION, PHOTOGRAPHIC LIBRARY, MICROFILMING SERVICE, UFO INTELLIGENCE RECORDS, CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
Tel: [REDACTED] (6 lines) Fax: [REDACTED] E-mail [REDACTED] World Wide Web http://www.ufomag.co.uk
[REDACTED]
Editor – RAF NEWS
RAF Innsworth
Room 591
Building 255
Gloucester
GL3 1EZ
Dear [REDACTED] 28 March 2000
Please find enclosed copies of my magazine the Unopened Files.
I read with great interest your splendid feature on RAF Rudloe Manor in RAF News, and am very
eager to obtain permission to use the story and photographs in a forthcoming issue of Unopened
Files.
I would not change nor alter the wording in any way, and would mark the story © RAF NEWS or
flag the piece with any i.d. you so wish. Furthermore, at the end of the article I would of course state
- First published in RAF News (relevant number etc).
There have been many misguided stories and rumours published about RAF Rudloe Manor, and I
think this would be a good opportunity to allow the ordinary members of public, a proper overview
of the underground part of base.
In return, I could make a donation to a charity or an RAF benevolent fund of £75.00. I do hope this
would be in order.
Many of our readers serve in the RAF, and the general policy of the Unopened Files is supportive of
the security services and all aspects of Britain's armed forces.
Present circulation (worldwide is 40,000).
Best regards
[REDACTED]
Director [REDACTED]
Available in over 30 countries worldwide. For an information and media pack, telephone or fax any of the above lines
Head Office: UFO Magazine, Quest Publications International Ltd, [REDACTED] Ilkley, West Yorks,
England. Registered Company No. 2377181. Registered for VAT [REDACTED] [REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED]
03 MAR '00 12:30
PAGE.02 **
[REDACTED]23-MAY-2000 14:11 FROM AMPSEC HQ PTC INNESWORTH TO 9621[REDACTED] P.01/08
[REDACTED]
Classification U/C F Sigs 927
(Int. 9/92)
For ufo
[REDACTED] 23/5/-
Caveat
Covering
Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet
Transmission Details Document Details
Serial No: Date and Time of Transmission: Reference:
23 May 2000 PTC/356977/AMP Sec
From: Fax Number: Subject:
AMP(Sec)2b 95471 [REDACTED] Article For 'Unopened Files' Magazine
To: Fax Number:
D News 9621 [REDACTED] Total number of pages including this cover sheet: 8
AD/Sec(AS)2 9621 [REDACTED]
DCC(RAF)SO1(EC) 9621[REDACTED]
OC JSU Corsham 9544[REDACTED]
Authorizing Officer Transmit Operators
Rank, Name and Appointment: Rank/Grade and Name:
HEO [REDACTED] AMP(Sec)2b AA [REDACTED]AMP(Sec)2b1a
Signature: Signature:
Message/Remarks:
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
SEC (AS)1
2. MAY 2000
FILE
Covering
Caveat
Classification U/C23-MAY-2000 14:11 FROM AMPSEC HQ PTC INNESWORTH TO 9621[REDACTED] P.02/08 PTC/356977/AMPSec 19 May 00 APS/Secretary of State Copy to: PSO/AOA D News AD/Sec(AS)2 Hd AMPSec Hd of EC(PTC) DCC(RAF)SO1(EC) OC JSU Corsham Editor RAF News ARTICLE FOR 'UNOPENED FILES' MAGAZINE 1. The Director of Quest Publications International Ltd wrote to Secretary of State on the 26 April seeking permission to reprint an article contained in the March 17 issue (No. 994) of RAF News in 'The Unopened Files' Magazine. The article featured the underground facility at Corsham (formally RAF Rudloe Manor) and provided a brief history of the site as well as photographs of the many tunnels (the article is attached for your information). 2. The Director of Quest Publications International Ltd, also the Editor of 'The Unopened Files' Magazine, wrote initially to the Editor of RAF News seeking permission to use the story and photographs in a future issue. This was declined and this may have prompted the letter to Secretary of State citing the MOD's commitment to heritage issues and its wider commitment to open government as justification for its release. 3. You will be aware of the background to the site and that the facility houses Defence Communications equipment. The Editor of RAF News has expressed a view that permission should not be granted as it features RAF personnel and was published only on the approval of the present occupants. I have investigated the magazine's web site at www.ufomag.co.uk there appears to be little journalistic content in the magazine which depends upon editorial comment to stimulate some of the more imaginative members of the public to elaborate on factual articles. An article on a MOD underground facility, attributed to the RAF, could lead to this and similar locations generating a significant amount of attention. For these reasons, the consensus of opinion is that it would not be in the best interests of the RAF to be associated with such a magazine. 4. However, mindful that the article on the underground facility at Corsham is in the public domain, and that to flatly refuse to co-operate would only fuel potential issues, I suggest that the Editor of 'The Unopened Files' is instructed to write to the Head of Corporate Communications, RAF Innsworth, requesting a media brief on the site. This would enable the RAF to have an element of control over the content of any subsequent article without attribution. To this end, please find attached a draft reply which the 1 f:\docs\letters\356977 - pes and oas\the unopened files.doc
23-MAY-2000 14:12 FROM AMPSEC HQ PTC INNESWORTH TO 9621[REDACTED] P.03/08 Private Secretary may wish to send to the Director of Quest Publications International Ltd. [REDACTED] AMPSec2b HQ PTC GLF61 5101GE Attachment: 1. Draft reply to the Director of Quest Publications International Ltd. 2. RAF News article – RAF Rudloe Manor. 3. Major features in the April/May issue of 'The Unopened Files' Magazine. 2 f:\docs\letters\356977 - pes and oas\the unopened files.doc
23-MAY-2000 14:12 FROM AMPSEC HQ PTC INNESWORTH TO 9621[REDACTED] P.04/08 REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO REPRINT A RAF NEWS ARTICLE IN THE 'UNOPENED FILES' MAGAZINE - DRAFT REPLY Thank you for your letter to the Secretary of State dated 26 April in which you sought permission to reprint an article on the underground facility at Corsham which was featured in the March 17 issue of RAF News. I am afraid that the article is not suitable for reproduction as it featured RAF personnel. However, if you write to the Head of External Communications, RAF Innsworth, Gloucester, GL3 1EZ, a media brief on the site can be provided. I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful. 3 f:\docs\letters\356977 - pes and oas\the unopened files.doc
23-MAY-2000 14:12 FROM AMPSEC HQ PTC INNESWORTH TO 9621[REDACTED] P.05/08 Wartime complex keeps its secrets underground In an exclusive report for RAF News, Adrian Rondel goes below the former RAF station at Rudloe Manor, uncovering one of World War Two's most secret military sites. Personnel and Training Command photographer Cpl Bob Elsbury produced these remarkable pictures in conditions of near and total darkness. BENEATH a military installation near Bath lies one of the most remarkable and best kept secrets of World War Two. In the area below the Joint Support Unit at Corsham (formerly RAF Rudloe Manor), commanded by Wg Cdr Chris Murray, lies an enormous disused ammunition depot and an abandoned aircraft engine factory. Known as the Central Ammunition Depot, its existence was long suspected by the Germans, but they were never able to discover its exact location. Today the facility is no longer used for ammunition storage; with the last round removed in the 1960s. The underground site now comes under the authority of FS Andy Quinn, RAF Police SNCO at Corsham. The tunnels are also still used by RAF Firefighters for specialised underground training. FS Quinn said: "The site is a remarkable example of wartime engineering and the fact that it was kept secret throughout the war is a testament to the personnel who worked here." A tour of the complex is an unforgettable experience. Tunnels stretch out into the distance in all directions and without a guide you would quickly become hopelessly lost. "It does take a while to get your bearings" admitted Andy. "Another consideration is keeping an eye on your torch's power as much of the site is in pitch darkness and without artificial light you wouldn't want to be too far away from the exit." Deep in the complex the silence is remarkable and not a little eerie. During the war it must have been a different story with the vital series of conveyor belts carrying ammunition stocks around the site. The story of the depot's development is available for the ingenuity of its builders and the testimony of those who sought to conceal its existence. Midway between the two world wars, the War Office decided it was necessary to build a site to protect ammunition stocks and so a nationwide search was launched. Rudloe Manor was chosen as the area has been quarried for Bath Stone since Roman times. In the 19th Century, further work was carried out by the Great Western Railway adding the Box Tunnel, which is still in use today. In 1935, the go-ahead was given to build three ammunition sub-depots at Monkton Farleigh, Starkeys Bridge and at Tunnel Quarry. It was estimated it would take four years to complete, but it was actually opened in April 1938. When finished, the Tunnel sub-depot consisted of 10 districts, each with three acres of floor space (five acres gross). Air was drawn in by large fans via vertical pressure shafts from a huge main fan called the sift drift inlet. The air was heated and distributed via trunking, and other fans drew the air out to produce a stable atmosphere and 80 per cent humidity. Ammunition arrived at the sites by either road or rail and the site had a full gauge railway with two 600 metre-long platforms. Two massive diesel generators were installed next to the platforms, capable of supplying enough power for a small town. A year later, a barrack block was constructed at Tunnel Quarry which could accommodate 300 personnel, equipped with bars and catering areas. Later still its own underground lake for drinking water, sewage and flood pumps were also provided. All these elaborate facilities ensured that people could live and work underground to help maintain the site's secret status. In February 1942, it was decided to establish a new RAF communications centre to serve the south-west of England and by August it was fully operational with [REDACTED] personnel. This centre occupies No 1 District which was never consolidated for ammunition storage. It was also home to the underground Bristol Aero Engine Factory, which was walled off from the ammunition site. To brighten up its gloomy cavern areas, the workers decided to paint the walls with murals. Permission was given, providing only primary colours from the engines was used. The result is a remarkable series of wonderfully preserved period pictures depicting idyllic scenes such as cricket, home racing farmyard, with period hairstyles cheerfully serving drinks. In fact, the whole site retains an atmosphere of the 'Blitz'. The engineering equipment is well-preserved, some paperwork survives from the 1940s and tunnel post-war period. "It is very much as it was left and during my time I've managed to carry out a fair amount of research in history," explained FS Quinn. "I would point out it is a small part of my responsibilities, but I suppose it is rather a unique sort of posting. "I admit that occasionally I've tried to [REDACTED] must have been like during its heyday. It must have been an impressive sight."
23-MAY-2000 14:12 FROM AMPSEC HQ PTC INNESWORTH TO 9621[REDACTED] P.06/08 UNOPENED PAGE2 Page 1 of 3 Check out the content of our latest issue! [image: cover of Unopened Files magazine] A message from the publishers: We are pleased to announce that from 27 January 2000, the Unopened Files will be available as a bi- monthly newsstand publication, beginning with our February/March issue. If you would like to access a number of well-kept secrets, covering a huge range of public interest topics, then Unopened Files is the magazine for you! THE UNOPENED FILES APRIL/MAY 2000 ISSUE NOW ARRIVED AT UK NEWSSTANDS If you would like to access a number of well-kept secrets, covering a huge range of public interest topics, then Unopened Files is the magazine for you! Major features in our April/May 2000 issue (on sale in UK newsstands from 29 March) include: * THE ARK AND THE CIA – In a situation that mirrors the allegations of conspiracy recording the notorious 'Roswell Incident' of 1947 and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963, a whole host of claims, counter-claims and assertions of high-level duplicity that would sit comfortably in an episode of The X-Files have surfaced regarding the Ark...' Nick Redfern reports. * FLYING FIASCOS - Korean Air, South Korea's flagship airline, is not only a national embarrassment, but also a global jinx. It has one of the worst safety records in recent aviation history. Barry Robson asks... 'WHAT WENT WRONG?' * FILES LINK CIA TO CHILEAN MURDERS - Did the CIA encourage authorities in Chile to murder two US citizens in 1973? * DID MI6 SUPPORT PLOT TO KILL COLONEL GADAFFI? - Leaked British Intelligence documents connect MI6 with assassination attempt. * CAMP X: A VIEW TO A KILL - Lifting the lid on James Bond creator Ian Fleming's amazing Canadian wartime secret. * HACKING THE HANGAR - The art of computer hacking is both sophisticated and dangerous. No one knows this better than Mathew Bevan, a self-confessed computer hacker based in Cardiff and whose attempts to uncover the US Government's most guarded UFO secrets led him into the murky world of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio; the fabled 'Hangar 18'; Scotland Yard's Computer Crime Unit; covert telephone tapping operations; and Chines military intelligence. An exclusive interview with Nick Redfern.
23-MAY-2000 14:13 FROM AMPSEC HQ PTC INNESWORTH TO 9621[REDACTED] P.07/08 UNOPENED PAGE2 Page 2 of 3 * HAS BRITAIN'S SECRET SERVICE ABANDONED ONE OF ITS AGENTS? - India jails British arms dealer who alleges the Intelligence Service were fully aware of arms drop in 1995. * LEGITIMATE OFFICE SPYING - In a business world of multi-billion pound computer transfers and commerce, one would expect to find high-tech security and surveillance systems in operation. However, this is almost certainly happening in your office, though your employer would probably deny it. Investigative journalist Kate Taylor asks if this is warranted, or yet another example of 'legitimate spying'? * IRVING'S WARS - A current libel trial brought by historian David Irving has highlighted again the debate about the reality of the Holocaust. Haydon Coyle reports. * DOCUMENT NUMBER 65 - Proof that China is willing to play the death card over Taiwan. * THE STAR DUST MYSTERY - A 53-year-old mystery over the disappearance of a British South American Airways Stardust plane has finally been resolved after wreckage was discovered by a team of Argentinian Army climbers. The race is now on to locate ultra-top secret documents being carried by one of Britain's legendary 'King's Messengers' to Chile... * 'PRIVATE EYE' REVEALS NRO DISINFORMATION - Secret Korean missile base holds no threat to West. * RWANDAN WARLORD ARRESTED - United Nations War Crimes suspect arrested in London. * ECHELON - French to sue Britain and USA over worldwide spy network. * THE SECRET COLD WAR TARGETS - On a ground-breaking mission to study military archives in Moscow, Dr. Matthias Uhl of Halle University, located documents which showed that the USSR had secretly moved nuclear missiles into East Germany to strike at several locations in Suffolk, Norfolk and Lincolnshire - all of this some three years prior to the Cuban missile crisis - regarded as the first foreign deployment of Soviet nuclear weapons. The history books will now have to be re-written. * ELIMINATE DE GAULLE - I ask my colleagues whether we should not now eliminate de Gaulle as a political force. He hates England and has left a trail of Anglophobia behind him everywhere. He has never himself fought since he left France and took pains to have his wife brought safely beforehand...' - Declassified documents reveal astonishing correspondence between Winston Churchill and President Roosevelt. * ARKAN: 'KING OF TIGERS' GUNNED DOWN - Zeljko Raznatovic, a 47-year-old paramilitary better known as 'Arkan', the Serbian warlord, was shot dead by three assailants in Belgrade on 15 January 2000. Arkan and several of his men had been linked to a massacre at a hospital in Vukovar, Crotia, during the trouble there in 1991. Who were the likely killers and what were the real motives behind his assassination? * HIT TO KILL MISSILE MISSES - The Pentagon now faces a huge dilemma after the eagerly-awaited test launch of their 'hit-to-kill' missile missed its target. The project, supported by President Clinton, was intended to resurrect Ronald Reagan's idea of a space shield over America - or 'Star Wars'. * IS THE NET CLOSING IN ON JILL DANDO'S KILLER? - Police hunting the killer of Jill Dando, a popular British television presenter who was gunned down at her London home on 26 April 1998, believe her personal address was traced using a service provided by the Internet. * JOHN LENNON SUPPORTED IRA & FINANCED TROTSKYIST - FBI and British Intelligence fight to withhold Lennon's IRA link. A special report. * WATER WARS - An almost unbelievable scenario will unfold in the early years of the new millennium. On a planet that has three quarters of its surface covered in water, by the year 2050, seventy-per-cent of its inhabitants will not have enough of it. Barry Robson reports. * AUSCHWITZ 'MEMOIR' A FANTASY, PUBLISHER ADMITS - An award-winning book that purported to be the memories of a Latvian-Jewish man who had survived the Nazi death camps as a small child has
23-MAY-2000 14:13 FROM AMPSEC HQ PTC INNESWORTH TO 9621[REDACTED] P.08/08 UNOPENED PAGE2 been removed from German bookshops after its publishers declared it a hoax. A shocking expose on Bruno Doesseker, alias Binjamin Wilkomirski, who invented a story that moved many to tears, but whose fortune was ammassed at the expense of the true victims of the Holocaust. * And there is much more in the Unopened Files which will both fascinate and delight those who have a liking for hard-hitting public interest topics which rarely see the light of day elsewhere. IF YOU ARE UNABLE FIND A COPY OF THE UNOPENED FILES AT YOUR LOCAL NEWSSTAND, YOU CAN PLACE AN ORDER TO RECEIVE A REGULAR COPY WITH YOUR LOCAL NEWSAGENT. SIMPLY QUOTE THE TITLE AND GIVE HIM/HER THE NAME OF OUR DISTRIBUTOR - SEYMOUR. ALTERNATIVELY, IF YOU HAVE A CREDIT CARD YOU CAN SUBSCRIBE THROUGH THIS SECURE WEB SITE OR SEND A POSTAL ORDER/CHEQUE TO OUR ILKLEY OFFICE. ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION: UK £15.00 USA $38.00 CANADA C$45.00 EUROPE £17.00 REST OF WORLD $38.00 * NOTE ALL OVERSEAS SUBSCRIPTIONS ARE SENT AIR MAIL IF YOU ARE UNABLE FIND A COPY OF THE UNOPENED FILES AT YOUR LOCAL NEWSSTAND, YOU CAN PLACE AN ORDER TO RECEIVE A REGULAR COPY WITH YOUR LOCAL NEWSAGENT. SIMPLY QUOTE THE TITLE AND GIVE HIM/HER THE NAME OF OUR DISTRIBUTOR - SEYMOUR. ALTERNATIVELY, IF YOU HAVE A CREDIT CARD YOU CAN SUBSCRIBE THROUGH THIS SECURE WEB SITE OR SEND A POSTAL ORDER/CHEQUE TO OUR ILKLEY OFFICE. TOTAL P.08
--TlAt tu#:ffi ^vwru4J y-. rrarnenrary watcb dn, "";j ds tnesc^tri.h --^^ i:"ff# ,pggp,***;ffi nxffi*EIfr*- ffil:,ffitrl".ffi *ffiffi n-M:nffi g1fir"ffii#tr$’pnffiffi:s’’*fiffitffif I331,;’!-:1T"" secretivet a:it.*;r;*1";xn: bill --"’ vr (woc ranr a co*iulrrt, t ;gh rir lolormatjon ",i;1;"’#,,j;,[’i:l=t** ror a rcstricted t""-" , llij. ’:... ,lnff fig*tFrTi:fflili#.t:ffiSifig uffi ul-*’#,1;il/*’{filTF"*F,:,iffi Ifl 6;6qi*x1l*c"l;: I13."^".’!".9’*o ,o p"i i3. ",ilL,iii1ii:t*"1,q1,r4:: lot$teffiH 6#..THF pqip",al:,:m,"r; ii’i ;1f:"’ft*ffi*.",*""rli {fi;ffiT,f;:;ml’"$ ’,$ffi ffiffi*gffiWffiff’ffiT flm$ffiffif*ffiwipf ;4h*’llll"*,.;strnt ,T*li:’glfr*$ffiffidffiffitrffi ;iTiJt:F\ilntffi ffiffi ffi#trfrffi ffiffiffitril’ffiffi 21 -@ #" #ffiffi41
From: [REDACTED] Secretariat (Air Staff)2
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Room 8247, Main Building, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2HB
Telephone (Direct dial) 020 7218[REDACTED]
(Switchboard) 020 7218[REDACTED]
(Fax) 020 7218[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
Your Reference Copy + Background papers on 6f/3/1
Our Reference D/Sec(AS)/64/1
Date 24 May 2000
Dear [REDACTED]
Thank you for your letter of 1 May enclosing one from the Safety Regulation Group of the
Civil Aviation Authority about Mandatory Occurrence Reports. You say that the Safety
Regulation Group is the 'other official sources' mentioned in your earlier correspondence and ask
that the MOD Department holding the Reports mentioned in their letter conduct a full search of
their records and provides you with any information meeting the criteria as defined in the
Parliamentary Ombudsman's letter to Ieuan Wyn Jones MP (A.7/00 of 29 February 2000).
As you know, Sec(AS)2 is the MOD focal point for receipt of all 'UFO'-related sighting
reports and correspondence. A thorough search has been made of the files during the agreed
period (28 July 1998 to 28 July 1999). There is no record that Mandatory Occurrence Reports
199900468 dated 03/02/99 and 199903489 dated 05/06/99 were received. I contacted [REDACTED]
[REDACTED], Corporate Affairs, Safety Regulation Group for further information. She said that they
were copied to:
(AS)2
Main Building
Whitehall
I queried the brevity of the address. [REDACTED] said that it was the address they used to forward
Reports. The omission of 'Ministry of Defence', 'London' and a postcode in the address could
have accounted for the Reports not being received by Sec(AS)2. As could the fact that the Branch
title used does not exist and there is no supporting Room number to help with identification.
Nevertheless, checks have been made with Branches in MOD Head Office whose titles are similar
to (AS)2 and those with an interest in aircraft safety. No trace of the Reports has been found.
It is some while since the two Reports were filed with the Safety Regulation Group. There
has been nothing in the meantime to suggest that the integrity of the UK Air Defence Region was
breached by what was reported to them. I am sure you will understand therefore that MOD has noplans to carry out an investigation now of what might have occurred. I can appreciate that you will be disappointed with the result of our enquiries. I can assure you that efforts were made to try and trace what happened to the Reports. The Safety Regulation Group has now been provided with full details of our address. Yours Sincerely [REDACTED] Hidden copies to: [REDACTED] Ombadsman AOGE 1 DCC RAF OMO 19
SEC(AS)2 [REDACTED] [REDACTED] add go like Task Force From: [REDACTED] Sent: D Nuc Pol(NMD) 40 papers To: 14 April 2000 12:37 Section 40 Subject: SEC(AS)2 RE: NEOs Task Force Many thanks. I'm only the messenger - I didn't suppose you'd have any more of an interest than ourselves![REDACTED] -----Original Message----- From: SEC(AS)2 Sent: 14 April 2000 12:35 To: D Nuc Pol(NMD) Subject: NEOs Task Force << File: Task Force.doc >> 1
[REDACTED] Loose Minute Ew 7p D/Sec(AS)/64/1 (1) 14 April 2000 (2) file D Nuc Pol(NMD) TASK FORCE ON POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS NEAR EARTH OBJECTS (NEOs) Reference: A. BNSC's letter of 3 April 2000 B. DGISP's comments on D/F&S(S&T2/(5/4/3/1 (088/00) of 10 April 2000 1. Thank you for sight of the papers about the Task Force on NEOs. I am afraid they did not reach me until late yesterday afternoon. 2. I am happy to say that our 'UFO' remit is wide of the mark in respect of any involvement or interest in the Science Minister's Task Force. MOD's only interest in 'UFOs' is to establish from what is reported to us whether the integrity of the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by foreign hostile military activity. Sec(AS)2 acts as the Departmental 'UFO' focal point and deals with reports from members of the public who witness something they cannot identify (an unidentified flying object). Reports are examined, with Departmental experts as necessary. However, unless there is evidence of a potential military threat, no attempt is made identify the precise nature of what the witness might have seen (from the types of descriptions we receive it is clear that aircraft lights, balloons or natural phenomena account for the observations). 3. Any member of the public writing to us about 'UFOs' and seeking information about the work of the Task Force is advised to direct their enquiries about the latter to DTI/BNSC. [REDACTED] Sec(AS)2 MB 8247 [REDACTED]
D Nuc Pol Distribution DD [REDACTED] please forward to Sec(AS) ADBS W0/Spa cadeck [REDACTED] AD NAR For you, rather NMD AH Sec(AS)- we Who me have no interest. I think! [REDACTED] File [REDACTED] Note [REDACTED] 's comment (confed, [REDACTED] do you? [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] this is keen to be represented at the r/4 attached! I have said No CANDO - have asked DECISTAR ([REDACTED]) to look out for us! [REDACTED] 11/4
[page unreadable; original scan available via the document viewer above]
Page 1 of 1 PA/DGISP [REDACTED] [REDACTED] From: DGISP Sent: 11 April 2000 11:29 To: PA/DGISP Subject: FW: (U/C) TASK FORCE ON ASTEROID HAZARDS Importance: High ........ From: PS F+S(S+T) Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 11:29:13 AM To: DGISP; PS/DSc(BMD); ADOR(ICS)Space Cc: CSA GROUP ROLE; MA/DCDS(EC); DG(R+T)/PA; EC(ISTAR)DEC; DR(S+T); DR(C); D Def RP; RP(Centre)DIR; EC(ISTAR)DDET; AD/F+S(S+T)2; F+S(S+T)2a Subject: FW: (U/C) TASK FORCE ON ASTEROID HAZARDS Importance: High Auto forwarded by a Rule Reference: D/F&S(S&T2)/5/4/3/1(088/00) dated 10 April 2000 Following my referenced LM, a meeting has now been arranged with the BNSC Task Force on asteroid hazards. It is the wish of the Chairman of the Task Force, Dr Harry Atkinson, that this meeting is held at the University College London, Gower Street - Room E1, Ground Floor, Department of Physics & Astronomy. It will commence at 1400hrs. on Thurs 13 Apr. All addressees are invited to attend, or if this is not possible, to send a representative. * [REDACTED] and I will be attending in person and I shall also be accompanied by [REDACTED] [REDACTED] Would you please let me know as soon as possible if you/your representative plan to attend, as we will then advise UCL accordingly. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] Hd F&S(S&1) [ Copy faxed to action addressee DI50b : [REDACTED] MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SEC(AS)1 1 3 2000 FILE 11/04/00
LOOSE MINUTE D/F&S(S&T2)/5/4/3/1(088/00) 10 April 2000 10 APR 2000 DI50b DGISP D Sc(BMD) ADOR(ICS)Space [REDACTED] Copy to: PS/CSA MA/DCDS(EC) DG(R+T) DR(S&T) DR(C) D Def RP D RP(Centre) [REDACTED] 1. Copy [illegible handwritten annotations] TASK FORCE ON ASTEROID HAZARDS 1. DUS(S&T) has asked me to represent him in meeting the BNSC task force on asteroid hazards. It is chaired by Dr Harry Atkinson with members Sir Crispin Tickell and Professor David Williams. They are seeking a meeting with MOD following their discussions with DoD and others in the US. They are interested in any insight MOD may have into the nature of the risk from asteroids (NEOs) impacting the Earth, and how this relates to other risks or threats that are currently considered. They say the task force would benefit from "an overview of MOD's current and possible UK contribution to international collaborative efforts" on the matter. They would therefore like to talk about: (1) The MOD view of the nature of the NEO hazard and its view of the risk. (2) UK/US collaboration with regard to comments made at the Pentagon. (3) Possible UK/NATO activity in the area. (4) Other MOD related areas for international collaboration in the NEO area. (5) The use of current [REDACTED] resources within an internationally collaborative effort. (6) Mitigation measures related to NEOs. (7) The need for future Planetary Defence, any ideas on suitable mechanisms.
(8) Any MOD interest in the science issues related to NEOs.
(9) MOD views on the communication of NEO issues to the public.
2. It may be that our answer to most of the above is that we are doing nothing about it, have no money to spare, and are content to leave such matters to the BNSC. However, we presumably have to be diplomatic about the apparent USAF enthusiasm for microsatellites and other "spacewatch" expenditure funded by international collaboration. (I will circulate the notes supplied by BNSC of the task force's meeting in the Pentagon, once these have been scanned into Chots.)
3. I should be grateful therefore if action addressees could attend or be represented at a meeting with BNSC and the asteroid task force in DUS(S&T)'s office in his absence later this week (or elsewhere in Main Building early next week). Any advance comments you may have would also be welcome. My secretary will be in touch shortly about timings once we hear more from BNSC.
{CHOTS signed}
[REDACTED]
Head F&S(S&T)
MB2389 [REDACTED]07/04 '00 13:12 FAX [REDACTED] PPARC/BNSC [REDACTED]001 [BNSC logo] BRITISH NATIONAL SPACE CENTRE Dr David Leadbeater Deputy Director General British National Space Centre Room 180/Grey 151 Buckingham Palace Road London SW1W 9SS Mr Graham Jordan DUS (S&T) Room 6311 MOD Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB Direct line 020 7215 [REDACTED] Local fax 020 7215 [REDACTED] Date 3 April 2000 Dear Graham TASK FORCE ON POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS NEAR EARTH OBJECTS (NEOs) You may be aware of a Task Force on Potentially Hazardous Near Earth Objects set up by Lord Sainsbury at the beginning of this year. Following a recent visit by the Task Force (TF) to the USA for discussions with NASA, Executive Office of the President and DoD, the TF would like to hold discussions with a senior team from MoD. I would appreciate your assistance in setting up an urgent meeting between the TF and MOD. I attach a selection of documents relating to the Task Force: 1. Terms of Reference; 2. Press release on the occasion of the launch of the Task Force; 3. Summary of main points of a meeting of the TF at the Pentagon on 7 March; The purpose of a meeting with MoD would be to discuss the MoD interests in the area related to the TF terms of reference. In particular, this could usefully cover any MoD insight into confirming the nature of the NEO risk and how it would relate to other risks or threats that are currently considered. As the issue is very much one of international concern, the TF would benefit from an overview of MOD's current and possible UK contribution to international collaborative efforts. The TF would like the discussion to include: 1. The MoD view of the nature of the NEO hazard and its view of the risk; 2. UK/US collaboration with regard to comments made at the Pentagon; 3. Possible UK/NATO activity in the area; 4. Other MoD related areas for international collaboration in the NEO area;
07/04 '00 13:13 FAX [REDACTED] PPARC/BNSC [REDACTED]002 5. The use of current MoD resources within an internationally collaborative effort; 6. Mitigation measures related to NEOs; 7. The need for future Planetary Defence, any ideas on suitable mechanisms; 8. Any MoD interest in the science issues related to NEOs; 9. MoD views on the communication of NEO issues to the public. The discussion would greatly help the TF in writing its report, which will include risk analysis, countermeasures and emergency planning. The report is due to be presented to the DG of BNSC in less than two months' time. The next meeting of the TF is on the 13 April am. It would be most convenient to meet MoD on the afternoon of that day. If that date is not possible, please let Mr Richard Tremayne-Smith Tel: [REDACTED] know as soon as possible. He is the Secretary of the TF. I am copying this letter to Capt[REDACTED] so that Operational and Science aspects can be discussed with the TF. Yours sincerely [REDACTED] DAVID LEADBEATER Deputy Director General
07/04 '00 13:13 FAX [REDACTED] PPARC/BNSC [REDACTED]003 NEOTF(00)01 rev. 1 Task Force on Potentially Hazardous Near-Earth Objects Terms of Reference Rationale The purpose of the Task Force is to make proposals to HMG on how UK should best contribute to international effort on Near-Earth Objects (NEOs). Objectives Specific tasks would be to: 1. Confirm the nature of the hazard and the potential levels of risk; 2. Identify the current UK contribution to the international efforts; 3. Advise HMG on what further action to take in the light of 1 and 2 above and on the communication of issues to the public. Reporting The Task Force will report to the Director General, BNSC, by mid-2000 on the tasks set out above. Organisation Administrative and financial support will be provided from within BNSC. Membership Chairman: Dr Harry Atkinson Members: Sir Crispin Tickell Professor David Williams Richard Tremayne-Smith BNSC (Secretary)
07/04 '00 13:13 FAX [REDACTED] PPARC/BNSC [REDACTED]004 P/99/1064 30 December 1999 SCIENCE MINISTER ANNOUNCES TASK FORCE ON POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS NEAR EARTH OBJECTS A Task Force to look at the potential for risk posed by Near Earth Objects (NEOs) has been announced by Science Minister, Lord Sainsbury. The three-strong team will make proposals to the British National Space Centre on the nature of the hazard and the potential levels of risk. It will also consider how the United Kingdom should best contribute to international effort on NEOs. The Task Force will be chaired by Dr Harry Atkinson, formerly of the Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC) and past Chairman of the European Space Agency's Council. Two other appointees, Sir Crispin Tickell and Professor David Williams join Dr Atkinson. Lord Sainsbury said: "The risk of an asteroid or comet causing substantial damage is extremely remote. This is not something that people should lie awake at night worrying about. But we cannot ignore the risk, however remote, and a case can be made for monitoring the situation on an international basis. "I hope that the setting up of this Task Force will help the UK play a full and prominent role in international discussions on this important issue. I am delighted to be able to announce such a well-qualified team of experts and I look forward to receiving their report by the middle of 2000." Notes to Editors: 1. Near Earth Objects are either asteroids or comets. Many NEOs have been identified and their orbit determined using ground-based telescopes, including some of NASA's, in a number of countries, although many remain to be surveyed. 2. Of the known NEOs, none is believed to pose a significant risk to the Earth in the foreseeable future. However, on a time-scale of many millions of years, the Earth has been hit by objects of sufficient size to cause serious damage, including the object which is thought to have impacted the Earth about 65 million years ago, with global consequences including the extinction of the dinosaurs. 3. The British National Space Centre has responsibility for co-ordination with the work of other agencies on the threat to the Earth from space debris and NEOs. 4. Dr Harry Atkinson, a New Zealander by birth, has had many years of experience in dealing with science and technology internationally. This has involved both intergovernmental organisations (such as the ESA) and the co-ordination of activities between national agencies (including NASA). He was attached to the Cabinet Office in the early 1970s, on the staff of the Chief Scientific Advisor, where his tasks
07/04 '00 13:13 FAX [REDACTED] PPARC/BNSC [REDACTED]005 included reviewing all governmental activities in environmental pollution. Subsequently, in the Science Research Council his responsibilities included astronomy and space. This involved UK co-operation with other countries in many space science missions, and in ground-based astronomical facilities in Australia, South Africa, Hawaii and La Palma. He helped to set up the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility at Grenoble and the EISCA facility in the Arctic Circle; and was concerned with the high-flux Beam Reactor (ILL), also at Grenoble. Until a year ago, he was Chief Scientist of the British insurance industry's Loss Prevention Council. 5. Sir Crispin Tickell has been Chancellor of the University of Kent since 1996 and has a distinguished diplomatic career. He was Permanent Secretary of the Overseas Development Agency, 1984-87, British Permanent Representative to UN, 1987-90, and Warden of Green College, Oxford, 1990-97. Sir Crispin has played a prominent role in presiding, chairing and advising committees and associations on environmental issues. These include Chairmanship of the International Institute for Environment and development; the Climate Institute of Washington; Earth Watch (UK) and the Advisory Committee on the Darwin Initiative for the Survival of Species since 1992. He is author of a wide range of environmental publications. 6. Professor David Williams holds the Perren Chair of Astronomy at University College London and is President of the Royal Astronomical Society. He was previously Reader in Mathematics and Professor of Theoretical Astrophysics at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, UMIST, and has worked at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre. He is co-author of titles on interstellar chemistry and astrophysics, and has published over 200 articles in learned journals. http://www.dti.gov.uk ENDS
07/04 '00 13:14 FAX [REDACTED] PPARC/BNSC [REDACTED]006 MEETING OF THE NEO TF WITH THE PENTAGON On 7 March, 2000 Present: Gen. [REDACTED] USAF, Dep. Dir. Command and Control [REDACTED] [REDACTED] USAF [REDACTED] Lt Col [REDACTED] USAF Space Command [REDACTED] [REDACTED] (BG Washington) NEO TF and Secretariat An account was given of a 5-m object that exploded, about 20 km over the Yukon, on 18 January this year. The resultant electro-magnetic affect caused an approximate 5% voltage drop and a power failure in one of the area's main power switches, resulting in a power outage over a third of the Yukon. Some fragments were recovered from the ice and are of a carbonaceous chondrite material, they are now being analysed in Houston. A list of other such events detected by USAF Early Warning Satellites will be sent to the TF (there are about 30 events per year). However, release of the data depends on who is in command at the time. There is concern that if such an incident occurred over a volatile area, such as Tel Aviv, the reactions could be serious. There are two areas of interest for the USAF with regard NEOs, military interest associated with space-based weapons and science. SDI caused bad press and a USAF mission, Clementine II, was vetoed in the defence budget; a political decision by the White House related to SDI. DoD budget for Applied and Technology Research contracts is approximately $12B/yr., for which [REDACTED] a senior DoD technical officer, is responsible. He sets policy over all defence agencies and oversees all science and technology budgets. As a physicist and ex-Ames director he would probably be interested in this work. [REDACTED] a member of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, may also be interested. The threat is below the threshold for the Secretary of Defence. The most important question for the USAF is where the money comes from. There is a growing requirement for space surveillance. The present USAF tracking system is old and really for tracking known objects, therefore the USAF is transiting to a new search/survey system, some of which will be space-based. Could the space-based IR system in LEO (originally for missile tracking) be used? An optical prototype (Midcourse Space Experiment, MSX), used to track GEO satellites, is already on orbit. NEO detections would typically be a by-product. The problem is one of overhead; it is less efficient for the satellites to integrate for asteroids and see GEO satellites. It would be possible to make plans for sharing the satellite time. Ground based observations are still considered better than space-based; space-based use 18 mag. to see microsatellites on GEO, current ground based searches go down to 20 mag. USAF push is for space-based surveillance in visible and IR, but primarily in the visible (cheaper, longer lifetime). USAF has early warning radar, but is not interested in using it to look at asteroids; radar is considered too expensive. A Southern Hemisphere radar would be useful, but again, expensive. An optical telescope in the Southern Hemisphere seems a more reasonable option. DoD has no official interest in visiting asteroids, but their scientists think we need to go there. USAF believe it is premature to make detailed mitigation plans, but not to think about the technology required and for example what the asteroids composition is etc. USAF has strong links with Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. (SSTL), who they recognise as the world leader in microsatellites. DoD has considered a series of some 20 - 30 spacecraft to carry out the characterisation work. NASA is not geared for this type of work, they like to build different spacecraft and therefore the likelihood of a NASA categorisation and cataloguing program is unlikely. But a batch of spacecraft should mean production line cost reductions, the unit cost for an 1
07/04 '00 13:15 FAX [REDACTED] PPARC/BNSC [REDACTED]007 SSTL microsatellite would be a few $M. Microsatellites can also be launched cheaply on the Ariane 5 ASAP ring. DoD has previously experienced difficulty obtaining Ariane 5 ASAP launches, but the EELV ring should be complete soon and will be able to launch 200 kg payloads, allowing more fuel to be carried for the high delta v required to reach an asteroid. Discussions have also considered a ~200 kg class satellite in Venus orbit to search all of space for objects. The microsatellite idea is interesting to USAF and they have good ties with SSTL and DERA. Surrey's ties with certain other countries are a problem and it may be difficult for them to work together on certain missions. This has been overcome in the past because the USAF has bought an SSTL product that needs no development; this may not be possible on an asteroid mission, which would need significant development. Modifying the USAF GEODSS (optical telescope) systems has been workable, though it is not official USAF work. However there would be a struggle to argue for new USAF optical facilities for NEO work. It is probable that the USAF will: 1. Continue use of the GEODSS system (optical) 2. Eventually receive a government mission statement to tackle the problem. NASA is a reluctant holder of the NEO survey task, doing the work because Congress ordered it to. Goldin is currently arguing for USAF to take over tracking of man-made objects. However the Canadian Foreign Minister is arguing to ban any military action in space, whilst the Canadian military is trying to work with the US DoD on Norad etc. From the USAF point of view international collaborations are possible with a number of countries, although certain countries would be excluded. As far as collaborating with the UK goes, the USAF is very happy with this. They would like to see joint funding of the microsatellites. Another aspect where the USAF would like collaboration is on ground based optical or radar in the Southern Hemisphere. It is important to distribute telescopes; there have been dips in the discovery rate due to bad weather over the western US. PW would like to see the NEO TF suggest a joint working group to the Prime Minister. What the USAF chooses to do depends largely on the November elections. If the Republicans win there will probably be a very ambitious program in this area. If the Democrats win there is unlikely to be a program as they don't think there is a problem and believe it is a science area, although their stance may be changing. [REDACTED](DERA-F) R T-S
PA/DGISP Page 1 of 1 D duplicates of From: DGISP 3 April letter Sent: 10 April 2000 16:20 To: PA/DGISP Subject: FW: (U/C) TASK FORCE ON ASTEROID HAZARDS Importance: High ........ From: PS F+S(S+T) Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 4:20:18 PM To: DGISP; PS/DSc(BMD); ADOR(ICS)Space Cc: CSA GROUP ROLE; MA/DCDS(EC); DG(R+T)/PA; DR(S+T); DR(C); D Def RP; RP(Centre)DIR; EC(ISTAR)DDET; AD/F+S(S+T)2 Subject: FW: (U/C) TASK FORCE ON ASTEROID HAZARDS Importance: High Auto forwarded by a Rule Reference: D/F&S(S&T2)/5/4/3/1(088/00) dated 10 April 2000 As mentioned in para 2 of referenced LM transmitted to you earlier today, herewith notes supplied by BNSC of the task force's meeting in the Pentagon which have been scanned into Chots. PS/Hd F&S(S&T) [Copy to DI50b sent by fax [REDACTED] 10/04/00
[BNSC document scanned into Chots 10 April 2000] [F&S(S&T) Ref 089/00] BRITISH NATIONAL SPACE CENTRE Dr David Leadbeater Deputy Director General British National Space Centre Room 180/Grey 151 Buckingham Palace Road London SW1W 9SS Mr Graham Jordan DUS(S&T) Room 6311 MOD Main Building Whitehall London SW1A2HB Direct line 020 7215 [REDACTED] Local fax 020 7215 Date 3 April 2000 TASK FORCE ON POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS NEAR EARTH OBJECTS (NEOS) You may be aware of a Task Force on Potentially Hazardous Near Earth Objects set up by Lord Sainsbury at the beginning of this year. Following a recent visit by the Task Force (TF) to the USA for discussions with NASA, Executive Office of the President and DoD, the TF would like to hold discussions with a senior team from MoD. I would appreciate your assistance in setting up an urgent meeting between the TF and MOD. I attach a selection of documents relating to the Task Force: 1. Terms of Reference; 2. Press release on the occasion of the launch of the Task Force; 3. Summary of main points of a meeting of the TF at the Pentagon on 7 March; The purpose of a meeting with MoD would be to discuss the MoD interests in the area related to the TF terms of reference. In particular, this could usefully cover any MoD insight into confirming the nature of the NEO risk and how it would relate to other risks or threats that are currently considered. As the issue is very much one of international concern, the TF would benefit from an overview of MOD's current and possible UK contribution to international collaborative efforts. The TF would like the discussion to include: 1. The MoD view of the nature of the NEO hazard and its view of the risk; 2. UK/US collaboration with regard to comments made at the Pentagon,
3. Possible UK/NATO activity in the area; 4. Other MoD related areas for international collaboration in the NEO area; 5. The use of current MoD resources within an internationally collaborative effort; 6. Mitigation measures related to NEOs; 7. The need for future Planetary Defence, any ideas on suitable mechanisms; 8. Any MoD interest in the science issues related to NEOs; 9. MoD views on the communication of NEG issues to the public. The discussion would greatly help the TF in writing its report, which will include risk analysis, countermeasures and emergency planning. The report is due to be presented to the DG of BNSC in less than two months' time. The next meeting of the TF is on the 13 April am. It would be most convenient to meet MoD on the afternoon of that day. If that date is not possible, please let Mr Richard Tremayne-Smith Tel: 020 [REDACTED] as soon as possible. He is the Secretary of the TF. I am copying this letter to Capt[REDACTED] so that Operational and Science aspects can be discussed with the TF. Yours sincerely DAVID LEADBEATER Deputy Director General
Task Force on Potentially Hazardous Near-Earth Objects Tenns ofR Rationale The purpose of the Ta intemational effort on Force is to make proposals to HMG on horv UK should test contribute to ar-Earth Objects (NEOS). Objectives Snecifie tasks rvould be to: L Confirm the nature ofthe hazard and the Dotential levels of risk: . z. Identify flre current UK contribution to the international efforts; 3. Advise HMG on what further actionto take in the light commr.inication of issues to the publib. of 1 and 2 hbove and on the Reporting The Task Force will report to the Director General, BNSC, by mid-2000 on the tasks set our above Organisation Administrative and finaircial support r.vill be provided from rvithin BNSC. Membership Chaimran: Dr Harry Atkinson Sir Crispin Tickell Professor David Williams Richard Tremalne-Smith BNSC (Secretary) Menbers:
I Pl99/1064 30 December 1999 SCIENCE NEAR EARTH O ANNOUNCES TASK FORCE ON POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS A Task Force to look at the potential for risk posed by Near Earth Objects (NEOs) has been w-ill make proposals to the British National Space Centre on the nature ofthe ial levels of risk. It rvill also consider horv the United Kinsdom should best effort on NEOS. r hazard and the contribute to i The Task Force rvill be Researcl.r Council (SERC) and past Chairman by Dr Harry Atkinson, formerly ofthe Science and Engineering ofthe European Space Agency’s Council. Trvo other appointees, Sir Crispin Tickell and Professor David Williams join Dr Atkinson. Lord Sainsbury said: ’The risk ofan asteroid or comet causing substantial damage is extremely remote. This is not sonlething that people should lie arvake at rught rvorrying about, But we cannot ignore the risk, ho$’eve4 remote, and a case can be made for monitoring the situation on an intemational basis. I "I hope that the setting up ofthis Task Force rvill help the UK play a firll and prominent role in intemational discussions on this important issue. I am delighted to be able to annouhce such a rvell. qualified team of experts and I look forrard to receiving their report by the middle of2000." Notes to Editors: L Near Earth Objects orbits determined usins countries, although either asteroids or comets. Manv NEOs have been identified and their telescopes, including some of NASA’s. in a number of remain to be survev ed. none is believed to pose a significant risk to the Earth in the foreseeable been 2. Ofthe knosn ftiture. Houever, on a time-scale ofmany millions of 1’ears, the Earth has hit by objects of suffrcient size to cause serious damage, including the object u’hich is thought to have impacted the Earth about 65 million l.ears ago, rvith global consequences including the extinction of the dinosaurs. ’l 3. The British National Space Centre has responsibility for co-ordination rvith the $’ork of other agencies on the threat tq the Earth from space debris and NEOs. Dr Harry Atkinson. h New Zealander b1’ birth, has had many years of experience in dealing ivith science and technology intemationally. This has involved both intergolemrnental ororganisations (such as the ESA) and the co-ordination of activities beh.veen national agencies (including NASA). He rvas attached to the Cabinet Office in the early 1970s, on the staffof the Chief Scientific Advisor, *’here his task$ included revierving all govemmental activities in environmental pollution, 4 I . Subsequenth, in the Science Research Council his responsibilities included astronomy and space. This involve.d UK co-operation rvith other countries in many spac.e science missions, and in ground- based astronomical facifities in Australia, South Africa, Harvaii and La Palma. He helped to set up the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility at Grenoble and the EISCA faciliq’ in the Arctic Ciicle; and uas concemed rvith the high-flux Beam Reactor (ILL), also at Grenoble. Untit a l,ear fgo, he lvas Chief Scientist ofthe British insurance industry’s Loss Prevention Council. 5, Sir Crispin Tickell hbs been Chancellor ofthe University of Ker$ since 1996 and has a distinguished diplomatic career. He sas Permanent Secretary ofthe Overseas Development
Agency. 1984-87, Britiih Permanent Representative to UN, 1987-90. and Warden of Green College, oirora. tqso-qZ. I Sir Crispin has played a prominent role in prcsiding, chairing and advising committees and associations on environryertal issues. These include Chairmanship of the Intemational Insiitute for Environment and development; the Climate lnstitute of Washtngton; Earth Watch (Europe) and the Advisory Committee on the Darwin Initiative for the Survival of Species since 1992. He is author ofa rvide range of envilpnmental publications. Professor Darid Wilf iams holds the Penen Chair of Astronomy at Udversitl’ College London and is President ofthe Royal Astronomical Society. He was previously Reader in Mathematics and Professor ofTheoretical Astrophysics at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and 6 . ENDS
MEETING OF THE NEO TF WITH THE PENTAGON On 7 March, 2000 Present: Gen. [REDACTED] USAF, Dep. Dir. Command and Control [REDACTED] [REDACTED] USAF Lt Col [REDACTED] USAF Space Command [REDACTED] [REDACTED] (BG Washington) NEO TF and Secretariat An account was given of a 5-m object that exploded, about 20 km over the Yukon, on 18 January this year. The resultant electro-magnetic affect caused an approximate 5% voltage drop and a power failure in one of the area's main power switches, resulting in a power outage over a third of the Yukon. Some fragments were recovered from the ice and are of a carbonaceous chondrite material, they are now being analysed in Houston. A list of other such events detected by USAF Early Warning Satellites will be sent to the TF (there are about 30 events per year). However, release of the data depends on who is in [REDACTED] time. There is concern that if such an incident occurred over a volatile area, such as Tel Aviv, the reactions could be serious. There are two areas of interest for the USAF with regard NEOs, military interest associated with space-based weapons and science. SDI caused bad press and a USAF mission, Clementine II, was vetoed in the defence budget; a political decision by the White House related to SDI. DoD budget for Applied and Technology Research contracts is approximately $12B/yr., for which [REDACTED] a senior DoD technical officer, is responsible. He sets policy over all defence agencies and oversees all science and technology budgets. As a physicist and ex-Ames director he would probably be interested in this work. [REDACTED] a member of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, may also be interested. The threat is below the threshold for the Secretary of Defence. The most important question for the USAF is where the money comes from. There is a growing requirement for space surveillance. The present USAF tracking system is old and really for tracking known objects, therefore the USAF is transiting to a new search/survey system, some of which will be space-based. Could the space-based IR system in LEO (originally for missile tracking) be used? An optical prototype (Midcourse Space Experiment, MSX), used to track GEO satellites, is already on orbit. NEO detections would typically be a by-product. The problem is one of overhead; it is less efficient for the satellites to integrate for asteroids and see GEO satellites. It would be possible to make plans for sharing the satellite time. Ground based observations are still considered better than space-based; space-based use 18 mag. to see microsatellites on GEO, current ground based searches go down to 20 mag. USAF push is for space-based surveillance in visible and IR, but primarily in the visible (cheaper, longer lifetime). USAF has early warning radar, but is not interested in using it to look at asteroids; radar is considered too expensive. A Southern Hemisphere radar would be useful, but again, expensive. An optical telescope in the Southern Hemisphere seems a more reasonable option. DoD has no official interest in visiting asteroids, but their scientists think we need to go there. USAF believe it is premature to make detailed mitigation plans, but not to think about the technology required and for example what the asteroids composition is etc. USAF has strong links with Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. (SSTL), who they recognise as the world leader in microsatellites. DoD has considered a series of some 20 - 30 spacecraft to carry out the characterisation work. NASA is not geared for this type of work, they like to build different spacecraft and therefore the likelihood of a NASA categorisation and cataloguing program is unlikely. But a batch of spacecraft should mean production line cost reductions, the unit cost for an
SSTL microsatellite would be a few $M. Microsatellites can also be launched cheaply on the Ariane 5 ASAP ring. DoD has previously experienced difficulty obtaining Ariane 5 ASAP launches, but the EELV ring should be complete soon and will be able to launch 200 kg payloads, allowing more fuel to be carried for the high delta v required to reach an asteroid. Discussions have also considered a ~200 kg class satellite in Venus orbit to search all of space for objects. The microsatellite idea is interesting to USAF and they have good ties with SSTL and DERA. Surrey's ties with certain other countries are a problem and it may be difficult for them to work together on certain missions. This has been overcome in the past because the USAF has bought an SSTL product that needs no development; this may not be possible on an asteroid mission, which would need significant development. Modifying the USAF GEODSS (optical telescope) systems has been workable, though it is not official USAF work. However there would be a struggle to argue for new USAF optical facilities for NEO work. It is probable that the USAF will: 1. Continue use of the GEODSS system (optical) 2. Eventually receive a government mission statement to tackle the problem. NASA is a reluctant holder of the NEO survey task, doing the work because Congress ordered it to. Goldin is currently arguing for USAF to take over tracking of man-made objects. However the Canadian Foreign Minister is arguing to ban any military action in space, whilst the Canadian military is trying to work with the US DoD on Norad etc. From the USAF point of view international collaborations are possible with a number of countries, although certain countries would be excluded. As far as collaborating with the UK goes, the USAF is very happy with this. They would like to see joint funding of the microsatellites. Another aspect where the USAF would like collaboration is on ground based optical or radar in the Southern Hemisphere. It is important to distribute telescopes; there have been dips in the discovery rate due to bad weather over the western US. PW would like to see the NEO TF suggest a joint working group to the Prime Minister. What the USAF chooses to do depends largely on the November elections. If the Republicans win there will probably be a very ambitious program in this area. If the Democrats win there is unlikely to be a program as they don't think there is a problem and believe it is a science area, although their stance may be changing. [REDACTED](DERA-F) RT-S
i--9fri: ,l;, rtrlT’ 1+’ *o.-i" i \pJ’1", ’" Page 30 Dally ilall, April 14, 2000 by Glenda Gooper ARCH 24. t99? had been a quiet night 1tqr lhe Peak Distlrict Mountain Rescue Teaurs’ The rcw DeoDle out on the hills were hoping to catch a irliniose of the Hale-Bopp comet, but heaw rain Cloutts obliterated the-iight slry and they had gone home in disgiust. the rescue teama recelved three separate’ dlsturlhg calls red, Then a couple tas so low that he insti[cttvely ducked’ hearlng the crash end seeing an orange gbw llght up the sk-v. A yery includiii one ttom a Dolice oflcer - reporiing an alrcraft flying plane - larmer sald said the Plane satd wbrried farmer worried ow over tf,e moors and crashing. One low suddenlv. repo ed lncldenf hed obvtously occurreo. malor controllers, lncluding Longdendale Valley’s Philip Shaw, lmmedlately their team8, in the hopes disDalched -dragsing The seven Mountaln Rescue of wreckase, Nb efiort was spared and for t5 liours, more than f40 people averv inch of moorland, survivors from the moorland and htls. most commonlY bv an area lrnown as ’Devil’s Elbow’ a;d sometimeE appear a$ a ball of motionless llght, and somettmes as a dancing strlng of ug:hts. The Mountain Rescue Team have been called out endless tlmes Dlus an RAF hellcopter searched Yea no trace was found of any aircraft. No one ever reported a missins Dlane, Whatever it was that lishts in the hi[s to 6nd nothing investigate - ’Betweeo the[L - only the seven mounta.ln rescue teama in the Peak are called out once a yar by people who see to the cdleis had seen and heard, had simDlv vanlshed. No wonder, then, that DeoDle becan to ask if t"he fabled ’phairtorir bomber’ of Longdendale Valey had retumed? is-in trouble,’says Phi ip Shaw the and assume aomeone Penni-nes between Manchestef and sheffleld, is commonly referred to as Lonsdendale. situated in the ’The Haunted Valey’. For centuries, tales of the Daranormal. the supernatural and the plain weird Mountain Rescue Controllen ’Ttds has been gplng on for at least t0 vears. but no one haa ever been found. The reports have become so reEular that poUce no longer pass on sighti!8E of Erystery lighta to us ur ess they feel tt is-a genuine sighltng of a red distress flare.’ haVe been sDun abouf, this blea|(, ten-mile stretch of countryEide. It faus within what ls nieknamd ’IIFO Alley’ the mos! active Place ET HE takes the tongden- - in for UFO sightings Europe, partly because Nor6hern dsle licht$ seriously, though, after experlencing them him- LoncdendAle Ushts. Tlrese are eerie trickerine llares which, in older times, of the were bl-emed on the devil. whlle modem subersution has linked tlem to a.lien spaceships. fie lishfs are also blamed for the hish inclidence of lnexplicable plane crashes in this area Auring world War II- nearly 50 in all. For the sceptJcal 2 lst century mind, cotourftd stories of ghostly spectres explanatiorL and close encouhters stretch credulity. Even comndtted ufologist6 admit that the vast majority this dsy, lt is something I of occurrencea have a logical explsln.’ thaf happens in the ’Pennine Triangle’ that EuroDe’s llrst toudst centre devoted to UFO8 l5 due to open in Yet such is the spoolry activity snake Pssi and I saw what looked like a lsrce seajchlisht on top of the moor. rt wo’rtd hav Eeen about four or five miles away, and it just sat there, not gtting brighter or dimmen ’r ltrrow the moors so weU. I knew it was in a place where you cou.ldn’t get a vehicle anltway near, 5o l[ coulon t lrave been a cat headlight. Also, it was far too larce. Then. ihere wasn’t a cloud in th? sky, so lt couldn’t have been a beam ref,ecting off a cloud. Tb ’I r-oad- bY was cycllng cyctlng along the road setf. ’It was in 1980 at about tNs tirne ofyesq’ he recals. cannot iie between a msior intemational air route for traflic apDroaching &tings of modng ughts. laco-n of the Not that DeoDte haven t tried. Police Doiht out that ihe r,ongdendale Moors June and scientlsts &re conducting experiments to t!f, to understand the phenomena that haunts it, Walking to the top of Blealrlow mav have mlstaken the Holme Moss Moor. more than 2,000 feet above sea level, it is not dimcult to see how this valley got its dark reputatlon. Fbrbldding gritstone crags dse uP on all sides amid Bparse clumps of heather. And when the wlnd drops, thre is absolute sllence, Barren, cNuinc and hostile. natule not man is firm.ly in control ofthe place Daniel Deloe dubbed ’the most deaolate, g and arcins arcing-from from the Ball ligl nlnc pylons criss-croas cne valley trottom also been suggested as rr to the north of the valley, I\t possible wild and tux England’. abandoDed country ilf vou look at accoutrts In the lgth centurv or before, you wlll see them desaribed as ’devil’s Ughts’ or ’devil’s bonflres’.’ he says, ’It’s only as you move into this century that theY become ghoats and tlying saucens - it is a[ doa]rr to the culture ofthe time.’ There ls something undenlsblY unsettllng about thc wreck, and it ia no wonder that local people clairn to have seen the ghost of Captain jacket, wanderlng among the ruins. Landon P Tanner, the pilot, resplendent in bls leather nying many pilots, saw the Longdendale Llstrts and headed towards them It has been augEested that he, lil feroeioua Celtic Brtgantes tribea in the hills. For Michael Greaves, who livea ln closdoD. a small toqrtr on the outsldrts of ihe v{illey, there is another possible cause. Mr Greaves, a sPokeEman for ohed at ntght, hoplng to avoid th-inking they represented the the surroundina wicked peal(a" Glosaop Paranomal Investlgators, aerodrome and safety, rather than The etheral Ughts lucker on the 6ays: ’In 1838, the lvoodhead tuMel |t! th-e veuey waE built b,y lrlsh navvles, torced to live tn app4llng conqltlotr& There was a cholra epidemic’, IttrccfiagF: Phll Shaw wlth dobrls from one of the crashed alrcratt travvlea ded and were buled ln n@nsecrated glound. 4 ,elddenceoto|e pareno|rml (on whtch the Eupermartet wqs to visit her gland’ lbter built) mother tn gurev Street. Not to be outdone, the rivsl Focus on suDermarEet iio Glossop told f6dn Debbb ’Ibsco tocaf Paper soon efter tixat’ the Falrseeks thev. too. had tbelr osn re$denc chost. a i[ev-halred man ltr wlng Eouari anA d bng black coat. Eoweven rrhlle thcse gre aI goog sDlne-chflllnc tale8 to be swopped oir a Hallowe’m everdngi Dr clarBe anat the eDsultrg tlctton Pmd!!4s ould arrying torrhes to wo*.’ ’Ithat DoDle are !asdnsted bY the shtB ts not ln dtspute. A Year ago thought that.the -ltgh!.q ’It ts be thelr u[qurel souls s[tll f Hl#t"-f;"td#to1"B1’h"’"T’ wlth the Musson. o setsDologlst Brltish Oeological gurveY’ who bustlitrc town ln the sunshlne’ everviblng seems ao frlendlY and nonirdl lt-ls hard to believe,that i-ebble traiB a local lntemet onsultant set uD a webcam (a ideo crmera linted uP to the otenret) tralned on Devil I Elbotrr. Now more tb&! a thousand lsitors log on to her slte lay in www.hauEtedvalley.com) every he fs.mous lights. the hope ofctrtchlng Seht ol savs adentlsta ale Prsenuy Ertmg to’Eolve the puzzle of earthlt8hts tlrloutgh laboratory expennenB. ’Eclentlste now accept tlut thes IPhts art seen dudtrg earthquqxes, aid now whet we need to do ls establsh lf and wlrY they hapP9n outslde earthqu&ks,’ EaYs Dr Musson. scores ofghost stodes abou.nd- trt tbere scarce\Y seem6 to be a aDDears ln the shape of a colourfLtl butter0v aught’ing on actors at the flnal curtah call, and has been sn so m8l\v tlmes t]rat a butte!try thlnks thev alao have a more serlous Duroose as Dub or inn wlthout lts resldenl not all ol wNch can be iDectrc - to D:ut docrn an excesa of tJle usual is now Parttngton PLqvers’ letterhead.’ However, many ln GlosEoP qfe Lndorporated Into the iptits behind the bar. H.tis3’"st"*ff Olossop Fbranom]al rnvestlgators’ who bave 30 members, fi)eno |srge ryrl?*ff ’’JH: ’Lonsdendale lB Partlcularly lntereatlns becauae the PeoPle sho Uve here have done ao lor qeneratlona and are oPen to aiifrerent tyleE of beliel,’ he sav8. - that we-should be trasurtng: vell 8nd one ’It’s thougbt to be somethlng caled tribolumbescence’ wnere ftict"lon between rosks giYes ofi a chsrge - I Psttly mecbaplcal-anc Dartlv cbemlcsl process, bul r’Ilere -ls of time conducttng amounts .irveatlsations’ tn haunted phces auch a-s the ldth-centurY Roe ctoss Irm tn Mottran, wherc GPI Greave5 sDolesman Mlchael ghost rcundftrc the valeY in a tradttonal way c,bLh we ar beglruing to lose these days. places, passed away aI ilch ln folktrort. have ’Tbev see tbe mYstenes sur- ;tttl Illar for revealhg tbe Dosltlon of a lot of lleldworx to Colonel Robert Debue Aciordhgto be done.’ !blr, -dudng ParltanentadaL to Prhce troops Ductenfleld’s a Ms Randlec says: ’It maY not excevations, lryvlousry,unxnowD to Mr now’ aceordlng but RuDert was cellar the to sound’irs exclttns a8 atteng and staircase restaurant the haunts GrCaYeB. sPQt at the exact potentraly unearthed at sDaceslrlDs, but this ls blr twistlng spoons and breaklng v-erv intlr6sttng. It 4eans th-at whlch the Uttle girl used to glasses, thC-re of a clalms to have sceu the wolnan called’ElizebetJr’. she was banged dudng tbe Clvt! It ls stitr Uved not becarrlle we ln ga:otland or atrlt other cour sould be cher down as part of ln future.’ iniiiiv ls an extiemelY Powertul io,rce wtrictt could be uaed disaDpear. On ’i’he Haunted Valley tuebslte, she has DainstaBltrglY listed z0 seDarate locatlons for weu-hown bdurted Place8, backed .uP bY evewltne$ accounts or contempo- guch is the fervour ior the super- atural bere that even somewhat nrrsDel Dlacea are Eaid to be rlneous newepaper and two local churches’ These lnclude the local theatre! necrsnaDer ofnce, rallwaY tunnel cuttings. As aluskFls o[ ttre moq,lft Shaw lead,8 us dowD the ctlndlDg Paths between the Deat rnounds and then sudd,est/ stop8. T$r ln ftont of ua I3 ttre r,!y lare wblt mounrm trge’ tradltionally aeefr as a wrzam or wltch,s norntxqr. lt pauses, eyes us and thm vgnlslles b a leaP. ’Mv favourlte tale ls of the rblr ’sbe **ff"tH?ffi"vHflfffi&1 one of the iormaulg memller3 wlro died Fom TB" sa}’s Mrs
Copy on 64/3/1 File Note 38/1 D/Sec(AS)/64/1 14 March 2000 Section 40 1. [REDACTED] this afternoon (14 March) about 16.00 hours to offer details of the 'official' information he has been given about UFO sighting reports not included in the our response to him following his appeal to the Ombudsman. I declined to take any information over the 'phone requesting instead that he put the details in writing, copying it to all those he included in his previous letters. This he agreed to do. Section 40 [REDACTED] Sec(AS)2
Fo t6wO377w lhy tl|tn f-,’k- Written Ansl/,’ers 2 MARCH the 2OOO Written Answers Mr. Straw: Our estimate is that any change in Asylum Seekers lchlmsford) number of cases going to these courts will be de minimis. til. tbc rc.o for of ’al) 3tl Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for ( I ) what factors underlay his estimate of (a) the cost savings that would be made and (r) the number of defendants who would be tried in the magistmtes’ courts rather than the Crown court under (i) the Criminal Justice lMode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill and (ii) the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Billl 0125281 the Home DepMment Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for ttre Uo’me zf \; Depafiment how many asylum seekers the Chelmsford’r1t’ Borough Council area will be expected to house ftom April; and if he will make a statement. u 124931 ^ -U Mrs, Roche: The number and location of asylum seekers accommodated under the oational asylum support ny tn, r8e (2) if he will provide a breakdown of the estimated savings to the criminal justice system from the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill by each principal scheme throughout the country will depend on where accommodation, whether in the private or public sector, is made available to the Home Office for that purpose, on where there are existing ethnic minority comrnunities and on where there is the potential for support services to be developed. category br nl hc of expenditure; and if he will make a statement. I l?5331 Mr, Strawr For the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill it was assumed that 12,000 fewer defendants would be tried in the Crown Court annually, resulting in resource The Home Office intends to secure accornmodation from local authorities through Regional Consortia. Chefmsford is in the Eastern Region Consortium. ry rg I t $( al 4l t II n r) savings to the criminal justice system of !105 million a year. For the Criminat Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill it is assumed that 14,000 fewer defendants would be tried in the Crown Coun anllually, resulting in resource savlngs to the criminal justice system of f,128 million a year. The gl28 mitlion estimated annual resource savings are made up as follows: for the couns-12.5 million on committals and f,41.5 million on Crown Courl trials which would no longer take place. This would be offset by the cost of magistrates’ courls tdals (8.5 million, including dre cost of any subsequent commitlals for sentence), and the cost (estimated dt 0.5 million) of interloculory appeals to the Crcwn Court. for the P.ison Service-saviogs of f83.5 million antually would resull flom a reduclian in remand dmes and the shortet sentences imposed by magistrates’ courts. Freedom of Infomation Mr, Dalyell: To Home Department if ask the Secretary of State for the he will include in the code of practice on freedom of information a provision that, where a request is made for information about a third party, the holder of the information should consult the thfud pafiy before decidine what information is to be released and in what form. Lt 126161 Mr, Mike O’Brien: I can confirm tlnt this will I be e covered by the code of practice, a working draft of which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and place in the Parliamentary Libraries shortty. hope to Global Cultural Diversity Congress Home Department if he will place in the Library the minutes of all meetings of the Commission for Racial Equality at which the Global Cultural Diversity Congress and Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. were Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that appeals to the Crown Court against magistrates’ decisions as to mode of trial under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Tdal) (No. 2) Bill should be heard (1) by circuit judges onty; and if he will make a statement; tl125361 discussed. meetifgs 11126821 Mr. Mike O’Brien; No. Disclosure of minutes of of the Comrnission for Racial Equality is a Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary statement. (2) in open coun; and if he will make a matter for the Commission. lll2529l to hear if he considered it necessary in the ioterests of justice; the arrangements for such an oral hearing would be a matter for the judge’s discretion. Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the length of the average waiting time for a trial in a megishates court if the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) BiU is enacted. [112517] Mr. Straw: The intention is that the appeal should be heard by the Resident Judge or by a deputy nominated by the senior presiding Judge. The Govemment believe that most appeals will be determined on the basis of the papers. It would however be open to the parties to seek to make oral rcpresentations, which the judge could agree Home Department if he will make a statement oo the involvement of the Home Office Race Equality Unit in the Global Cultural Diversity Congress and the relationship of State for the between the Unit and Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. I r27r6] Mr, Mike O’Brien: The head of the unit attended on my behalf at two meetings of the Intemational Steering Committee of the Congress. The Unit provided names of possible speakers and suggested topics for workshops. Mr. Lidington: To Home Department messages of support in the Global Cultural Diversity Congrcss registration brochure published by the Commission for Racial Equality, indicating in each case when they were first informed that the Global Cultural Diversity Congress had been cancelled, and by if ask the Secretary of State for the he will list the persons who wrote 400,000 either-way cases annually and will have no difnculty in absorbing the additional cases which it is expected that they will retain as a result Mr. Straw: The magistrates’ courts deal with over whom. ll 12’7261 of the Bill. Mr. Mike O’Bden: These are matters for the company and the Commission for Racial Equality. r--_-
RESTRICTED - MANAGEMENT Loose Minute D/Sec(AS)/64/1 18 November 1999 PS/USofS Copy to: APS/SofS APS/Minister(DP) APS/Minister(AF) PS/2nd PUS DAO D News D Fin Pol DCC(RAF) D News (RAF) PCB(Air) DCC(RAF)SIO DRO DR1 'UFOs': NEWSPAPER ARTICLES Reference: D/USofS/PK/7/1/2/1 dated 15 November 1999 Issue 1. Should [REDACTED] of The Sunday Times be granted a face-to-face briefing on the Department's interest in 'UFOs'? Recommendation 2. USofS declines. A briefing by officials might be offered instead. Timing 3. Routine. Background 4. Earlier this week the News of the World, Daily Mail and Sun ran speculative articles on the early release of MOD 'UFO' files. There is no substance to the articles. Files are routinely released to the Public Record Office under the 30-year rule and MOD 'UFO' files from 1969 will be made available in January. 5. Public interest in 'UFOs' and science fiction related issues (alien abduction, animal mutilation, crop circles etc) has grown rapidly in recent years fuelled by films, RESTRICTED - MANAGEMENT
RESTRICTED - MANAGEMENT TV programmes, books and media articles purporting to relate actual experiences or reconstruct alleged 'UFO' sightings. This in turn has prompted a small but vociferous number of 'ufologists' to demand MOD investigates all sighting reports whether or any defence-related interest has been reported. All attempts to explain MOD's limited interest are met with scepticism and, where these explanations do not accord with the inquirer's own views or interpretations, allegations of a cover-up or that information is held on secret files are made. No amount of reasoned explanation will convince them. The absence of substantiated information does not deter some journalists from filing fictitious articles illustrated with eye-catching pictures. Briefing Options 6. USofS's name has already been quoted in highly speculative newspaper articles. If Minister was now to grant even a single journalist an interview about 'UFOs' it would be a scoop (no previous Minister has done so). It is highly likely to be interpreted by the lightweight press and sci-fi magazines as a subject in which he has a special interest and they will continue to lobby for interviews and 'quote' him. There is nothing Minister can say to any journalist about MOD's interest in 'UFOs' that has not already been said. Minister is strongly advised to decline all requests and distance himself from this subject. 7. USofS may wish instead to offer [REDACTED] an off-the-record briefing by officials. Sec(AS)2 could explain the policy aspects of the Department's limited interest in the subject and provide some sanitised examples of the sort of material held on Departmental files. A Departmental Records expert might sit in to answer any questions about early release of MOD files; and a member of D News's staff would need to be present. However, not even a briefing on these lines is without risk. Other journalists are likely to insist on similar facilities. Requests are received on a regular basis but because of the Department's limited interest in the subject all are refused and a written statement provided instead in an effort to avoid misleading and speculative reporting. Conclusion 8. A face-to-face briefing in any circumstances poses a significant risk. There will be no control over what cascades from it so far as the tabloids and specialist press are concerned. Nevertheless, should Minister consider [REDACTED] warrants special treatment, a briefing by officials is recommended. Presentational Aspects 9. The routine release of MOD 'UFO' files in January will be of further interest the media. Any briefing of a journalist will add to this interest. It is therefore likely that Minister's name will continue to be reported in connection with this subject unless the Department does all it can to prevent it. As a first step, the Department in their dealings with the media should stop repeating his name; use of the press line at para 4 [sic] of the reference should be discontinued immediately. The lines provided in the News Brief (D/Sec(AS)64/1 of 15 Nov), should continue to be used. In the event Minister approves a briefing by officials, additional lines to take as necessary will be provided nearer the time. RESTRICTED - MANAGEMENT
RESTRICTED - MANAGEMENT [signed] [REDACTED] Sec(AS)2 MB 8247 [REDACTED] RESTRICTED - MANAGEMENT
From: IO: AA1/USofS(Petsonal) on behalf of USofS/Mailbox Snt: Subjec’t: Your message sEc(AS)2 18 November 1999 17:55 Read: ’UFOs’ - reque.st for briefing To: Cc: Subiect; Sent: Usofs/Mailbox SoF$Priv’ate ffice; MIN(DP)/REGISTRY GROUP MAIL; MIN(AD-REGISTRY GROUP MAIL; Ps/znd FUS; DAO; D Ne, D DCqRAD; D N6,vs RAF; Hd of /t\tlB(MD; DCC(RAD SIO; Hd of DR; Hd of DRl ’UFOS’ - request br briefing rBlLUgB rTAl ’s; FnPol; was read on 18/1U99 17:55.
From: To: Sent: SOFS-Registry1 on behalf of SOFS-Private Ofiice sEqAs)2 Subject: Your message 18 November 1999 17:49 Read: ’UFOs’ - reque.st for briefing To: Cc: Subjech sent; Usofs/Mailbox SOE-Pri\te Office; MIN(DP)/REGISIRY GROUP MAIti MIN(AD-REGISTRY GROUP MAIL; PS/2nd PIJS; DAO; D News; D FinPol; DCC(MD; D Ne!$ RAF; Hd of ,$|B(RAD; DCC(mry 516 1,6 ot oR; Hd of DR1 ’UFOS’ - request for briefing Igllv99 r7i4L was read on L8l1U99 L7149.
Loose Minute D/Sec(AS)/64/1 18 November 1999 PS/USofS Copy to: APS/SofS APS/Minister(DP) APS/Minister(AF) PS/2nd PUS DAO D News D Fin Pol DCC(RAF) D News (RAF) PCB(Air) DCC(RAF)SIO DRO DR1 [Handwritten, top right:] Head of Sof(AS) Thank you. 36. I thought someone on these lines might be appropriate. I really wanted to add a line somewhere about the need to 'restore Minister's integrity' but thought it might be deemed OTT! Do you have any comment to add? [Stamp:] Section 40 [Handwritten:] 18/1 [Stamp top right:] Section 40 'UFOs': NEWSPAPER ARTICLES Reference: D/USofS/PK/7/1/2/1 dated 15 November 1999 Issue 1. Should [REDACTED] of The Sunday Times be granted a face-to-face briefing on the Department's interest in 'UFOs'? Recommendation 2. USofS declines. A briefing by officials might be offered instead. Timing
3. Routine. Background 4. Earlier this week the ly’ervs of the World and Daily Mail ran speculative articles on the early release of MOD ’UFO’ files. There is no substance to the articles. Files are routinely released to the Public Record Offrce under the 30-year rule and MOD ’UFO’ files from 1969 will be made available i-n Januarv. 5. Public interest in ’UFOs’ and science fiction related issues (alien abduction, rnimal mutilation, crop circles etc) has grown rapidly in recent years fuelled by films, TV programmes, books and media axticles purporting to relate actual experiences or reconstruct alleged ’LJFO’ sightings. This in tum has prompted a small but vocifercus number of ’ufologists’ to demand MOD investigates all sighting reports whether or any defenc+related interest has been reported. All attempts to explain MOD’s limited interest are met with scepticism and" where these explanations do not accord with the inquirer’s own views or interpretations, allegations of a cover-up or that information is held on secret files are made. No amount of reasoned explanation convince will tlern. The absence of substantiated information does not deter some journalists from filing frctitious articles illustrated with eye-catching pictures. Briefing Options 6. USofS’s name has already been quoted in highly speculative newspaper articles. If Minister was now to grart even a single joumalist an interview about ’UFOs’ it would
be a scoop (no previous Minister has done so). It is highly likely to be interpreted by the lightweight press and sci-fi magazines as a subject in which he has a special interest and they will continue to lobby for interviews and 'quote' him. There is nothing Minister can say to any journalist about MOD's interest in 'UFOs' that has not already been said. Minister is strongly advised to decline all requests and distance himself from this subject. 7. USofS may wish instead to offer [REDACTED] off-the-record briefing by officials. Sec(AS)2 could explain the policy aspects of the Department's limited interest in the subject and provide some sanitised examples of the sort of material held on Departmental files. A Departmental Records expert would be required to sit in to answer any questions about early release of MOD files; and a member of D News's staff would also need to be present. However, not even a briefing on these lines is without risk. Other journalists are likely to insist on similar facilities. Requests are received on a regular basis but because of the Department's limited interest in the subject all are refused and a written statement provided instead in an effort to avoid misleading and speculative reporting. Conclusion 8. A face-to-face briefing in any circumstances poses a significant risk. There will be no control over what cascades from it so far as the tabloids and specialist press are concerned. Nevertheless, should Minister consider [REDACTED] warrants special treatment, a briefing by officials is recommended.
Presentational Aspects 9. The routine release of MOD ’UFO’ files in January will be of further i:rterest the media. Any briefing of a j oumalist will add to this interest. It is therefore likely that Minister’s neme will continue to be reported in connection with this subject unless the Departmort does all it can to prevent it. As a first step, the Departrnent in their dealings with the media should stop repeating his name; use of the press line at para 4 [sic] ofthe reference should be discontinued immediately. The lines provided in the News Brief (D/Sec(AS)64l1 of 15 Nov), should continue to be used. Inthe event Minister approves a briefing by officials, additional lines to take as necessary rvill be orovided nearer the time.
LOOSE MINUTE D/Sec(AS)/64/1 17 November 1999 Defence Records 2c2 – [REDACTED] CLOSED 'UFO' FILES FOR PERMANENT RETENTION 1. Please find attached the following closed 'UFO' files to be held in archives. Due to the public interest in this subject, these files are for permanent retention and should, in time, be transferred to the Public Record Office in accordance with the Public Records Act of 1958 and 1967. D/Sec(AS)/12/3 Part L 'UFOs' – Correspondence Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/3 Part M 'UFOs' – Correspondence Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/3 Part N 'UFOs' – Correspondence Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/3 Part O 'UFOs' – Correspondence Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/3 Part P 'UFOs' – Correspondence Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/3 Part Q 'UFOs' – Correspondence Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/3 Part R 'UFOs' – Correspondence Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/3 Part S 'UFOs' – Correspondence Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/4 Part A 'UFOs' – Parliamentary Questions And Enquiries Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/4 Part B 'UFOs' – Parliamentary Questions And Enquiries Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/5 Part A 'UFOs' – Close Encounter Reports, Alien Entities, Abductions, etc Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/6 Part A 'UFOs' – Alleged 'UFO' Incident: Crash of Lightning F6 – 8 Sept 70 Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/7 Part A 'UFOs' – Alleged 'UFO' Incident: 31 March 1993 Unclassified 2. If you have any queries regarding these files, please contact me on the number given below. [REDACTED] Sec(AS)2a1 MB8245[REDACTED]
LOOSE MINUTE D/Sec(AS)/64/1 17 November 1999 Defence Records 2c2 – [REDACTED] CLOSED 'UFO' FILES FOR PERMANENT RETENTION 1. Please find attached the following closed 'UFO' files to be held in archives. Due to the public interest in this subject, these files are for permanent retention and should, in time, be transferred to the Public Record Office in accordance with the Public Records Act of 1958 and 1967. D/Sec(AS)/12/3 Part D 'UFOs' – Correspondence Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/3 Part E 'UFOs' – Correspondence Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/3 Part F 'UFOs' – Correspondence Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/3 Part G 'UFOs' – Correspondence Confidential D/Sec(AS)/12/3 Part H 'UFOs' – Correspondence Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/3 Part I 'UFOs' – Correspondence Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/3 Part J 'UFOs' – Correspondence Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/3 Part K 'UFOs' – Correspondence Unclassified 2. If you have any queries regarding these files, please contact me on the number given below. [REDACTED] Sec(AS)2a1 MB8245[REDACTED]
LOOSE MINUTE D/Sec(AS)/64/1 17 November 1999 Defence Records 2c2 – [REDACTED] CLOSED 'UFO' FILES FOR PERMANENT RETENTION 1. Please find attached the following closed 'UFO' files to be held in archives. Due to the public interest in this subject, these files are for permanent retention and should, in time, be transferred to the Public Record Office in accordance with the Public Records Act of 1958 and 1967. D/Sec(AS)/12/2 Part K 'UFOs' – Reports Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/2 Part L 'UFOs' – Reports Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/2 Part M 'UFOs' – Reports Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/2 Part N 'UFOs' – Reports Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/2 Part O 'UFOs' – Reports Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/2/1 Part A 'UFOs' – Report of Sighting, Rendlesham Forest, December 1980 Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/3 Part A 'UFOs' – Correspondence Confidential D/Sec(AS)/12/3 Part B 'UFOs' – Correspondence Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/3 Part C 'UFOs' – Correspondence Unclassified 2. If you have any queries regarding these files, please contact me on the number given below. [REDACTED] Sec(AS)2a1 MB8245[REDACTED]
LOOSE MINUTE D/Sec(AS)/64/1 17 November 1999 Defence Records 2c2 – [REDACTED] CLOSED 'UFO' FILES FOR PERMANENT RETENTION 1. Please find attached the following closed 'UFO' files to be held in archives. Due to the public interest in this subject, these files are for permanent retention and should, in time, be transferred to the Public Record Office in accordance with the Public Records Act of 1958 and 1967. D/Sec(AS)/12/1 Part A 'UFOs' - Policy Secret - UK Eyes A D/Sec(AS)/12/2 Part A 'UFOs' – Reports Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/2 Part B 'UFOs' – Reports Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/2 Part C 'UFOs' – Reports Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/2 Part D 'UFOs' – Reports Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/2 Part E 'UFOs' – Reports Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/2 Part F 'UFOs' – Reports Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/2 Part G 'UFOs' – Reports Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/2 Part H 'UFOs' – Reports Unclassified D/Sec(AS)/12/2 Part I 'UFOs' – Reports Confidential D/Sec(AS)/12/2 Part J 'UFOs' – Reports Unclassified 2. If you have any queries regarding these files, please contact me on the number given below. [REDACTED] Sec(AS)2a1 MB8245[REDACTED]
o I ’ Loose Minute D/Sec(AS/64ll 8 September 1999 APS/USofS Copy to: AO/ADI ISSUE l. To provide anote on the Departrnent’s interest in ,UFOs,. RECOMMENDATION 2. To note. DETAIL Policy policy that any air defence or air traffrc implications of .UFOs, MOD and the. Civil Aviation Authoriry (CAA) iespectively. MOD,s limited to establishing from any reponea siitrii"gs it receives whether the !19rest is Region has_been breached by hostif"-rifit’"ry activiry, and respondng to any associated public correspondence. are a matter for ]: I] 1 G*fqent $|i1P:l** 4’ Military Task 9 is to maintain the integrity of the uK’s airspace. This requirement yqg’sed air pi-cture (rad*) iir poricing caJility. 1;1.T,|1$: Any &reat to the UK Air Defence Region would be handled in rh; hght ;f rhe panicular circumstances at the time (ii rnight, if deaned appropriate, involve the scrambling or divasion of RAF air defeni aircraftl- froiitirit penpective, repors sent to us of ’uFo’ sightings are examined" but consultation with aiia"r*.. sLff*a is considered only where there is suffrcient evidence to suggest a UK air.space: such as reports from credible wimesses (pilots, ai. traifi-’c those supponed by photographic, video or docurientary evidence; ::1T:,^,::.."J’ bf a number of wiuresses; or are of a phenomenon cunenrly being ’ ::*T*0.:T:t",t be capable of detection. Only a handtul oireporis ::.::T:-To Tight, in therefore, recent years in these categories and firther investigation of ,"f: mem ?:T":"".:"ed nas tound no evidence ofa threat. ::"*]o]: ;A; :::::i"iT.*:*y :::Tl:t Airprox Reports or civilian pilot considen that his aircraft has been endangered by l;^Paq:,1,"t,0:ary tne proxmity of another aircraft (including any flying object he was unable to-
o or in regulated l1*tiyi been the risk of a (Airprox). airspace where an Air Trafic controiler believes there has colrision, the pilot or ATC would be ourig"a to file an airmiss repon The Department ofTrade and Indusby is responsible for the Spaceguard Programme. we understand that there to set up a national the potential threat of impact Uy neiieant oU;ects (such as ll,il*Ld^"::"cy; rs,taken very seriously but they regard this as an issue where a common :::-:iTJ is essential. In June, the House oflords debated the ljlllluuonl*rpproach spaceguard Programme; Lord Saimbury, Minister for Science at the DTI, led the debate for the Govefiment. 6. arecunelit;;;il for the Govemment,s limited interest in answerohone is provided so that members ofthe public can sighting ieports. i.pons made elsewhere, either to military a* traffic control centres or the civilian police, all eventually make ::?,o11**lr, s.eces)2 where each report is considered only to establish whether it has TLY:y !o r^tgnltrcance. Some 230 sighting reports and 250 letters were received ll^-{ -":l*". y.ar; so rar th* year c 150 reports and 160 leners have been received. sec(AS)2 li$r rs.not constituted as a ’uFo’ information bureau. There are no defence resources al-locared for this purpose and, where tbere is no evidencel a report of defence concem’ no action is taken to ry and identifo what might have been seen. From the ieceived, aircraft o, H:.:.f account 9:.riplions.generally tor most ofthe observations. focat point within MOD l;J::!Oa]1:,"e \Jr..ls . A z+-now It:OJ::tP"+ "il*J pn"r"i."fi;"b1y *- p-..lot. avenues 1e! Gting to trt. pri." rvti"irio, other Govemment Depanmena, tire media etc) to purlo. ii"i. ai*r. All such approaches find their way to MOD, Sec(AS; for action. roooy. vocuerously for defence funds to be used for aganda for such work and use all possible ufologisa’are unhappy with MOD’s limited inrerest. A small number ’LrFo’ research, have their own ’UFO’Files 9’^ ,.+s case with other Government files, MoD rrles is 1!e are subject to the provisions ofthe Public Records Act of l95g and 1967 and official files generally ranain crosed for 30 years. Prior to 1967 it was the case that ’uFo’ frles were destroyed after five y-ears as there was insufficient interest in the subject to warant their retention. Io.Y.t"g’ since 1967 all.uFo’ files have been ire.",.,ed *o routinely released to the Public Record Office at the 3O_year point. For some time, Lord Hill Norton, the only paliamentarian with any interest in been asking that all files containing ’{JFo’ iniormatiou be released to the ^ui9l" ot the 3Gyear point. We have looked carefully r|l(J,aneao to see whether this is Posslole’ However’ in the absence of a Deparunental-wide file database and without Knowlng the details ofall the originating branches, a manual search of in excess of one million files at two main MOD archives would be uecessary ro locate and list .10. htthem. In November last year the location of some 55 'UFO' files was established. The files contain personal details of all those contacting and corresponding with the Department. Legal advice was sought: the Public Record Act gives an implied override of the Department's duty to protect the third party confidentiality by use of the 30-year rule. Release after that date would present no problems to MOD, but release in advance would lay the Department open to the risk of legal action for breach of confidence. To remove the personal details from these files would be a time consuming task. Staff in CS(RM), the MOD's Records Branch would need to be diverted from their essential tasks to manually scrutinise and sanitise some 5,000 pages on the files. The knock-on effect would be a major disruption to the Department's overall programme for the release of files to the PRO and cannot be justified. Mr Nicholas Pope 11. An ex-Sec(AS)2 employee, Nick Pope, has published two books on 'UFO' matters since leaving the branch in 1994: 'Open Skies, Closed Minds' and 'The Uninvited', the latter about alien abduction. A third book, about an alien invasion of the UK, is likely to be published next month. In all three books Mr Pope puts forward his personal views and is critical of MOD's limited interest in 'UFOs'. The two books already published resulted in an increase in media and public interest in 'UFOs', which in turn led to temporary increases in the number of enquiries and sighting reports received. Mr Pope continues to be employed by the Department. CONCLUSION 12. There is no evidence to support the view that the UK Air Defence Region is being breached by hostile foreign military activity or anything else. There are no plans to change Government policy on 'UFOs' or implement a research programme to investigate 'ufologists' claims. We are unable to release to the PRO all 'UFO' files because there is a need to maintain third party confidentiality. [REDACTED] Sec(AS)2 MB8347 [REDACTED] CHOTS: SEC(AS)2 Fax: MB [REDACTED] Personal/Parliament/ufos@brief99
Loose Minute UNCLASSIFIED
Covering RESTRICTED
[REDACTED]Sec(AS)64/1
15 November 1999
APS/USofS
Copy to:
•APS/SofS
• APS/Minister(DP)
• APS/Minister(AF)
• PS/2nd PUS
• DAO
• D News
• D Fin Pol
• DCC(RAF)
• D News (RAF)
• PCB(Air)
* DCC(RAF)SIO
Hd of CS(RM)!
'UFOs': NEWSPAPER ARTICLES
Issue
1. News of the World (14 Nov) and Daily Mail (15 Nov) articles about 'UFOs'.
Recommendation
2. To note.
Timing
3. As soon as possible in the event of any further media interest.
Background
4. It is standard practice to release to the Public Record office at the 30-year point
MOD 'UFO' files. The files are withheld until that time to protect the personal details
(names and addresses) of members of the public reporting what they have seen and
themselves failed to identify. The files do not contain highly classified material (two
examples are provided herewith). The issue of early release of files was address in
September last year (CS(RM)/4/6/37 – copy attached for USofS) in response to Lord
Hill Norton's request; legal advice was that the Department would be at risk of legal
action for breach of confidence if it did so.
UNCLASSIFIED
Covering RESTRICTEDUNCLASSIFIED Covering RESTRICTED 5. Under the 30-year rule, a total of 13 'UFO' files from 1969 have been passed to the Public Record Office and will be released on 1 January 2000. The files contain sighting reports, public correspondence and associated papers. As I explained (D/Sec(AS)/64/1 of 8 September copy also attached), it is simply not possible to say whether other 'UFO'-related papers might be filed elsewhere in MOD archives. 6. There is little factual information in the two newspaper articles. It is likely they are misrepresenting the arrangements for the Department's release of files, perhaps hoping to force MOD into expanding their limited interest in publicly reported unidentified sightings. I attach lines to take in the event of any further media interest. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] Sec(AS)2 MB 8247 [REDACTED] UNCLASSIFIED Covering RESTRICTED
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NEWS BRIEF
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DTG: 15 NOVEMBER 1999
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SUBJECT: 'NEWSPAPER ARTICLES: 'UFOs''
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SOURCE: Branch: Sec(AS)2: [REDACTED] ME [REDACTED]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PRESS OFFICER: [REDACTED] D News RAF
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BACKGROUND
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'News of the World' (14 Nov) and Daily Mail (15 Nov) have printed speculative
articles that MOD is about to release all 'UFO' files.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
KEY MESSAGE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MOD routinely releases files containing information from the public about alleged
'UFO' sightings under the 30-year rule. We are unable to release more recent files
because there is a need to maintain third party confidentiality (ie the personal details
of those providing information). There is no evidence to support the view that the UK
Air Defence Region is being breached by hostile foreign military activity or anything
else. There are no plans to change Government policy on 'UFOs'.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
KEY POINTS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* As is the case with other Government files, MOD files are subject to the provisions
of the Public Records Act of 1958 and 1967 and official files generally remain closed
for 30 years. Prior to 1967 it was the case that 'UFO' files were destroyed after five
years as there was insufficient interest in the subject to warrant their retention but
since 1967 all 'UFO' files have been preserved and routinely released to the Public
Record Office at the 30-year point.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* We have looked carefully to see whether early release of 'UFO' files is possible.
However, the files contain personal details of all those contacting and corresponding
with the Department. MOD has a duty to protect the third party confidentiality. Staff
would need to be diverted from essential tasks to manually scrutinise and remove all
personal details on the files and the knock-on effect would be a major disruption to
MOD's overall programme for release of files to the PRO. It cannot be justified.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* Mr Pope was an EO in Sec(AS)2; he left the Branch in Jul 94. The views
expressed by Mr Pope in books and the media are entirely his own.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* It is Government policy that any air defence or air traffic implications of 'UFOs'
are a matter for MOD and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) respectively. MOD's
interest is limited to establishing from any reported sightings it receives whether
the UK Air Defence Region has been breached by hostile military activity, and
responding to any associated public correspondence.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -SI]BSIDIARY POINTS Mlitary Task 9 is to maintain the integrity of the UK’s airspace. This requirement ma by the continuous recognised air picture (radar) and an air policiag capability. Any threat to the UK Air Defence Region would be handled in the light of the particulr circumstances at tle time (it nigh! if deemed appropriatg involve the scrambling or diversion ofRAF air defence aircraft). is * Alleged sightings sent to us are examined, but consultation with air defence staff and others as necessary is considered only where there is suffrcient evidence to suggest a b’reach of UK air space. Only a handful of reports have been received in recent years that warranted any firther investigation and no evidence was found of any tbreat. Where there is no evidence in a report of defence concern, no action is taken to try and identi! what might have been seen. From the types ofdesc:riptions generally received aircraft or natural phenomena probably account for most of the observations . Sec(AS)2 is the Air Staff Secretariat. It deals with a wide range of RAF-related issues. It also acts as the focal point within MOD for the Government’s limited interest in ’UFOs’. A 24-hour answerphone is provided so that members of the public can telephone tbrough sighting reporu. Reports made elsewhere, either to military establishments, air traffic control centres or the civilian police are forwarded to Sec(AS)2. Some 230 sighting reports and 250 letters were received last year Where a military or civilian pilot considers his aircraft has begn en,langered by the proximity of another aircraft (including any flying object he is unable to identiff), or in regulated ainpace where an Air Traffic Conholler believes there has been the risk of a collision, the pilot or ATC would be obliged to file an afumiss report (Airprox). * * * *
Loose Minute
CS(RM)/4/6/37
September 1998
PS/USofS *
Copy to:
APS/SofS * PS/DUS(CM) * DDC&L(F&S)Legal *
PS/Min(AF) * DGMO * DMOD *
PS/Min(DP) * Hd Sec (AS) * PRO IDO *
PS/PUS * DISN * CHOTS only
LORD HILL-NORTON: REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF FILES
Reference: A. D/USofS/JS 28/1/0 dated 9 March 1998 (not to all)
B. D/DOMD/2/3 dated 3 April 1998
Issue
1. To provide Lord Hill-Norton with the outcome of our consideration of his request for the early release of files on the subject of "unidentified flying objects".
Recommendation
2. That USofS responds in terms of the attached draft letter.
Timing
3. Routine.
Background
4. Lord Hill-Norton, aged 83, and Chief of the Defence Staff from 1971-73, has a long standing interest in "UFOs". He approached the department earlier this year (undercover of Reference A) pointing to the public interest in this topic and to the forthcoming Freedom of Information Act, requesting that all closed files on the subject of UFOs be released in advance of the normal, 30 year point.
5. In his submission dated 3 April 1998 (reference B) DOMD advised that in the region of 55 files were held with planned releases dates of 1999-2003, in addition a further 12 (with a release date of 2004) were in the early stages of preparation for transfer to the PRO. These files concern correspondence from members of the public reporting such occurrences, therefore question of personal confidentiality had to be resolved.
Outcome of our review
6. Three options have been considered:
(1) obtain permission from members of the public on an individual basis to the release of their details;
(2) remove personal details (the 55 processed files would require further examination and sanitisation in the order of 5,900 enclosures);
(3) agree that a shorter period, say 25 rather than 30 years, was acceptable for protection
UNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIED [RESTRICTED] of privacy. The first option was considered time-consuming and, given the fact that we would be attempting to trace individuals whose addresses were 25 plus years old, impractical. Option two, is possible, but would represent a major diversion of resources as each file would have to be re-reviewed, a note made of every page requiring extraction/deletion of personally sensitive information and for these actions to be carried out. It is estimated some 200 man hours would be required and so as not to adversely affect our existing review and transfer programme the task spread over a six month period. For the third option advice was sought from MOD's Legal Advisers. Their advice is that the Public Record Act gives an implied override of the Department's duty to protect third party confidentially by use of the 30 year rule. Release of records pertaining to that period are, therefore, not a problem but the Department would be at risk of legal action for breach of confidence if it released documents containing the personal details of members of the public before the 30 year point. We have therefore concluded that, having rejected options (a) and (b), we are unable to make a block release of the files before the 30 year point. A draft letter to Lord Hill-Norton to this effect is attached. Section 40 Hd CS(RM) MTA/3/[Section 40]MB
Mail, Monday, November 15, 1999 *** Page 15 AS MINISTERS PLEDGE TO RELEASE TOP SECRET UFO RESEARCH . . . Britain's X-Files (and yes, the truth is on this page) DOCUMENTS and photographs detailing UFO investigations in Britain over 50 years are at last being made available for public scrutiny under New Labour's policy of greater openness in Government, according to reports at the weekend. Here, NICK POPE, the Ministry of Defence official formerly responsible for investigating extra-terrestrial visitations, previews the eagerly awaited contents. OFFICIAL interest in UFOs had always had more to do with the Russians than any impending visit from Martians. But in keeping an eye out for the Soviet aircraft that routinely probed our defences during the Cold War, it soon became clear that there were other more exotic craft operating in British airspace. There has been a steady stream of UFO reports sent to the Ministry of Defence over the past 40 years — between 200 to 300 each year. They fill more than 200 files, to which I have had access. If, and when they are made available publicly, I can promise some exciting revelations. For three years it was my job in Secretariat (Air Staff) 2A at
o s. s a HE st.* E$EEgE ffiH gtl c,fl lEillt. rEl ?l 6a EEEEffii ,"g$HEF -fr ffi
NEWS OF THE WORLO, Novembor’14, 1999 7 KIDI{AP YOUNG ERROR mFtory romar d,.ggg.d at the cont o ol a ld* scars lat nlght aftf t van 3ne waa Into vfa! found abaal Two mon had earllor I acro$ a gaaaga ths ruabhout at Rrddlrg, Borkr, ho? Sho waa vlclourly boden d thrown lrtto tho van. A wltnoss told pollco thc woman, aged aboui 20, 3ul- lered laclal lnlurle3. Detective SoDerlntendont Trcvor Davleg 3ald: "We are e,(tremely worrled. lf thls woman can get In toitch wlth us she ehould." A tgam ot dolectlvs were g to ldentlfy the eoman scoufing mlishg peFon :s. The CCTV tootage the garage has been by police. l,l:L Si Chu,19,26, ntr. r.iPd ro $ay? ftis Il.’iiiltlt-t. London Jore /,\ ,,( ):iTiI! (; hifts?4 ’ s.dinq ot!i.:e and tt"t uuxht rhwt in i(;1.!i ltr i,’,r thP as l|ePk,! fn0DEt ROBBED of GANG as she Darked he. car in the early hours. was grabbed by the throat hy one man whilo another snatched he. t2,5O0 Catlle. watch ald a ,200 ngcklace, Tho the’ f,ung fter to the rcun.t end m* ofr ln e car $rtlh ber beg con- Role,( robbe.s ced on Andrea Foulks. Sftopplng cftannel QvC blonde Tlre 2g-yee..old truth about whether al- iens have ever vasited Brat- ain is to be revealed at last. Top secret government X- Files on thousands of ’spac - ship’ riddles will be opened up to public gaze by Defence Minister Peter Kilfoyle. They will includ photos and de- THE the past :|0 years. Every year, around 300 alien sightingi are reported. Plans by military.experls Ior action in the evenl of an alien invasion ot Londor will also be unveiled. L )ilil( l^l ( (’[ll :;l’( )r’]l)[NT at n incredible speed. But the facts aboul most later 8ate. the Ul’O took off BY lAN KIRBY tails of every UFO investigation in ’rdn that RAF Feltwell in Srrtfolk uses its sprce age radar, built by the US Air l_orce, to track UFOS. He quizzed fiinisters about the bare. mysteries ar still locked away. ’fhey include the truth about clainrs by former delcncc chief Lord Hill-Nor- rhe attackers. sald to be black and in thelr 203. in Sloene Scoaae. Londor. t30O in caeh. The Jiles. s.orcd nucleur b ontb - p r ool in lhree months. ’lhc nlove. patt i ! b slruck as Andrea pulled up ket deep belou white- un- haU. should be rcIeased a car ih Llon6, France, lo rescue z man colldpsed inrlde -4nd discorered a blolt’-up dum y usad to IooI eaFjackea. COPS smashed into crecy. eno governnrcnl aA frenzy. They will hope to learn secrcts about: MASS|VE UFO spotlers inlo Lrnnecessafy Fe- is sure 10 send a .lrive of lo 3 SIGHTED: Flying saucer The Yanks recently re- leased a reoort of the nororious R;swell inci- dent in 194?. in which New Mexico air base. They xplained the "bodies were dummies aiien corpses were alleg- edly seen al s secret led flying in zig-zags otf Britain’B Nolth Sea coast laBt year. The 900ft UFO shot off at sued bv two fiqhter iels. craft spot- from a secret weather ballooh, but UFO theo- rists siill believe there has been e cover-up. l?.000mph when pur- Crank RDER ight-week4ld boy was aclAlils thit selven UFOs hsve crashed In Britain sinc World OSIGHII GS of a tliangu- lar three-legged space- ship in Rendlesham For- est. Suffolk. in 1980. pared by th DUMMY: Rodr,vell’ali6n’ War II- gate UFOS. Ahazihgly, its one-time boss Nick MoD’6 hush-hush Aircraft Sec- retariat, set up to investi- Pope believes HE Brilain’$ files were pre- BABY in his home by a Irenrled Hover Police tound little B.adley being cradled ty his mother. He died tour In hospital trom lad in,u es. Th tot s murn Samantha object rose hovering out US airmen fronl lwo nesrby t ases claim lhe RIDDLE: Space invader his job lo. le of being Iabe[ed a cnnk. But after leaving the secret unil, he wrol a du;ted by aliens while dliving in Florida. Ile kept mum tuhile in was ab- 20. and brolhe. )pher, five, al6o suf- head Inlu.lB In the lydfl, their’ Jindings are still a closelr quarded scret, - Some details of UFo sightings in the blsstd into space al an incredible sDeed. RAF investisato.s_cordoncd ofI lhe area. bul of the trees. then ences convinced me lhal UFOS are a resl and threalening phe- nomenon, we a|’e nol alonc. "Since ll)5$- .he MoD hrrs heard of 9.000 UFO EightinEs, though that’s prob- ibout alien incidents. He said; "My experi series of bestsellers house In Mertlryr Wales. at the twcbed coun- Nelghbour ,qannettc i A gc.eaming aod a lroy cryln8. Samadh. out with her lace cov- ln blood and was taken sald: "l heard a ln an ambulance." 26-yea.-old man by pollce at the and wds blng quqg yeeteday. Fiftie6 and Sixties hsv alteady been made public under lhe Thirty-Year Rule aooled to sensitive documents. Among them is the Iotnous tg62 inci- dent in which 16-war’old Anne Heston \ras st totn to sec;ecy olter she rcpoited seeing a slor-like obiecl shooling out red aad green flomes abore het home ifl Tarnton, Somersel. ent John Kilburn 6aw a shining obiect in the sky above a west Yorks air base. when iets werq scrambled to investi- Ten years earlier, RAF FIight Lieutn- ably only the tip of the iceberg. Defence Minister Mr Kilfovle has told colleagues that. after a carlful re- view of the files. he is’not convinced" about the existefce o[ aliens. But MoD slall say he wanls people to be oble lo make uD thefu own ’n.inds. huge public inleresl. They paiht a fasci- A source said:’"These files ere o( nating picture Den $,ere investigated-shd whst would hap oI how UFO 22 reporls if aliens ever did land in Britsin.- Ou viev: Pageo ? o a 3* H! -’r"! fi:6.9 .: ?E -’ I gj eF 5 a i i slEl q :Et aE E#i5" fiiE >E ! c l;F:riitEi;SiE e X l i it >Ht * 15’iS: o l!5 gai.H Ed E’* HrE * HF;;* ::HbFF- EdIr 3a4i-,i E E g;*d-q -gFE;o- i Eri,6.’3 E 7 - f=: H .5 Eb9.^^t :-"-* - -’: =ui* .=:= cl tr o oL-! t ’n t 3.8 F ’’0 $’F E ; d: Ei&. etrs 6 I rO-! i t t 2f .ggEs d c.9 o H - 6 o g I E i;; ;;s a, ;:ti,fil Eg=*nE o 3 ,,tt i;riE;fsr5FgEi; i;i;sifi b; ’:e )-- ’ qI o 3l E[;::r s x ?grE:i:i $ c) 3ffiffi uffgtfftr#$ iilE:i;iiFgitrEiigEs "$eE_l:-t="i= .S:Cs .E ; Fgg:E ;*; tE:Ei; :5 E} :i E E ’ ’E b e o, j .s tri sq oO d-s a i g’e ] ’. s"’ 6 6. : s iffiff# =q 9tr i& =.8 ?t k E6 ’ ’rc? =<_ 5: 3: >2. Eg .:U r6 gl:E ;c’ Ex t: E "Eg 3E 9,E 6;, Co .3 i: * E I; ’5E.s’ ’c E.: HiE !: ?3 .,I5 u &g E6Z E at -’ ;5+ *b d. 3._ i r;5 o 9- E3 E b ’ 5E s C IE #;:#iff$;i;;ffiiE .9 !E E !itst; t*s’d+ -’iE E Ei;-g 3E:;:s ;E:E;E u ul t g o E o iiffiiffiFffiii:i J i; i :.E*; i dE*E -s lEE f ( r E E 0. .-_ E s;;EEFielEsii?j: g c:f EEqE;Ei*’E:E E iEEE:#{tEi:giEE; I - \ J,E;:;.Erio;si51l:iE rE E:.;EeEErE i:i;9E* E giE$et"ii ::eF& iii e :,L Fi I i*i=;eBCc: Daily Post, Monday, November 15, 1999 Sr-.c(*]t , ) ilc.,r: ZAf- I REGIONAT Fire evacuation Probe HOUSEHOLDERS were evacuated yesterday alter a fire at a woodyard into claims that Ford broke low price pledge Since making the promise Ford has knocked oII the piice of 2,000 Ford Focus cars, origi’ nally priced at tI3,005, but has nade no refunds to customers who bought at the higherprlce. consurner Allairs Minister Dr Kim Howells has ordered ofTicials at the Departrnent of Trade and Industry to investjgate the case. A sDokcswornan for the DTI said a number of dillerint officials would be involved in the investi- gation as it could have implications on a range of Xl,000 ers from surrounding streets at 1.45pm while they tackled the blaze at Sutton’s woodlark. in Craven street, Birkenhead. Firelighters evacuated household’ ers over prlces. Focus model CAR giant Ford is facing a Government inquiry into allesations it has broken a promise to custom- It is claimed the company has saved tzm by fail’ ing to keep a pledge made to buyers of its Ford vear. that if it iater cut (he price of the car’ they would be reimbursed the d ifference. matters from conaumer interests to competitlon between car firms. Dr Howells wit.t also call on the Advertising Sta[dards Authot ity lo invesugate whether Ford published any misleading advertising relating to the offer. extinguish the fire, although the cause is not yet known, Three fire crews were needed to in September’ The comDanv Dromised customers who bought a Ford Focu; beiween Sep(ember and the end of the But Ford dismissed the ctaim it had broken its orornise. savine the cars sold at a lower prjce lvet’c 6ld, rrnsold stoik and so the cut was not a pl’ice reduction across the range,
TI{E SUN 161t1/99 wirh on olien invqsion of Briloin rould be omong secrel Government docu’ By MARTIN PHILLIPS I frtlllTARY plons to deol movirg red .and yellow lights T THREE flt{ fu sl menls lo be unveiled in lhrae months. Milister 6re ready to let the truth be out there in line with New La6our’s policy of greeter ’The documnts and Photos of UFO cover inveEtiealion over -ths last 50 Yesrs siqbtinEs -What- omole would like to know fro’m ihe x Files is how the euthorities Dlanned to deal wiih eny alien landings Nick PoDe. who for thtee vears headed tho Ministrv of befence depsrtment investigat- Ing UFO siehtings, saYs: -The tnost ithportant thing lor leact- ers 1o da would be io flnd out who the aliens wre, what they i/snted, and to try to lind a Deacful rcsolution.- _ IY|oI{TI|SI TY(}U c (IUTD F rr{D (luT, He before they exploded into frag- menrb of q’hite lisht. said: cralt had landed. the nws to avoid mass Pa[ic ar slien idvasion. jj’"d5"h.:",T; whether to attsck the "Part oI the reason for writing - and creatures L’,iJ,i"8, thought o. lse it wss lo focus tf all soace North Sea in November 1990. failed. He edds: "Until there what we should do.- No explanation for the sighting He adds: ’In tny view, there was was anything lo .announce. I ever Drovided. don’t suppos PeoPle woulo De should be a contlngency plan so that if something haFpened O 11"3 ;::"’"n:".f ’g’J-’l;8 told anyihing. would be prepared." lets over tbe Nonh Sea "But es 6ootr as the situation we Nick was scDticel about fishter becam clear the 6afest thing be-fore ii took off at l?,0oomph, job. he blgan his UFOs when inforrna_ 20 times the sDeed oI sound. would b to make the tion public. It would have to Here are fiv cases that An ollicer relorted three srar-like objects - in the sky which ssv off red. Pren and blue lietrts. Hieh levels- of radia- tion iere f;und where th o be trirhful and positive." chaneed his miod- fhe Covertlment v/ould then hsv to decide how lo telease Nick saYs there are 200 to o B?3’l;:"fl :1,,,,-::’ :":",1;l 300 atleg;C UFO sightings a Rendlesham Forest, nea! the vear, Ninty Pef cent ar ioi.t Brirish and Aherican air- axptalned bt nttural phenom- base at woodbridge, Sulfolk, at ena ltke aircrsft lights, satel- Chrlslmas I98o. lites, rneteors and airshiPs. At 2am on Boxing Day, two But, alarmingl!, the others Dattolmen saw a lerge metallic remaan a mysterl. iriengular object. Two nights Nick’s new novsl. OPeration lster, a mllitary team investi- Thunder Child. predicts wha! *;f would heDDen in the vent ol E3l**inil^’le6 ";::;f "l;I ",i03 o F."""?t rr?" vards fro-m their "x-il"l Dlan ebove iv{anchester Airoort’. Th near- miss was iniestigsted but never explalned, *’1:?.3t O *" Jilo’ dn’51"1’il maxed with reDorts ol s tdan- cular- lumbo-i;t siz UFO flv- ine ov6r RAf bases at Cosfoid anA Shawburv. shrooshire. r Operatlon Tnon’.tirr Chtl4 pubnshed by SI’|b I Schult r- brtc. il.lo. Peiwone pandora@indePendent’co’uk INDEPENDENT 16/r1199 .*il"-*iTHtr.;l’13?".il:1"’l""qiT.’"’,’,H""lu’* o-bjects’ white-*^ TREK a worldwid,2{- sprencal sPhericarobjsctsa:f:some ffi;;1,i#;:;;il;’ ratber worrvns m’utl,’- ffi;#[ i.ffi;;- "z’k coloured spherical objects f5* liiitr’ili,iliiiil’n - j,i"ii:ii"i*!’" spotted bv an easre’eved ti"uiiili, il’lliii#i’ii’"’iiliJi.*li.e,l.Tff :i;lIi1’.’.. 1264/1 PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE Section 40 Section 40 LOOSE MINUTE D/US of S/PK 7/1/2/1 15 November 1999 Sec(AS)2 Copy to: APS/SofS DCC(RAF) APS/Minister(DP) D News(RAF) APS/Minister(AF) PCB(Air) PS/2nd PUS DCC(RAF)SIO DAO Hd of CS(RM)1 D News Hd/Sec(AS) D Fin Pol 'UFOs': NEWSPAPER ARTICLES Reference: D/Sec(AS)64/1 dated 15 November 1999 1. Thank you for your minute at reference, the contents of which you discussed today with the Under Secretary of State. 2. The Under Secretary of State explained that he had been approached by [Section 40] of the Sunday Times about the Department's position on UFOs. He had told [Section 40] that he would consider offering him a briefing on the subject. (This was subsequently discussed with you and D News' staff although no decision had been reached). The Under Secretary of State had not discussed the issue with [Section 40] the author of Sunday's News of the World article. 3. You explained the Department's position on UFOs and the early release of files, as set out at reference, which the Under Secretary of State noted.
4. The Minister remains keen to offer [Section 40] a briefing to
explain the Department's policy and the reasons behind it. If
possible, he would like to show [Section 40] some typical extracts
from the files to support this. You undertook to consider this
in conjunction with D News' staff and provide advice. I should
be grateful to see this advice before the end of this week.
4. I agreed the following additional press lines with the Duty
Press Officer last night, which could be used if pressed on
whether Mr Kilfoyle had made any decisions or given any
commitments on the publication of UFO files:
Mr Kilfoyle has asked officials to consider whether there is
any additional information which could be provided in
response to requests about UFO reports, in the interests of
removing the aura of mystery which surrounds the topic. He
has not yet received that advice and no decisions have been
taken.
Section 40
PS/US of S
MB 6215 [Section 40]
CHOTS: USofS/Mailboxh !, rr ufodata 6{,rul /h!.5 U.ff’c a^ .Aqrr i\^ \ - r) $,t.’ - AS AT \ ,/.’^ )eoJ ,ok6q,.r-i r,:, ^ lil{o i,f UNIDENTIFTED FLYING OBJECTS FILES IDENTIFIED AS TOCETHER WITH SCHEDULED RELEASE DATES Already open To be released: 2000 2001 2002 2003 2 2004 2005 2006 Total awaiting release l4 l3 I I 55 Total identified (released/unreleased) - t03 AIB C|_ASSES: RECORDS CREATED OR |NHER|TED BY THE AIR MINISTRY AND SUCCESSOR. THE ROYAL AIR FORCE. AND RETATED BODIES AIR 2 - AIR MINISTRY: RECISTERED FILES UFO’5: sightings; reports by members ’15918 1961-63 ofthe public. AF/X59/64 ft 5 File originatly released in a sanitised form. Extracts subsequently releasedl I 73t 8 1953 ditto AF/X59/64 Pt 6 [File originally released in a sanitised form. Extracts subsequently released] 17526 1964 17527 17982 UFO files. AF lX59164 ft 7 [File originally released in a sanitised form. Extracts subsequently released] ’1965 1965-66 | 7983 I966 17944 1966-67 1 ditto ditto ditto AFlXs9/64 Pt 8 AF/X59/64 Pt 9 AF/X59/64 Pt l0 117527,179a2 and | 7983 OPEN - released 19971 ditto ditto 81 I 81 {1 15 1967 16 I 967 l8l 1 Unidentified flylng objects: reports AF/Xs9/64 Pr t I AF/CX38/67 Pt I AF lCXlAl6T ft 2 7984, l 5 and | 81 1 5 OPEN - released 19981 1 81 7 1967-68 - released 1999t ditto AF/CX38/57 Pt 3 IoPEN l8183 I 968-69 | Unidentified flying objects AF J7463172 Pt 2 IDue for release 2000] 8564 1957-71 UFO Reports: West Freugh 1957 I This list has been complled on an ad ho basis and is not intended to represent a complete lists of ufo, ufo related papers preserved at the PRO,’ ufodata 18565 I 970-71 UFO Reports 118554 and 18555 due for releas 2OO2l t 883’l 1972 UFO repons AF 17 463 17 2 lDue for release 20031 lAA32 1972-73 UFO reports AF 17464172 IDue for release 2004] 18833 1973-74 UFO reports AF 17464172 fttl [Due for release 2Oo5] 18874 AIR 14 1974-75 UFO reports AF 17464172 lPiece no. to be allocated. Due for release 2006] - BOMBER COMMAND 2800 943 1 No I l5 Squadron: news sheet "Bang On" No I . IOPEN-releasedl9T2l AIR ’| I6 _ FICHTFR COMMAND 1952 Sept Flylng saucers: occurrence reports: service personnel at Topcliffe 199 ||Hr /r 88/r /r 7 statlon, Thirsk and local public sector loPENl AIR 20 - UNRECISTERED PAPERS 1953-57 Reports on aerial phenomena 17390,9320 - 9322 and 9994 OPENI I I I 7390 9320 9321 9322 9994 l950-54 1957 Unidentified aircraft (flying objects): reports Parliamentarv question on UFOs I lt 2713l4a 0086 | 4/220 957 1957 I ditto ditto MR 008514/ 193 t\4R0086t4/213 t\4R rHl273 /tO l4 1612 1967-58 Unidentified flying objects MR 073414 I I 694 I 968 1695 I696 I 1968 1968 Jan Feb Dec - ditto AF/s4f(Air)S l 2 ditto ditto I 1696 OPEN AF/s4(Air)5I3 AF/54f(Alr)523 IPieces |1612, I1594 - released I9991 887 888 I I 889 i I 890 1 891 1 I 892 I 893 1 I I 1 1 Aug Sept 1967 Oct 1967 oct 1967 Nov 1967 Nov 1967 Dec 1967 1967 ditto ditto ditto ditto dltto ditto ditto AF/s4f(Air)s07 AF/s4f(Air)so8 AF/54f(Ai0s09 AF/54f(Ar0so9 AF/s4fiAir)s10 AF/S4f(Air)51 0 AF/S4f(Air)51 I n 1887 - | 1893 oPEN ’1968 Mar I 968 - released 19981 1894 I 1895 ’| 1896 I Apr 1958 May ditto ditto ditto AF/S4f(Alr)514 AF/S4f(Alr)515 AF/s4f(Air)516
’ ufodata 897 898 1 I 899 I I 1 I 968 Jun I 968 Jul I I dttto ditto datto AF/S4f(Air)5I7 AF/s4f(Air)5I I AF/S4f(Air)519 l96E Auq 1968 Sept 1968 oct 1 9OO I I I I 9Ol 902 - 1968 Nov I l9O2 OPEN ditto ditto ditto AFl54f(Air)s2o AF/s4f(Air)521 AF/s4(Air)s22 n 1894 - released 19991 12055 l959]an 12056 1969 Feb 12057 1969 Mar 12058 1969 Apr ’12059 1969 May ’12060 l969Jun 12061 1969Jul ’12062 1969 Aug 12063 1969 Sept 12064 1969 oct 12065 .|969 Nov ’12066 1969 Dec 11205 5 ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto dltto ditto ditto ditto ditto difto AF/S4f(Alr)524 AF/s4f(Air)52s AF /54 f(Ai r) 5 2 6 AF lS4flAit)527 AF/S4f(Air)528 AF/S4f(Air)529 AF/54f(Air)530 AF/s4(Air)53 | AF /s4 f(Air)s 3 2 AF/s4(Air)s33 AF/s4f(Air)s34 AF/54f(Air)535 - 1 2066 due for release 2OOOI Jan 12067 I 2297 I 2298 I ?299 ’| 2300 I 2301 I 2302 I 2303 1 2304 1 2305 I 2306 ’1970 1970 Feb 1970 Mar 1970 Apr 1970 May I 970 June I 970 July 1970 Aug 1970 Sept 1970 Oct tl2067, | 2297 1970 Nov - 12306 due for release 2o0l l UFo repons ditto ditto dltto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto AF/S4f(Alr)536 AF/S4f(AtR)53 7 & rD/48/94 AFls4f(ArR)s38 & rD/48/9s AF/54f(ArR)539 & rD/48/96 AF/S4f(ArR)s40 & rD/48/97 AF/S4f(/AlR)541 & lD/48/98 AF/S4f(ArR)s42 & rD/48/99 AF/S4f(AlR)s43 & rD/48/r O0 AF/S4f(ArR)s44 & tD/48i rOr AF/S4f(ArR)545 & tD/48/i 02 AF/S4f(ArR)546 & tD/48/i03 12399 1971-72 1 lD 147 tD J274 Pt 4 ’l ll 2399-l241 due for relase Jan l24Ol 1972 Feb 12402 1972 Mar.h 12403 1972 April 12404 1972 May I 2405 1972 June 12406 1972 luly 12407 1972 Aug I2408 1972 Sept 12409 | 972 Oct 12410 | 972 Nov ’f 1972 Dec 241 I 24OO 1972 ditto l4al117 ditto ditto ditto rD/48/ r r 8 lD l4all t 9 tD 148 J120 ditto ditto ditto tD J481121 tD 1481122 tD 1481123 ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto 2OO3l tDl48l124 lD l48l125 lD J481126 tD 148lt 27 tD l4al128 12544 l971Jan 12545 | 973 Feb 12545 | 973 lvlar ditto ditto dltto tD 148 t129 | 3 rD/48/ r 30 rD/48/ |
’ ufodata 12547 1 2548 12549 I 2550 I 2551 I 2552 1 2553 I 2554 I 2555 Apt 1973 May 1973 Jun 1973 Jul I 973 Aug 1973 Sep 1973 oct | 973 Nov 1973 Dec 1973 ditto ditto dltto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto tD l48l t 32 tD 1481133 tD l4a lt34 s rD/48/ l3 tD t48t136 tD l4a 1137 tD/48/r 38 rD/48/ r 39 tD 148l t 40 IPieces l2 544 AIR 22 - I 2555 due for release 2OO4l -- PERIODICAL RETURNS, SUMMARIES AND BULLETINS 93 1955 IOPEN Air Ministry Secret Summary. Vol. 10, No 3 Article on Flying released 19861 Saucers. llc/lol EI CLASSES _ RECORDS 0E THE METEOROLOGICAL OFFICE BJ5 - ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 3l I 1968-70 UfO: Met aspects AFlM 396 /68 lDue for release 2ool I DEFE CLASSES: RECORDS CREATED Q8 INHERITED BY THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE. CHIEFS OF STAFF COMMITTEE AND RELATED BODIES DEFE I O DIRECTORATE OF SCIENTIFIC INTELLICENCE ANDJOINT TECHNICAL INTELLICENCE COMMITTEE 1950 Apr | 952 Jan 496 497 DEFE - l95l - I 954 Dec Minutes of meetings 1496 and 497 oPEN - Oct Minutes of meetings releasd | 9981 3l ’l ’l DEFENCE INTELUGENCE STAFF: REGISTERED FILES l8 I l9 I DEFE 958-63 963-67 UFO: policy Dr/ssi 40/9/r Ptr UFO: Policy Dtlss l40l9 /t Ptz ll l8 and I l9 oPEN - released 19981 4l FOREICN OFFICE AND MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: SCIENTIFIc AND TECHNICAL INTELLICENCE BRANCH AND OVERSEAS LIAISON BRANCH: REGISTERED FILES 74 ’1950 DSI/JTIC: minutes 75 l95l DSI/JTIC: minutes 76 1952-54 DSI/JTIC: minutes [74 6005 6005 6005 /8/D l7 Vol. 4 /8/D l7 Vol. 5 /8/D l7 Vol. 6 - 76 OPEN - released 1996] 901 117 i 949-50 Unonhodox Aircraft (lncludes UFO references, but limited to British and Cerman press cuttings) 153 1953-54 DSI/JTIC 7/8 Vol. i papers - Dsl/Jllc No 7 - Unidentified Flying Objects’) Dlgi Vol.s (lncludes a list, as at August t 95 t, of all repons issued n | 7 and I 53 OPEN - released 19951
ufodata Annex PRO CLASSES CREATED FOR INTELLICENCE RECORDS r B - UFO RETATED RECORDS - AS AT October 998 i I classes have, to date, been identified for records created for the defence "intelligence" branches. They contain between them more than | 5,750 Intelligence records selected for permanent preservation. The classes together with the date range and approximate number of pieces in each class: RESARCH WARNINC. A COMPREHENSIW SURCH FOR UFO REIATED DOCUMENTANON HA’ NOT BEEN CONDUCTED. IDENTIFIUNON OF RELEUANT RECORDS IIAS BEEN ON THE tsEST CUESS" PRINCIPLE. ADM 223 ADM 23 AIR - Naval Intelligence Papers, l9’l4-1955, 840 liles and volumes. |- Naval Intelligence Reports, 1883-1965, 54 volumes and other Intelligence Papers 40 - Directorate of Intelligence o - ’1926- 1963, 2706 files and volumes DEFE I - Major Committees: minutes and papers - 1942-1576, 504 bound volumes. DEFE l0/496) These two pieces contain 7 items relating to Working Party on Flying Saucers and its subsequent 497) report. [6 items were released In l.:Lgo see DEFE (496 & 497 RELEASED I 998) DEFE 4l 174-761 2’l - Joint Intelllgence Bureau, Directorate of Scientific Intelligence: Registered fi les - | 946- | 978, 77 files DEFE 3l - Defence Intelligence Staff: Registered files - | | 9 tiles DEFE 3l /l l8 1958-63 ) UFO: policy lt9l963-67) 998) (tl8& |l9 DEFE RE|_EASED r 32 - Defence Intelligence Staff: Reglstered files - | 957- 1979, 99 files DEFE 4l - Foreign Office and Ministry of Defeoce: Scientific Technical Intelligence Branch and overseas Liaison Branch: Registered Files DEFE 4l /74 ) - Selection of minutes from 75 ) 76 ) DSI/JTIC Meetings. -- (6 items relating to Working Party on Flying Saucers and its report). RELEASED ’I 996) 1 17 - Unorthodox Aircraft (ufo references limited to British/Cerman press cuttings (RELEASED I 995) I53 - DSI/JTIC (RELEASED papers (incl. reference to Report No. 7 "UFO’S’) I995)
ufodata DEFE 44 - Joint Intelligence Bureau: Reports - | 946-1971, 100 flles and volumes WO l05 - Directorate of Military operations and Intelligence - |937-l961,6228boxes, files and volumes wo 2o8 - Directorate of Military Intelllgence - l91 7-1961, 5l 87 boxes, files and volumes
Page 1 of 1 641 [CLOSURE stamp: 32] SEC(AS)2A1A From: Hd of DR1 Sent: 15 November 1999 08:01 To: SEC(AS)2A1A Subject: DAILY MAIL: NICK POPE Gaynor, I take it that you have seen today's Daily Mail? I expect to hear from the PRO today about when we are releasing these files. So far as I'm aware there is only the usual release planned in January. Do you know any more? [REDACTED] Section 40 [REDACTED] 15/11/99
UNCLASSIFIED Covering RESTRICTED Loose Minute [REDACTED] 15 November 1999 APS/USofS Copy to: •APS/SofS • APS/Minister(DP) • APS/Minister(AF) • PS/2nd PUS • DAO • D News • D Fin Pol • DCC(RAF) • D News (RAF) • PCB(Air) • DCC(RAF)SIO Hd of CS(RM)1 'UFOs': NEWSPAPER ARTICLES Issue 1. News of the World (14 Nov) and Daily Mail (15 Nov) articles about 'UFOs'. Recommendation 2. To note. Timing 3. As soon as possible in the event of any further media interest. Background 4. It is standard practice to release to the Public Record office at the 30-year point MOD 'UFO' files. The files are withheld until that time to protect the personal details (names and addresses) of members of the public reporting what they have seen and themselves failed to identify. The files do not contain highly classified material (two examples are provided herewith). The issue of early release of files was address in September last year (CS(RM)/4/6/37 – copy attached for USofS) in response to Lord Hill Norton's request; legal advice was that the Department would be at risk of legal action for breach of confidence if it did so. Covering RESTRICTED UNCLASSIFIED
Covering RESTRICTED 5. Under the 30-year rule, a total of 13 'UFO' files from 1969 have been passed to the Public Record Office and will be released on 1 January 2000. The files contain sighting reports, public correspondence and associated papers. As I explained (D/Sec(AS)/64/1 of 8 September copy also attached), it is simply not possible to say whether other 'UFO'-related papers might be filed elsewhere in MOD archives. 6. There is little factual information in the two newspaper articles. It is likely they are misrepresenting the arrangements for the Department's release of files, perhaps hoping to force MOD into expanding their limited interest in publicly reported unidentified sightings. I attach lines to take in the event of any further media interest. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] Sec(AS)2 MB 8247[REDACTED] Covering RESTRICTED
NEWS BRIEF DTG: 15 NOVEMBER 1999 SUBJECT: 'NEWSPAPER ARTICLES: 'UFOs'' SOURCE: Branch: Sec(AS)2: [REDACTED] MB [REDACTED] PRESS OFFICER: [REDACTED] D News RAF) BACKGROUND 'News of the World' (14 Nov) and Daily Mail (15 Nov) have printed speculative articles that MOD is about to release all 'UFO' files. KEY MESSAGE MOD routinely releases files containing information from the public about alleged 'UFO' sightings under the 30-year rule. We are unable to release more recent files because there is a need to maintain third party confidentiality (ie the personal details of those providing information). There is no evidence to support the view that the UK Air Defence Region is being breached by hostile foreign military activity or anything else. There are no plans to change Government policy on 'UFOs'. KEY POINTS * As is the case with other Government files, MOD files are subject to the provisions of the Public Records Act of 1958 and 1967 and official files generally remain closed for 30 years. Prior to 1967 it was the case that 'UFO' files were destroyed after five years as there was insufficient interest in the subject to warrant their retention but since 1967 all 'UFO' files have been preserved and routinely released to the Public Record Office at the 30-year point. * We have looked carefully to see whether early release of 'UFO' files is possible. However, the files contain personal details of all those contacting and corresponding with the Department. MOD has a duty to protect the third party confidentiality. Staff would need to be diverted from essential tasks to manually scrutinise and remove all personal details on the files and the knock-on effect would be a major disruption to MOD's overall programme for release of files to the PRO. It cannot be justified. * Mr Pope was an EO in Sec(AS)2; he left the Branch in Jul 94. The views expressed by Mr Pope in books and the media are entirely his own. * It is Government policy that any air defence or air traffic implications of 'UFOs' are a matter for MOD and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) respectively. MOD's interest is limited to establishing from any reported sightings it receives whether the UK Air Defence Region has been breached by hostile military activity, and responding to any associated public correspondence.
( SUBSIDIARY POINTS 9 is to maintain the integrity of the UK’s airspace. This requirement the contiruous recogxdsed air picture (radar) and an air policing capability. Any tbreat to the UK Air Defence Region would be handled in the light of the particular circumstances at the :me (it might, if deemed appropriate, involve the scrambling or diversion ofRAF air defence aircraft). * Mlitaxy Task b5r is met Alleged sightings sent to us are examined, but consultation with air defence staff and othrs as necessary is considered only where there is sufficient evidence to suggest a breach of IJK air space. Only a handful of reports have been received in recent yea$ that waxranted any firrther investigation and no evidence was found of auy tlreat. Where there is no evidence in a report of defence concem, no action is taken to and identifr what might have been seen. From the types of descriptions generally receivod aicraft or natural phenomena probably account for most of tle observations . * * ty Sec(AS)2 is the Air Staff Secreariat It deals with a wide range of RAF-related issues. It also acts as the focal point within MOD for the Govemment’s limited interest in ’UFOs’. A 24-hour answerphone is provided so that members of the public can telephone tlrough sighting reports. Reports made elsewhere, either to military establisbments, air traffic control centres or the civilian police are forwarded to Sec(AS)2. Some 230 sighting reports and 250 letters were received last year Where a military or civilian pilot considers his aircraft has been endangered by the proximity of another aircraft (including any flying object he is unable to identifi), or in regulated airspace where an Air Traffrc Controller believes there has been the risk of a collision, the pilot or ATC would be obliged to file an airmiss report (Airprox). * *
22 NEWS OF THE WORLD, November 14, 1999 1 { lo lreot heroes AS the nation pays a massive public tribute todav to its war ddad a cruel shadow hairgs over a group of - disabled veterins who survive. Fifteen hundred of them are to lose their jobs as seven plants specially set up to- provide woik for them ilose unions and Remploy, the employer. ln August the rvorters were toH lhat any lrploy36 who wented to stay at a Remloy ’factory corld do so ard that no plents rvould clqse. { The bitter blow follows months of negotiations between their trade down. Tomono$r they will be told the truth, with manasement blamine the job losses on a -iive-year freeie in their government grant. When Remploy plants were first set up after World War II they were de- scribed as ’factories fit for heroes.’ Wftat an ulEraffid way to trcat orr herues. Bfi]gll it*+,i:t";; ;gq ffirtilri:", tile’llgtgp g ’4,’1’,1,.i,;4g4q, T’lre crisis whrchmeansDeoDlereweiti[s-I-_i;k;;h;i;;=d;-’;;il;;;- Ionger aod longer-for treatmenti 1, g_"lp:t1,f pararysis in our health servlce ry6:;" being nushovert ssvers_ ;il$+li+i+l$lffi .A MOTHER and son risked their lives to help police smash a Yardie drugs ring. They befriended the mobsters, kept track of their movements and tipped off the law at the crucial momenf,. Then the carelsss coppers shopped the brave pair by broadcasting iheir oriur JttlLLlAM I{AGUE OppoeHon leader l""iiffifi i’; ’J;$iT" s sp3cr’: ii Kis n NEW t’aw’alout bow politi_ L:1’"’.1’*;!:""i"",1HI;":3,i0";:: i,".1;:,"iil’::’i tri"l*T,’*Ei- ririif:::":r^:":,1^::r"-f:* i;g,ii. :m,f,*jii,’* l’,ii: rf bogus. asylum seeken?. The on_wirh improviDs stsndards. w; w_ould htp pensioners _"T!: roa6s . csily publrc transF,ortj -and Beiling.oul.. iomethiflg sbout bad sEhools by lhe sentetlce handed down itl racking school managmenis. court. tschlng prisoners what Ald there would b s lsw to turn it8 like to work. deallng out life eyry primary and scoirdary sntences [o drug dealers who rate Ol la* On savtnga and protecl law creatinA a’Rieht to RoEm. Thse are what I think are the tien6 with rhe most sertous condi- the homes and es_sets of peopte 11"". iil;ji i,iti-ao inr_ Lrrgeht problems lacing Brirsin to- tlons would get a maximum wsit- who s.ave for their long term care. thire i.liii;idii";il;;;Hi" "iif,eae dy. You proqably agree with nre. I ng trme Daaed Dot on prly poll al- W would help working women that-actually msttr to tlie maior_ it next week s Queen s Spech cal largeF blr medrcal need Who lake Career bfeaks to look itv of DeoDft, y1s 9911],ne^oll the qrogramme of , We_ would inlroduce a tough after. their childrn .with. Fam ily This’w6ek you will see a La_ ttre next Conservalive govem- law 1o make sure unemployed Scholarships that will help them bour government ihat ls DursuinE nehl, I ll tell you whst woulcl De people who can work take ihe il they want tO gel back lo work- ils Own Obscure politics’l priori: in it Educa.tion would be rlght at job6 thar are offered to them-or We would Fropose a Budger tis instead of rising ro rtrd ctrii_ rne.nean oI Ine speecn, ros tnerr unemPLoymeni benellt, that would put an etrd to La- Ienge of lhe real frroblems, There would be a law l.o guaran- A revolulion in c m-fighting bour’s stealih taxes wilh this T’h trext conse’rvative qovern- :ee lo panent$ the powsr lo do wDuld make aure criminals serve open alrd hooest Tax Guersate: ment would not duck th; chsl- ssues rlxe to Brubocl8 on -.Then we’d give patients irt the itrlllsh Deta Ntr:’ a. .udrque guarantee. yd- f’a ii’Jril-f ii,",,lj"r’,#’#"";.-,:,";;;; by hElving rhe starlttng iiltti ara-car ;;;i l;*;;.;’;;; Aliens - the truth names ovef the Dolice radios. from which they were- picked up by the Yardies’ scarlners. - Now mother and son cofltinue to live in fear of their lives; for their tormentors, released because of ’legal complications’; have launched a terri- fying campaign of revenge. Thames Valley police must round up and jail the ihrigs. tud lils time drcy can’t expec-t public lo do tfte hb fioi them. { 1 I well cut the overall burden ot letrse, Our Oueen,s SDeeches tax over lhe llleilhe of a parlia- woild turn the commoniense of menl. And w’d show veryone the Deople ioto commonsenae that Britain is no pushover In_Eu- polici.:s for the country. THE government is to thfow open itg top-secret X-Filee on UFOo and aliens. Ministers have looked. at them and decided that there is nqthlng too sen- sitive to hold bdck. Enthusiasts are hooing at last to learn the truth about all t-he inoidents reported over the last 30 years. GREAT game it wasn’t. A deter- mined first half at Hampden was fol- lowed by a dull second.- But it did manage to focus for g0 minutes or so the combined paseions of soccer fans the lensth and-broadth of Britain, . Then, despite their victory, came the pointless violence when 400 Ens- lish fans went on the rampage in tFe stfeets of Glasgow. Itts a omen for ANEWS OF THE WORLD, November 14, 1999 YOUI{O mystery wonal rrar at tto c.rtta ol I kltl nap sca| lat ntsht .fter a bonded lr|lo wa! ,o{nd ab6|} dorcd. KITINAP IERROR A Uoodtsliod van the wE lwo |||gn h.d ea let ,oughlt drrgggod h6r sc|lamlrg *rGa a gar*t iorlcor|ft st Foadlrg; Bsrkr, dudr tho ||F|}how. she u* vlclourlt b.atod drd thrown hto lhs v.r. A wltmsc told !o[ce the wonn, agsd abut 20, 3uf felsd faclal tududer. lr6t6cdvo S0podntsnd$t Ttbwr Ddvlo! i’H: "llle a|r exkrmdy rYonlod. ll thlg woman cdr gbt In toucb rlt|| u! lhe !hould," A toam ot dotcdvoe wre trylng to ldq|dlt ih. woman snd rcotrhg ml8obE pgrsott roForts. tho CCTV foot46 ftom tho gar.g. bec|l 8eqr by Poflco. hs THE ROBBED A of CAI{G car pounced on Anda Foolk, llE QVC Shopplng ciannel |r!odd, as she prked hr Rolor rotto.s rraa gr.bbed by the thbet bt o||g man wl le anothet 6nalcfted hoi lhe h the eady houra. truth about whethor al- iens have ever visited Brit- ain is to be revealed at last, Top secret government X- Files on thousands of ’space- ship’ riddles will be opened up to public gaze by Defence Minister Peter Kilfoyle. photos and de- tails of every UFO investigation in the past 30 year8. Every year, sround 300 alien sighting8 are rported. Plao6 by milltary expefts for action in the event of an alien invssion of London ivill They BY IAN KIRBY POIIIICAI CORRESPONDENT gate, lhe UFO took off at an incredible speed. But the facts about most later mysteries are still locked away. z+year-old blonde will inolude ton that RAF Feltwell in Suffolk by forrner defence chief Lord Hill-Nor- They include th truth abort claims uses It8 space-age radar, built by the US Atr Force, to tfack UFOS, H quizzod ministers about th base. ratch ad o g2tx! neoklaco, lhon thot iung he. to the glound dd mado od In a slhor car wlth ltr b* col} ldnlng i8m h c.sh. The t2,5lx! Cartlol attd(r!, srid to be ttack and In thotr 20., stnd( as Ardrsa pulld op In Slofl|e Sqrar, Loodon. ThE files. stoted ia o nucleei bomb -p roof bun- also be unvelled. ker deep below White- hau. shoutd be releosed ln three mo.,ths. Th move, psrt of e govefnment drive to leased Ihe Yanks rcceotlv re- end notorious Rirswell incl- deot in 1947, in which e report of the unneceaaary ae- crecy, is 6ure to snd aA m frenzy. They wlll hope to learn secrets about: SAIVE UFO spottef3 lnto craft e ted flytog ir ztg-;ags off Britain’s North Sea coast last yeat- ThE g(Xlft UFO shot olf et 1?,000nph when pur- 6Dot- allsn corpses wer alleg- edly Beefl Ei a aecret Nel,l, Mxico air bese- They exDlained the "bodiris- w6re dummies from a seiret weather balloon, but UFO theo- rists still believe there has been a cover-up, Crank bv the trluRDIR A In hla home by . trenllod dtackor, Follce bsnd ltd. BEdloy mulderod yoslerday h6ad aclAlills thit se’ven UFO6 have cradhed ln Britaln since World War IL aetsHl$los of st: suffolk. sued bv two fishter iets. Dared Britain’B fil3 w.e Dr- hush-hus6 Aircrett Se- rtariat, Bt up to investi- MdD’s OF BABY etsht{veet-old boy triangu- lar thre-legged 6pace-. shiD in Rendl$ham For- a sate uFo3. Amazinslv. was Hovef tn fts one-tlme bos-s Nic-k Pope believes HE wea eb- ducted by aliens while drivine in Florida. He EeDt m. m Phile in his job lor fear of beins Iabelled a cnnk. Bul alter leavlne the secrel unit, he wr6te a 1980. G.oB tohg cradod by hb soi&.rg motho., He dld lort houF @r h lpegltal from US airmen from tqro nearbv baees claim the objecd roEe hovering out of the trees, guarded tot’t mlrn Samaflra Gso|o, CO, gnd brs{tr6. CM.to9hgr, fva, alro !d- Tho hFrlei. blasted into spac at an incrdible sDeed. RAF investigators cordoned olf the area, then their findinss are still a cl6elv- ’ Some details of UFO sightings in but h ftc attek.at t|ie trFbed oot rD cll hou! ln tlr&yr lydl, So{th Wbls. llelghboor ,ornnette Hwasy s.ld: "l h..d a tloman ltclarnlng gid a t61cd had tdtr]|-6 secrJt. ydng away boy cryhg. Uood and cams out wlth hor lhoe s.m’|r&d @d h 2eygsr-old man wag anESt6d by pofica at tho lrooag r|oosg A h ar l|ouhrcs." wa trk9tl co} did ra b3e|g @+ rPqqlqt. , 1-1 .i, i , Ted years earlier, RAF Flight Liutn- natlog picture ol how UFO repotte ant John Kilbum ssw s shininB object wore Lrvstigated-ond what vrould h.p- tlr base, pen tand in 3ritain," .in in the rkv rky above a We6t Yorks alr Den if aliens ever did land VL"I:-P:.5:"2.?- When jt6 {rre scrambld to invertl- -,,..,* fd^tu,yu! !"?ei ln Tounlon, Someftel Ftftles .nd Sixlies have already been made public under the .fhirti-Year Dfence Minister Mr Kilfoyl hss Rule afpled to sensitive docume’nts. ’ told colloagues thtt, after a careful re- Anoio thgrn is the famous 1962 itzci- view of the files, he h "not convinced" d6at h ;thich l6-tea;-old Anne Heston about the existenqe gf aliens. r’as swori to sectbcy after she repotted Bl,,t IfroD staff sat he arant9 people to Eeelag a star-llke obieca shootiiq out be dble to make up theh oLtn mlnd’. ebove her the oI bstsellrs about alien incidents. He seid: "My experl- eflces convincd me thet UFO$ are a real and threatening phe- nomnon. W sre not alone. ’siDce 1959, the MoD has heard of 9,000 UFO stghtlngs, though that’$ prob- ably only the tip of the icebetg.’ .series ho." _.i^TI:: ,::ig:.:*:: paint ^"I:--gr They _fjE: huge public interest. a fssci- ?* "^E NEYITS OF THE WORLD, November 14. 1999 ONE lucky Lottery puDter 6cooped la8t night’s S6.2 mjltion jackpot. Another 25 won S76.804 each for five numbels plus the bonus, 940 won 91,2?6 for five and 58,205 play- er8 won 945 for matchins four, The S250,000 Thunderball jackpot also went to one ticketholder, aIS your Lottery fortu[e written in the star8? Turn to Page 26 now and fii|d the secrets of Mystic . Meg’E YOU can dlso bot on MFtic Wheel. ldeh Lotto by Lucky Choice et orrr 4,q)0 wlnam Hlll. Cord playlng tho o. Wodnqsday’s Lotto nurl bo19 trsrs: A, 15, 14, Lrdbrokes bettlng 3ltop6 natiomYio. La6t 26. 32. 40. THUNDERBAIT Bonus numbec 31. l"at ntsht’s numbG n|e: 5, 8’ 9, 16. 2:1. 27. Bo|ru8 Ll. Gountly wenl football daft. . . or rather the SCHOLES country. lT was the day the whole gy taN EDTyIONDSON the^scotrand & JOHN ARTER :t:,:::"1:1":-"^’jlT-plt-d pubs were rockins’and r"tt"" Siiilil fr#Tr:’""j::1h’HjX"":X; springs in homes up and down was’Easy, Easy’. the land got a right pounding as And the few brcve Scots ttho had, - England -hero Piul pummeTled turned ,up iad to sulfer .taunts of "You the-Scots at GlaSSOw,i Hamnden are -onlt gootl lot making ethi,aky’. . Park^ w i th two -great f irst’-hal * # "?l-i;’;dX’":","1|l"3"onf"Tiit"",l goar6. - weie greeted bv e dalaninr siGtlce,’ . Ar.d bot,-did ll.’e go ll,ild. Celzbra- lrrste;d it was ihe pumpe aid optics tions lasted,aotrg. into the Eight railh dancing up and do*n ai fans qtieue4 sttppoftefs dancing ln the streets. five deep to drown their sorroivs. At Hatnpden the afternoon was photoerapher John McDonsld, 28, marred by some mindless England sald: _E-veiyone is feeling so frue. louts who went on the rampage lrated.’And BT engineer Dave Allen, f through Gla8gow eftr the game. 36, from clasgow added: "l em fl- But for the massive telly audience ing absolutely s.,"e at th Etoment. lt’s so depress- it-" 11d- "just - .*Yi--t* ,-a-.-. Battle of Britain-was a resouoding success. - drunken England iill!!’1’".ilr.i!&lllE[E5E*.’#x1i1"ll’’"iil: - -;.-";,",. i :. - _:-E_ .-= . ";;;;; ,/ ’ match when around .{00 s roeetner w,rh ,n. risures.shourd nu _. Ana f you were !F:l?l?GfiE,Z was i<iisgrace. i saw anywhele fledr a on. w." t?y si"mpea El-tIllY ’cgr jr r,TrrxTljrY.. a dith :!ryea ry:te!9at, Fgains.t eaay to Eee wht. blood all over him. HiE mothr c/a8 ’ Dsa At London’s Sports Cafe more thad distrEoght." 2.000 DeoDle weie crammed into the Dozeis of supporters frofD bolh bar bv ki;k-off time. The crowd had sides hurled misiiles at each other rn BuchanaD Street and polic reported elreadv roared themselves hoarse- singini Skinner and Baddiel’s Three severa.l ’skirmi5he6" in. tho ciiy By -i-iciia.a peterson,30. was one of them-like * -i"i ittlii"."it" h; h*i tried to set a tlck;t snd failed. -:Suitfii" r" ii. -iiiiiltl" "r’itit;;- rr. y.rr.a’"-lo* ;n. "iii’6."i’iii""." i" rtrii riCi"i tr,"-iir"i...-’t -;;;t’h irr.i" iaaea nicrrirl, o? "r Hreh;’i;, London. the number ol arelts Lions anlhern well bfore the Same [aterftlernoon’ Mosr o{. the. England fans, however, thev steamed y9l:-.Y-"11- ;,,t+xmx* to (HERHti qSfl-fll[&/ .r:il:.lT’1"i’::’r?f $li*ffihiEE itEllL=l L-Ff,= "m* :-’---- = towerds Ine slelloh ea8t London summed tte dor "l-,J dS.feel soft!. !or. s.cotland’- he said’ ntot"a DeIt b t ne desened One catchang o ttain back.to so th- !+lyg "t fff! ’o ,fan. ,23-,year-ord,..,,," carter, -!lgth:\ torct kow ne ns.l ttavetbct up "otfl1",[3i"X;;"o"g,,ig""l’Hilf$"?g: man saidi "This result has cost’book_ frot!_tlighton jult to u’atch the game iL" it U."i piii oi-jZ-^itiioi.-Ur". on TV in London,. out of " cvery i0 beis t; a;k t;.; i;; came up here for the atmos- an England victory and 2-O was by -"I phere. It s very loud. It was well far thi most popular scoreline ai worth it." When Manchester United odds of 9/1." - ’ IOBTESS IOUT TUIAKES fl50,000 FR0m FAl,ts TAXT]M ;,-,’i-ffi ffilim"ffiH* r.j"JJ"-,{_r* f , ;T;"ifi G . ".Gffi;l lrvj;+:[:iha’iJ,tf &***W illffiiffi**-ffi;ffidffiFffi -qEffitrSffi "olM BYNADjAGoHEN f-"1:,,ryT_91".:-ougl :j-.8 Smhh made a rtagorlng siAl06o-;"t . -Jii59*:9p-.sjfJl :EJl":id L*."1*ii#1 ggi-t31l iq$"l#+ffii$ffr br-agged to oul undercovef alrod quid." lvhen eur tF cdved lrwltaflom ior oor!.|. (’oonol. Smith eagerly portor later a6ked tfhe w*g rat6 6at3 at th. s6cdnd" agEod to 6{pDly otrs d supplylng tickets in bulq |eg at W.mbley. Undef thr Wodd Inve.etlgatoE he asked: "Do you wani edci padlamnb.y |tdse :’"i*"#i""mm’ @W s’iL *ffr#..fl*f X "!fl’r:Hffi9; Lonnrsorue r",,t rnoerstooc tlcl(6ts aftel we rhe, srnrster. pol!91-.:tt11td l |,r. ffi-:;ffi ffidil;-"tffirhi;":--- li’idiiir,rtii5’i,iGae* to naw rl-, trl$ hls rtroolle phono. raEl l6e how mudr q|ey go "l doo’t know |f yo|| hs sneered. "Fllteon hur} |sal i9.," lh|n in 6equ6nce? I’ye got mates ln a conple of clubs. "l’ll have a phone round ard see lt I cdn got them.’, Smlth, a 4GyaFold trher thev wlll thaa thoy occeDtd ttt|tt h a flrne irhen ahousatiaa of ’. odlnary fam ty|E tdlo to get ilckots. re to dodalr atDAILY MAIL l5lll/99 by by the civil Aviation Authoritv bui remained a mystery- NICK POPE shqlp, angular movements. cases that I investisated related to an incidenfthat One of the most fascinattdE Occurred in the early hours of Tbe objects were visible for two to ttEe hours, ocqasion- ally flashing down bams of March 31, 1993- There had been a wave o[ IIFO sishthes that nieht, culminatint in tie direct overflight oT two military bases, RAF Cosford ord RAF Shawbury in ShroD- shire. as light or energy, Radiation readings were subsequently taken from the landing slte in the forest and were found to peak in the ttEee indentations where the cralt had touched dosm in a clearing. The UFO was described bv one ot the militaqr witnessei oruY msrgnaUY Jumbo Jet. lntrlgulng aerial encounters ln There are a number of Britai!’s so-cslled X-6les. too. One of the earliest took Dlace Smaler than a Elowly over the base at a height o4200ft. iting a narrow bearn oflisht at the-grounq, before oyingbfi at lugn speeq, ’Ihese then, sre the sorts ot being a vast, kiargular cralt It llew reoorts. to aletermrne any Doientiil ihreat to the uK. I iound explanations for 90Pc OOCUMENTS and of sishLincs’. which tumed out to In Aueust 1956, when aljFo was tracked on radar systems at RAF Bentwaters and ILAF Lakenheath fulr Su-ffolk bled to lntercept the mystery TWo RAF lncidents to be found in the MoD’s I’FO fles. But the nles also contain reports of 8.llen abductions, photographs detailing UFO investigations in Britain over 50 years are at last being made available for public scrutiny under New Labour’ policy of greater openness in Government, accordinE to reports at the weekend. Here, NICK POPE, the Ministry ol Defence officlal tormerly responsible for investigating extra- terrestrial visitations, previews the eagerly awaited contents. bi’ rdisidentifications jets were scram- ordinary objects or Phe4om- of the appea.ralce of crop circles and arirnal nutilations. all of which have been lhked wlih UFOs. ena; atcraft lights, saieuiSes’ meteors and airslrlps. However. thele has always been a hard core of sightings that couldn’t be explained irl crsJt, and 8rt energetic grne of cat srrd mouse ensued as the pilots attmpted to lock-on to the target. But the I’FO was conventional terms. wnere trained observers such as potice ofEcers and Pilots have ieen unidentified araft doing sDeeds and manoeuwes way b;yond our capabilitie$ Britain’6 most sensational UFo case occured in 1980 in Rendleshan Forest, near the US$/RAF airbase at wood- too quick and agile, and man- ased to elude the Dilots. who eientua.lly ra-n low bn tuel ard were forced to retrlm to base. Almost 40 years lateE a num- ber of RAF Tornado jets were overtalen by a UFO over the North Sea in November 1990. No adequate explanatlon was ever forthcoming. Last year. also over the North Sea- a 900ft UFo was Pursued HE MoD was draw! when a farmer corps base. I + debate in 1985 five - ntst years after they nrst started appearing into the crop.circle Wallop, Hampshire, found a quintuplet of crop circles arrd in - Middle blamed the local Army air bridge in Sufolk- I,FO activitY- wr-s witnessed over a Senes oI nishts, then on December 26 at2am two patrolmen on a by two nghter jets before took off at l?,000mph it investisated and submiited Fhotographs and reports to A Lt.Col Edgecombe reoorts to the MoDthat detail More disturbing are the 1991, tour of the camp Perlmeier saw brisht lights among rne ndar-misses between UFOs and civil aircraft. There were FFICIAL inter- est in IIFOS has always had more to do with the visit from Martians. But in keeping an eye out for the Soviet aircraft that routinelv Drobed our air defences dui’ing the Cold War’ it soon became clear that there ’/ere other more exotrc craft operating in BritGh alr- space. Russians than any impending trees arrd wenl to investigate. Initia.lly, they thought an ajr- craft had overshoi the runway’ alihoush there was no accom- DaneirE noise. But whal they 3aw wai tltce no aircraft tiey’d ever encountered before; a two such cases tn both the MoD, a routrne procealure but one wruch gave credeoce to the uFo link and allega- tions that then Prime Minister TtEtcher had asked Marsaret for -a reporl on the Phe- nomemorr over Kent. tn 1995. the P[ots ofa Boeing ?3? encount-ered what theY described as a brightly lit UFO I have reviewed all the theories about crop clrcles while on their approach lo Manchester Ai.Port, anc believed that ii had Passed only yards ftom their aircmft- Ttris lncident was invesitgaleq and. while majry are hoaxes, there are those which have Yet to be explained; for example, why do arop samlles tak_en larse metallic, trees . obj?cf which theY chased before loslng lt amonE lne triangular from these ’genulne crrcles show distinct cellular changes. Some details ofUFO sighting UST two nights latr’ there was a srmllat sighting- This time lne There has been a steady stream of UFO leports sen( depulY base co!nr-nq!: to ihe Ministry of Defence over !83 fltrbou’"ItrT;. more than 200 f es, nles to which I have had acc.ess. rt. ard when, theY are maoe avax_ able publicly, I can Promrse Pfil$"Efi tn-rlCiteiii.’ He submltted a reDort t-o the MoD, deslnbqg the UFO as ’metglllc ln m aDDearance and trianguEr snape . some excitlng revelatlons- For three years it was mYJot) in Secretariat (Air Staff) 2A at the MoD to investlgale sucn l8-minute tape. which revears conversations betwen rrarL i-iii nii-mdn as ttrey moved Lo ur hih r 150 the movlng wlf,run r3u vorr.lq.)f within Yards ofth yellow lights. red and ^n The rcport says thai s-ud- There is also an eenc ’--’r u $llhH?s:ry;i,"’i-,ffi’ a[v- iiki stars, but giving otl and blue ugh[s’ reii. sreen dariide off in all directions rn
t DAILY MAIL I5/U/99 si:,$,:iffit"i*Fflffi:Hs ffiffi Itre U.S. ;i:H:tfili"*H* #35.itr$#fi+ffi,,*t seRuceolnneRGE Col lf M.P. Robinion ,#"lffi’#}ff"r# F."’S’."it",lf,f"T?r:!iSitHlf ii"t""E nlldrl?"*"!,:1??,:t Iae tec-hnolog.ical secrets 5i:Hif"Hs :?i fl::fff,f snort(y after going publ.ic with .nese ctaims, so took the ft mb*libEffirrii"ffi ffii",?f’lxiI"Hi##,i}i llom_ls4? - 19 Aniiiiiiiiii i$.Fii’:iL,t{iP#h^ ilpl*,11:1"’;l;lmT,1l" tr*li,i#,i:jlll}fi+ri+ ’*8rxT{’"*x{."Kx**. ilf ilteffi --, Keglrnertolyo.kshi..l tr,rtncc of __ Thc Led5 Rifles Vl.ales.s But there really isn’t anv cover-up in the UK. althoush-a letter sent from the Mot to support their own theorie6. Conspiracy theorists love are urtikely to be satisfied by ane release of papers that ddesnrt secrets to his grave. Own this sort of thlng, and tT:;$ti+Iialtlitffi ii*tii",.’ff ,,19’i:!, Jli. ?1’i the subject of B$6",1o*n My three years of ofnclal research lnto the UFO phenomenon changed rny life for ever. I’d come i.nto the job as a sceptic, but came to believe that some LfFOs misht well be extra.terrestrial- - thai, like me, they cdll come to the U.S. government in 1965 admits that MoD policy .is to gkffiH;,H,ffii# If these Eles are to be hade public, I think people are in for a big surprise, and I believe _, Fffi _ _Hightand r rarn-ing Ftetderaf( Cenlle Association rs$*t+d"t*l;i:.p 20UNCLASSIFIED
RESTRICTED
Loose Minute
CS(RM)/4/6/37
September 1998
PS/USofS *
Copy to:
APS/SofS * PS/DUS(CM) * DDC&L(F&S)Legal *
APS/Min(AF) * DGMO * DMOD *
PS/Min(DP) * Hd Sec (AS) * PRO IDO *
PS/PUS * DISN * * CHOTS only
LORD HILL-NORTON: REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF FILES
Reference: A. D/USofS/IS 28/1/0 dated 9 March 1998 (not to all)
B. D/DOMD/2/3 dated 3 April 1998
Issue
1. To provide Lord Hill-Norton with the outcome of our consideration of his request for the
early release of files on the subject of "unidentified flying objects".
Recommendation
2. That USofS responds in terms of the attached draft letter.
Timing
3. Routine.
Background
4. Lord Hill-Norton, aged 83, and Chief of the Defence Staff from 1971-73, has a long
standing interest in 'UFOs'. He approached the department earlier this year (undercover of
Reference A) pointing to the public interest in this topic and to the forthcoming Freedom of
Information Act, requesting that all closed files on the subject of UFOs be released in advance of
the normal, 30 year point.
5. In his submission dated 3 April 1998 (reference B) DOMD advised that in the region of 55
files were held with planned releases dates of 1999-2003, in addition a further 12 (with a release
date of 2004) were in the early stages of preparation for transfer to the PRO. These files concern
correspondence from members of the public reporting such occurrences, therefore question of
personal confidentiality had to be resolved.
Outcome of our review
6. Three options have been considered:
(1) obtain permission from members of the public on an individual basis to the release of
their details;
(2) remove personal details (the 55 processed files would require further examination
and sanitisation in the order of 5,500 enclosures);
(3) agree that a shorter period, say 25 rather than 30 years, was acceptable for protection
UNCLASSIFIED
RESTRICTEDUNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTED of privacy. The first option was considered time-consuming and, given the fact that we would be attempting to trace individuals whose addresses were 25 plus years old, impractical. Option two, is possible, but would represent a major diversion of resources as each file would have to be re- reviewed, a note made of every page requiring extraction/deletion of personally sensitive information and for these actions to be carried out. It is estimated some 200 man hours would be required and so as not to adversely affect our existing review and transfer programme the task spread over a six month period. For the third option advice was sought from MOD's Legal Advisers. Their advice is that the Public Record Act gives an implied override of the Department's duty to protect the third party confidentiality by use of the 30 year rule. Release of records pertaining to that period are, therefore, not a problem but the Department would be at risk of legal action for breach of confidence if it released documents containing the personal details of members of the public before the 30 year point. We have therefore concluded that, having rejected options (a) and (b), we are unable to make a block release of the files before the 30 year point. A draft letter to Lord Hill-Norton to this effect is attached. [REDACTED] Hd CS(RM) MTA8/3[REDACTED]
’r- I ’Loose Minute D/Sec(AS/64/l 8 September 1999 APS/USofS Copy to: AO/AD1 ISSUE 1 . To provide a note on the Deparunett’s interest in .UFOs’. RECOMMEND.4,TION 2. To note. DETAIL Policy 3. It is Government policy that any air defance or air traffic imprications of .uFos, are a matter for MOD and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)iespectively. MOD,s interest is limited to esrablishing from any reported silhiings it receives wlether the UK Air Defence Region has been breached by nostiteliliiry activity, and responding to any associated public correspondence. Task 9 is to maintain the integrity of the uK’s airspace. This requirement is met by the continuous recognise! air prcture (radar) and an air policing caiability. -of Any tbreat to the UK Air Defence Region would be handled in tiri tgnt ttre particular circumstances at the time (ii night, if deemed appropriate, involve the scrambling or divasion ofRAF air defence aircraft). prorr tirat perspective, reports sent to us of ’uFo’ sightings are examined, but consurtation with ai.d"f*." others as necessaxy is considered only where there is suffrcient evidence to suggest a breach.of UK air_space: such as reports from credible witnesses (pilots, air trJfic controllers. etc); those supported by photographic, video or docuientary evidence; 4’ Mlitary sLff*d corroboration by a number ofwitnesses; or are ofa phanomenon currently being observed and might, therefore, be capable ofdetection. Only a handful oi."pori, in recent years in these categories and firther investigation of 11* them has fbund no evidence ofa threat. |*i*.i"ed Airprox Reports mele miti^tary or civilian pilot considers that his aircraft h25 6sffi en4engered by 1 l the proximity of another aircraft (including any flying object hewas unable to
identify), or in regulated airspace where an Air Traffic Controller believes there has been the risk of a collision, the pilot or ATC would be obliged to file an airmiss report (Airprox). Spaceguard Programme 6. The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for the Spaceguard Programme. We understand that there are currently no plans to set up a national spaceguard agency; the potential threat of impact by near earth objects (such as asteroids) is taken very seriously but they regard this as an issue where a common international approach is essential. In June, the House of Lords debated the Spaceguard Programme; Lord Sainsbury, Minister for Science at the DTI, led the debate for the Government. Role of Sec(AS)2 7. Sec(AS)2 is the focal point within MOD for the Government's limited interest in 'UFOs'. A 24-hour answerphone is provided so that members of the public can telephone through sighting reports. Reports made elsewhere, either to military establishments, air traffic control centres or the civilian police, all eventually make their way to Sec(AS)2 where each report is considered only to establish whether it has any defence significance. Some 230 sighting reports and 250 letters were received last year; so far this year c150 reports and 160 letters have been received. Sec(AS)2 is not constituted as a 'UFO' information bureau. There are no defence resources allocated for this purpose and, where there is no evidence in a report of defence concern, no action is taken to try and identify what might have been seen. From the types of descriptions generally received, aircraft or natural phenomena probably account for most of the observations. 8. Some 'ufologists' are unhappy with MOD's limited interest. A small number lobby vociferously for defence funds to be used for 'UFO' research, have their own agenda for such work and use all possible avenues (eg writing to the Prime Minister, other Government Departments, the media etc) to pursue their aims. All such approaches find their way to MOD, Sec(AS) for action. 'UFO' Files 9. As is the case with other Government files, MOD files are subject to the provisions of the Public Records Act of 1958 and 1967 and official files generally remain closed for 30 years. Prior to 1967 it was the case that 'UFO' files were destroyed after five years as there was insufficient interest in the subject to warrant their retention. However, since 1967 all 'UFO' files have been preserved and routinely released to the Public Record Office at the 30-year point. 10. For some time, Lord Hill Norton, the only Parliamentarian with any interest in 'UFOs', has been asking that all files containing 'UFO' information be released to the PRO ahead of the 30-year point. We have looked carefully to see whether this is possible. However, in the absence of a Departmental-wide file database and without knowing the details of all the originating branches, a manual search of in excess of one million files at two main MOD archives would be necessary to locate and list
them. In November last year the location of some 55 'UFO' files was established. The files contain personal details of all those contacting and corresponding with the Department. Legal advice was sought: the Public Record Act gives an implied override of the Department's duty to protect the third party confidentiality by use of the 30-year rule. Release after that date would present no problems to MOD, but release in advance would lay the Department open to the risk of legal action for breach of confidence. To remove the personal details from these files would be a time consuming task. Staff in CS(RM), the MOD's Records Branch would need to be diverted from their essential tasks to manually scrutinise and sanitise some 5,000 pages on the files. The knock-on effect would be a major disruption to the Department's overall programme for the release of files to the PRO and cannot be justified. Mr Nicholas Pope 11. An ex-Sec(AS)2 employee, Nick Pope, has published two books on 'UFO' matters since leaving the branch in 1994: 'Open Skies, Closed Minds' and 'The Uninvited', the latter about alien abduction. A third book, about an alien invasion of the UK, is likely to be published next month. In all three books Mr Pope puts forward his personal views and is critical of MOD's limited interest in 'UFOs'. The two books already published resulted in an increase in media and public interest in 'UFOs', which in turn led to temporary increases in the number of enquiries and sighting reports received. Mr Pope continues to be employed by the Department. CONCLUSION 12. There is no evidence to support the view that the UK Air Defence Region is being breached by hostile foreign military activity or anything else. There are no plans to change Government policy on 'UFOs' or implement a research programme to investigate 'ufologists' claims. We are unable to release to the PRO all 'UFO' files because there is a need to maintain third party confidentiality. [REDACTED] Sec(AS)2 MB8247 87065MB CHOTS: SEC(AS)2 Fax: M[REDACTED] Personal/Parliament/ufos@brief99
6+tl 3o 441 Written Answers 19 ocToBER 1999 EU Readmission Issus Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards the claim of the European Commission that the EU should have competence over readmission issues. I94l33l Amsterdam Treaty, matters conceming immigiation and asylum co-operation are now contained within Title IV of the Treaty establishing the European Community and or by the prison. The Prison Service has made arrangements for eligible prisoners to- undertake degree and othir higher educiii-oi cgyrsel wlth rh Open Universiry. These ian Ue tunaeJ elmef by the pnsoner. a relative, though a charitable trust M Hom guidr force Mrs. Roche: Following the entry into force of the are therefore within Cofiirnunity competence. The In addition, the Open University has a system of financial suppon which it has agreed, as irom thi the academic- year starting February ZOOO, lt wi extena lo pay the fees for continuing st;dents in priron *J f,ui allocated up to f100,000 foi this prtpose. Freedom of Information M the I offi, Govemment is of the view that readmission issues could fall within rhe scope of Article 63(3Xb) TEC which provides for measures on immigration policy within the area of removal of illegal residents. Under the terms of the protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and lreland, annexed ro the Treaties bv M Hom inqui docu POw( the Treaty of Amsrerdam, the Unired Kinedom mav decide to participate in the adoption and app’lication oi Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for the -- Home Department ifhe will authorise correspondence anj papers between Ministers and their US counierparts to be made available for public access, simultaneois simultaneous to tfrei. their availability rntegrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union would also be relevant. Title IV, but it is not otherwise bouncl -by Community law in this area. Should any readmission measures be considered to be a develoDment of the Schengen acquis. the provisions of the protocol mgTu.eJt Ty forward in including readmission measures, brought courtry’s freedom of information legislation; will ma-ke a statement. in the USA under the provisions of thal and if he te4385l servi the r (Mis Prison Education Secrerary of Srate for the Home Department what factors are used to determine the allocation of resources for postgraduate education courses Mr, Mackinlay: To ask the to pnsoners serving lengthy prison sentences. t947041 prisoners, but there are opponunities for eligible prisoneri Mr. Boateng: The main priority for the prison Service is.to raise the- levels of literacy and numeracy among resources disclosure would nor be in rhe public interest- ivnifrt Ur. Looe or ftacuce ldenuties categories of information that are exempt from the commitment to provide information, where there is a reference to harm or prejudice, there is ttre presumption that information stroutd Ue OiscloseJ unless the harm likely to arise from disclosure would outweigh the public interest in making the information available. The Code of practice is a non_statutory regime which the Govemment plan to replace wirh a Freedo"m of lntormaton Act. It will, however. continue to operate the Code of Practice until a new Act is brought ii,to forie. Code of practice on Access to Govemment Information sets out current Govemmeni policy oo access to information. The Code of practici promotes a u culture of opennss. It makes the assumption -P-*g,a.a that rntorrnatron should be release.d except excenr where where Mr. Straw: The M conf by ti head Metr conti comi avOlr Mait 9Ar M the to pursue courses of higher education where allow. Th Govemment plan to introduce a- Freedom of parliament Information Bill into allows. as soon as the timetable Crin sam{ qualification. Resources to pay for rhis could either iome Irom the govemor’s budget. a chariuble organisation or rrom the pnsoner or a relative. _- A prisoner would be deemed eligible if as a result of assessment a higher degree course was a requirement ol ,the-.sentence plan. It would be necessary prior to embarking on this course of study for the priioner to demonstrate that he or she was capable of anainine the Information, Consultation on Draft Legislation. Under the provisions contained in the Bill, public authorities, including all central govemment departments, will have a duty.to comply_with requests promptly and in any event wrtiin a specified lime limit. Where rhe informarion solrght falls into_ an exempt area, it will be for the Intormation should be disclosed in the public interest, This will ensure that proper consideratio; is siven to all requests by.rhe_ aurhority. This is the appro-priate way torward. It is for &e United Kingdom b-ovimment to derrelop legislation which is appropriale to the needs of lllr 9ountr]: lr _would be wrong to subject Unired aurnonry to consrder, on a case by case basis, whether the . The Government’s proposals for a Freedom of lnronnanon Act are contained wirhin Freedom of heter l\4 cons tbis ofa Viol Con eligi one courses. of- study to funher degree level in each prison; what criteria are applied in deciding the allocation oithese Home Depafiment what resources are available for Mn Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for the \r exer put 1 give resu resources; and if he will make a statement. t945831 degree courses. Before any application can be approved. the govemor and education o-ficer need to thar rhe prisoner has rhe aplirude. abitity and !":.r,irl.d mouvatron to complete 1ld -there is no predetermined level of funding speciiically for Ievels of Iiteracy and numeracy among prisoners, but there afe opportunides for eligible prisoners to puffue higher education studies. Each application is considered on its Mr._Boateng: lt is for prison governors to decide how much trom their annual budget to allocate to education. lhe main priority of the prison Service is to raise the Arngdom authonties to the scope of foreign legislation in ue context ot therr actrvities in this country- It is for the Parliament of the United Kingdom to decidj such matten, not the congress of the United States of America. to si foru rnenl:, . The draft Bill was rhe subjecr of pre-legislative 5crutiny by the Public Adminisrrarion Select Coirminee, as weil as a Select Committee of the House of Lords anda pedod of public consultation. Tbe Govemment will respond to the recommendations of the Select Committees ani ro the[REDACTED] 6411 21 Oct 99. [REDACTED] called this [REDACTED] morning. [REDACTED] the Politics Editor of The Times has been in touch with USofS about 'UFOs'. USofS is considering whether to have a meeting with [REDACTED] to discuss 'UFOs' face to face. What are your views? Please call [REDACTED] back on x[REDACTED] I looked through our Press Cuttings file (attached) + there haven't been any big articles in The Times recently on 'UFOs'. There was an article in July on the Saturday but it was mostly about the United States not the UK or MOD (see enc 109). [REDACTED] will be leaving tonight at 1730 - 1745. If you're not back in time to call him, give him a ring in the morning. [REDACTED] PTO.
[REDACTED] decided to advise USofS's office to tell [REDACTED] to go to the Press Office + get a written statement of MOD's role. He is still a journalist + should not be treated differently.
From: [REDACTED] Secretariat (Air Staff)2
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Room 8247, Main Building, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2HB
Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218[REDACTED]
(Switchboard) 0171 218[REDACTED]
(Fax) 0171 218[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
Air Attache
French Embassy
58 Knightsbridge
London SW1X 7JT
Our Reference
D/Sec(AS)64/1
Date
1 October 1999
Dear [REDACTED],
We spoke on Wednesday evening about a request you had received from a retired French
Air Force Air Marshal for information about the way the Ministry of Defence deals with reports
of 'unidentified flying objects'. I said I would send you a note; this is attached.
Yours sincerely
[REDACTED]It is UK Govef,nment policy that any air deforce or air traffic implications of ’UFOs’ are a matter for UK MOD and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) respectively. UK MOD’s interest is limited to establishing from any reported sightings it receives whether the UK Air Defence Region has been breached by hostile military activity, and responding to any associated public correspondence. The military requirement to maintain the integrity of the IIK’s airspace is met by a continuous recognised air picture (radar) and an air policing capability. Any tlreat to the UK Air Defence Region would be handled h the light of the particular circumstances at the time (it might, if deemed appropriate, involve the scrambling or diversion of air defence aircraft). From ttrat perspective, reports provided to us of ’UFO’ sightings are examined, but consultation with air defence staff and others as necessary is considered only where there is sufficient widence to suggest a breach ofUK air space. Only a handful of reports have been received in recent years tlat waranted fruther investigation and none revealed any evidence of a tlreat. Where a military or civilian pilot considerEd that his aircraft had been endangered by the proximity of another aircraft (including any flying object that he was unable to identifu), or in regulated airspace where an Air Traffrc Controller believed tlere had been tle risk of a collision, the pilot or ATC would be obliged to file an airmiss report (Airprox). Secretariat(Air Staff;2 is the focal poirrt within UK MOD for the UK Govenmrent’s limited intetest in ’UFOs’ and a 24-hour answerphone is provided so that anyone can telephone through sighting reports. There is no special form for reporting a sighting; hformation such as the datg t:me, location and a description of what has been seen can also be sent to the MOD by Ietter, e-mail or fax. Sighting reports made elsewhere, either to military establishments, air trafiic control centres or the civilian police, are also forwarded to Sec(AS)2. Each report is considered only to establish whether it has any defence significance. Although Sec(AS)2 is the focal point for dealing with any ’UFO’ related public correspondencg it is not constituted as a ’UFO’ information bureau. There are no defence resources allocated for this purpose and" where tlere is no evidence in a sighting report or letter of defence concern, no action is taken to try and identify what might have been seen.
,*xr TX C0f.tF IEftTtTION REPOET .r{* F5 trF I DCT ’5! 14:24 FiE,, Ft5 3 FAGE.Al DATE I It.lE A1 lll,’ I 14:!: Tn FR{l’ll E ll t,SEt FG5 Ei:--g i1^El Df ltr-rf STF]TL|S n^v Loose Minute D/Sec(AS/64/1 8 September 1999 APS/USofS Copy to: AO/AD1 (UNIDENTIFIED T’LYING OBJECTS’ ISSUE - MOD INTEREST l. To provide a note on tle Deparftnent’s interest in ’UFOs’ RECOMMEI\DATION 2. To note. DETAIL Policy 3. It is Govemment poiicy that any air defence or air traffic implications of ’tIFOs ’ are a matter for MOD and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) respectively. MOD’s interest is limited to establishing from any reported sightings it receives whether the UK Air Defence Region has been t’reached by hostile military activiry, aild responding to any associated public correspondence. 4. Military Task 9 is to maintain the integrity of the IJK’s airspace. This requirement is met by tle continuous recognised air picnre (radar) and an air policing capability. Any threat to the UK Air Defence Region would be handled in the light of the particular circumstances at the time (it might, if deemed appropriate, involve the scrambling or diversion of RAF air defence aircraft). From that perspective, reports sent to us of ’UFO’ sightings are examined but consultation witl air defence staff and others as necessary is considered only where there is sufficient evidence to suggest a breach of UK air space: such as reports from credible witnesses (pilots, air traffic controllers etc); those supported by photographic, video or documentary evidence; corroboration by a number of witnesses; or are ofa phoromoron currently being observed and might, therefore, be capable of detection. Only a handful of repofts have been received in recent years in tlese categories and fillher investigation of tlem has found no widence of a threat. Airprox Reports or civilian pilot considers tlat his aircraft has been enCangered by proximity the of another aircraft (including any flying object he was unable to 5. Where a military
identify), or in regulated airspace where an Air Traffic Controller believes there has been the risk of a collision, the pilot or ATC would be obliged to file an airmiss report (Airprox). Spaceguard Programme 6. The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for the Spaceguard Programme. We understand that there are currently no plans to set up a national spaceguard agency; the potential threat of impact by near earth objects (such as asteroids) is taken very seriously but they regard this as an issue where a common international approach is essential. In June, the House of Lords debated the Spaceguard Programme; Lord Sainsbury, Minister for Science at the DTI, led the debate for the Government. Role of Sec(AS)2 7. Sec(AS)2 is the focal point within MOD for the Government's limited interest in 'UFOs'. A 24-hour answerphone is provided so that members of the public can telephone through sighting reports. Reports made elsewhere, either to military establishments, air traffic control centres or the civilian police, all eventually make their way to Sec(AS)2 where each report is considered only to establish whether it has any defence significance. Some 230 sighting reports and 250 letters were received last year; so far this year c150 reports and 160 letters have been received. Sec(AS)2 is not constituted as a 'UFO' information bureau. There are no defence resources allocated for this purpose and, where there is no evidence in a report of defence concern, no action is taken to try and identify what might have been seen. From the types of descriptions generally received, aircraft or natural phenomena probably account for most of the observations. 8. Some 'ufologists' are unhappy with MOD's limited interest. A small number lobby vociferously for defence funds to be used for 'UFO' research, have their own agenda for such work and use all possible avenues (eg writing to the Prime Minister, other Government Departments, the media etc) to pursue their aims. All such approaches find their way to MOD, Sec(AS) for action. 'UFO' Files 9. As is the case with other Government files, MOD files are subject to the provisions of the Public Records Act of 1958 and 1967 and official files generally remain closed for 30 years. Prior to 1967 it was the case that 'UFO' files were destroyed after five years as there was insufficient interest in the subject to warrant their retention. However, since 1967 all 'UFO' files have been preserved and routinely released to the Public Record Office at the 30-year point. 10. For some time, Lord Hill Norton, the only Parliamentarian with any interest in 'UFOs', has been asking that all files containing 'UFO' information be released to the PRO ahead of the 30-year point. We have looked carefully to see whether this is possible. However, in the absence of a Departmental-wide file database and without knowing the details of all the originating branches, a manual search of in excess of one million files at two main MOD archives would be necessary to locate and list
them. In November last year the location of some 55 'UFO' files was established. The files contain personal details of all those contacting and corresponding with the Department. Legal advice was sought: the Public Record Act gives an implied override of the Department's duty to protect the third party confidentiality by use of the 30-year rule. Release after that date would present no problems to MOD, but release in advance would lay the Department open to the risk of legal action for breach of confidence. To remove the personal details from these files would be a time consuming task. Staff in CS(RM), the MOD's Records Branch would need to be diverted from their essential tasks to manually scrutinise and sanitise some 5,000 pages on the files. The knock-on effect would be a major disruption to the Department's overall programme for the release of files to the PRO and cannot be justified. Mr Nicholas Pope 11. An ex-Sec(AS)2 employee, Nick Pope, has published two books on 'UFO' matters since leaving the branch in 1994: 'Open Skies, Closed Minds' and 'The Uninvited', the latter about alien abduction. A third book, about an alien invasion of the UK, is likely to be published next month. In all three books Mr Pope puts forward his personal views and is critical of MOD's limited interest in 'UFOs'. The two books already published resulted in an increase in media and public interest in 'UFOs', which in turn led to temporary increases in the number of enquiries and sighting reports received. Mr Pope continues to be employed by the Department. CONCLUSION 12. There is no evidence to support the view that the UK Air Defence Region is being breached by hostile foreign military activity or anything else. There are no plans to change Government policy on 'UFOs' or implement a research programme to investigate 'ufologists' claims. We are unable to release to the PRO all 'UFO' files because there is a need to maintain third party confidentiality. [REDACTED] Sec(AS)2 MB8247 [REDACTED] CHOTS: SEC(AS)2 Fax: MB[REDACTED] Personal/Parliament/ufos@brief99
Not to be communicated to anyone outside HM Service without authority DCI GEN 223 1999 Defence Council Instructions General [REDACTED] MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 6 August 1999 DCIs are automatically cancelled after one year Contents 223 Open Government
223/99 Open Government [D/DOMD/2/3:84814MB] About this DCI 1. This DCI provides guidance on the way in which Government information should be released or retained, including how to deal with queries from members of the public, Parliamentary Questions and Parliamentary Enquiries about the work of the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Armed Services. It is based on the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Second Edition, 1997) and supersedes DCI 54/98. All employees of the MOD, its Agencies, Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) and the Armed Forces should be familiar with this guidance and ensure that it is fully and consistently applied. Copies of this DCI and Guidance on Interpretation of the Code can be found on MODWeb under 'Policy' then 'The Machinery of Government: Open Government in the Ministry of Defence', on DAWN under DCIs on the PE Knowledge Base, via the Internet at http://www.mod.uk/policy/opengov/policy.htm, and from OMD14 on 84814MB. Further specialist advice on the disclosure of both official and personal information may be obtained from C&L(F&S)Legal 1. 2. This DCI has been produced by the Directorate of Organisation and Management Development (DOMD). DOMD is responsible for MOD policy on openness, monitoring the Code, and handling appeals. A list of useful guidance and contacts is at ANNEX A. Freedom of Information 3. A Freedom of Information White Paper, 'Your Right to Know', was published in December 1997. This has now been followed by the publication of a Draft Freedom of Information Bill on 24 May 99. Following a period of consultation the Government is committed to introducing the Bill to Parliament as soon as the legislative programme allows. The purpose of the legislation 'is to increase openness and accountability by ending unnecessary secrecy in the public sector' by establishing a general statutory right of access to official records and information, and is linked with the general drive for higher standards of service. FUS reiterated MOD's position in Paper Clips (June 1999): 'We should see Freedom of Information as an opportunity to carry forward existing Departmental policy to be more open about Defence matters....Freedom of information is about changing culture in favour of openness, and in recognising that more of our business may be open to disclosure than at present.' Advice on how to operate the Act when it enters into force and procedures to be followed will be provided in due course. Contacts for further information are listed under ANNEX A. Applying the Code of Practice 4. In the meantime, the Government has made it clear that it wishes to continue to use the existing non-statutory Code of Practice as the basis for greater openness in government. Staff should note that the Code sets a minimum standard for
k. Other developments. This would include any other relevant developments
over the year. Please also include specific examples of Code requests which
have resulted in disclosure. These might include instances where
information has been disclosed for the first time or where a request has
resulted in a change in policy towards disclosure.
l. Progress on review of information currently withheld. Please provide
details of any progress made regarding reviews of previously withheld
material, including examples of any information or records which have
been made available.
4. As stated above, those divisions receiving large numbers of requests are not
expected to undertake fully comprehensive monitoring. The information requested
may be obtained by sampling requests over a shorter period and extrapolating a
figure for the year. You should note, however, that the operation of the Code is
subject to audit and, therefore ensure that returns are as accurate as possible.
Government openness. All parts of the MOD must, as a matter of policy, take a
positive approach to the release of information and work on the presumption that
information should be made available. This applies equally to dealings with
members of the public and in responding to Parliamentary Questions and
Parliamentary Enquiries.
5. Proposals that information should be withheld must be balanced with any
public interest in disclosure. The Code includes exemptions (see Annex B) which
specify when disclosure may be refused for specific reasons because it is not in the
public interest, and a justification must be given in terms of the Code. The
exemptions should be interpreted narrowly. Information should not be withheld
simply because it is routinely classified within the MOD; the need for the
classification should be re-examined in the light of the Department's policy on
openness and the terms of the Code. Ways to disclose information should always be
sought before refusing part of a document. Staff are encouraged to seek advice from
OMD14 in all cases when it is proposed that information should be withheld.
6. The following information should be made routinely available:
• Facts and analysis of the facts considered relevant and important in framing
major policy proposals and decisions;
• Explanatory material, including internal guidance on dealings with the
public and on rules and procedures;
• Reasons for administrative decisions; and
• Full information about how public services are run, including details of any
service standards and performance in relation to these.
Copies of documents of particular significance released to the public covering these
and other areas should be sent to the Chief Librarian.
7. In addition, staff are encouraged to identify discrete blocks of records of more
than ordinary interest to the public, which could be released to the Public Record
Office ahead of the normal 30 year point. Details should be passed to: Defence
Records 1 (DR1), Room A/82, Metropole Building, Northumberland Avenue,
London WC2N 5BP; Tel: [REDACTED]
Handling requests for information
8. The MOD has a duty to respond positively to any request for information
(whether or not the Code has been specifically mentioned in the request). Failure to
do so could result in an appeal to the Ombudsman (Parliamentary Commissioner
for Administration) and ultimately to censure. In general, information should be
released in the most cost effective manner. Where an individual has requested
information contained within a specific document or report, and there is no
information within that document or report, it may be easier to disclose the
whole document or report. DR1 and DOMD should be advised when a whole
document is released.
14 Printed in the United Kingdom for The Stationery Office
0-10-895302029/4B 3/99 C112 (3/00 10/70
3,x EE 99", 3p "qon E^5 P x u F Hle 5* H !gE # r’ E !j H’!6 ,E t 3 Hd * E;.8 :{ E iie ,Hi’ :Y-9E 3 :R E { E il E g igrui ii, Bi Ei ii {g stigteFiEtljlii,Ee G E P,0 F I 9sc g 0s 0 EF #l; 5Fe s ; sF X5 : - gf g g EgEf ’5i Eii rE’E aEiIiEEiIiEEEgti{Eg- iesi ;gffai EiFi iE E{i iia iiF o"i a Fti [eEE *ac crrr egi$ilg [*t[i*+; e e g el i*Eg argE { i n’r i rEEgiE[i g g?’$}E I F t’?El [ ii$; FigEEg[g giiii tF[3iE[F$gili*gEEEiiE e e. 6 E.ANNEX A Useful guidance and contacts Open Government, and the Contents of this DCI: OMD14, Room 617, Northumberland House, Northumberland Avenue, London WC2N 5BP; Tel: [REDACTED] Freedom of Information: OMD/AD(E&MG), Room 617, Northumberland House, Northumberland Avenue, London WC2N 5BP; Tel: [REDACTED] Information can also be found on MODWeb under 'Policy' then 'The Machinery of Government: Open Government in the Ministry of Defence' or on the Home Office website (http://www.homeoffice. gov.uk/foi). Note: Further advice will be provided in due course. Disclosure of Official and Personal Information: DC&L(F&S)Legal 1, Room 3/18, Metropole Building, Northumberland Avenue, London WC2N 5BP; tel: [REDACTED] Management of Records: Defence Records 1, Room A/82, Metropole Building, Northumberland Avenue, London WC2N 5BP; Tel: [REDACTED] PQs and PEs: The KITE (Keep It To Essentials) booklet, 'Parliamentary Business:Guidance on drafting answers to PQs (a 1997 DCI) can be found on MODWeb under 'Instructions' then 'DCIs', and on DAWN under DCIs on the PE Knowledge Base. Environmental Information: Annex 3 of JSP 418 Public Enquiries Office: 0171 2186645 Complaints Contact Point: [REDACTED] Assistant Parliamentary Clerk. Room 6134MB, Parliamentary Branch; tel: [REDACTED] Media ContactPoint: Press Office; Tel: [REDACTED] ANNEX C Recommended text when withholding / charging for information etc. 1. If with holding information (reference to a Code exemption and the paragraph explaining appeals must be included wherever information is withheld). If it is necessary to withhold some or all of the information requested under the Code, an explanation must always be given within the terms of the Code. Where possible, try to include any additional explanation (specifically what harm would be caused by disclosure): 'I am withholding this information in accordance with Exemption (e.g. 1) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to (e.g. defence, security and international relations). If you are unhappy with this decision and wish to appeal against it, you should write in the first instance to Ministry of Defence, DOMD, Room 619, Northumberland Avenue, London WC2N 5BP. If, following the internal review you remain dissatisfied, you can ask your MP to take up the case with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (the Ombudsman) who can investigate on your behalf. The Ombudsman will not investigate until the internal review process has been completed.' 2. If it will be necessary to charge an enquirer for information 'The Ministry of Defence is bound by the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. This means that we are committed to providing you with the information you require, as long as it is not exempted under the Code. However, to ensure that this does not create an extra burden on the taxpayer, we have a charging regime for more complicated requests. If a request is likely to require over four hours' work, each hour's work over four hours for preparation is charged at £15 per hour. I am writing to inform you that your enquiry will take more than four hours to deal with. Our estimate is that we will have to charge you £x. I would be grateful for confirmation that you wish to proceed with this enquiry and that you are willing to meet this charge. If the cost of obtaining the information is likely to be significantly greater than our estimate suggests we will contact you again before proceeding further.' 3. Disclaimer. The following disclaimer should be used if necessary: 'The information released to you was originally produced and retained solely for MOD purposes and, whilst every effort has been made to ensure its accuracy and completeness, no warranty can be given as to its accuracy or to its suitability for any other purpose. The MOD accepts no liability for loss or damage resulting from the use of this information.' 4. Copyright. Given the spirit of the Code, further copying and use of material should not normally be limited. If, however in a particular case, you wish to limit reproduction, the following wording should be used: '(C) Crown copyright reserved. For permission to reproduce, please apply to the Controller of HMSO.'
-F ea c*i +cJ.<o! x t$ d*i sts Eti [’i $3i aggE F .g6R.k grii ls4* ’BH; $ Yti> FFg $F r’ eQ= I gH u,Ei i[ riii $ ?+r-3 { E[i qFrg ifE A C gH FdP HESfi e g ;gE E: bi 3 ig{ H q* 5:" gg d5. Fe Iggg*eilg*iiitlffil Ef,E$gIiiEF3iFi -l I rf,# xEP9 E.5i.: ++rA eif*q E:aYe &Fas ;s*$fr ^e H. 3:. E si gH H = Bg g Es u*F $ $ g; d ii ; tr-v v H :H E: A rEallg:ggg;:+tE;; $;,g;ececEEEsii $E$gF;*.ttaxa’ltE5 $s$FEEgiiEsgflii;i; ig- ;"- EJi E #: ffi;i FB E$ElEEi $;;e eE E gEE guiEi $;- F., cEt{ $iE5R;! E Eig FgiF E*g s { di d EE d giE :E EE :E3E H 5gAE EggFFigig;iii,iEEF’EiEigg6qt \ D9 ’ Welsh Assembly aul UK Govemmcnt tt5 JTJNE 19991 a Spaceguard Programme 4laolved bodies and central government. If, as they arc to be published they are available for Jrality, Dublic ssutrny and comment. Viscount Waverley: My Lords, is it considered that concordats in Welsh placed in the Library will rcmain confidential? lnrd Williams of Mostyn: My L,ords, they will not be confidential because my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, the noble Lord, Lord Robens, and I will have read them. Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, will the concordats to be made between the UK Govemment and the Welsh Assembly be debated in this House of Parliament? and the Spaceguard Foundation among otl European Space Agency is also mounting a produce a system for the co-ordination world-wide capability in near earth object At the prsent moment, the Governmenr plans to set up a national spaceguard agency, I will consider the possibility when we receive the of the Turin meeting. Any additional work undertaken in the UK must have bene{it over and above that beins taken internationally. *;5 LCIs) Science Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, no, that is not the intention. The relevant territorial Secretary of State will be authorised on behalf of the UK Parliament to enter into those agreements. It is then a matter for the devolved bodies as to what they want to debate, in what detail and in what form. It is entirely a matter for the Assembly, but I would expect that some ofthe concordats or memoranda ofunderstanding will be debated. Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the Minister has been most helpful, but can he tell the House a little more about what has been referred to in the other place as the interest. [s he aware of the most recent astronomi;al data which forccasts that a potentially hazardous asteroid desiglated 1999 AN 10, weighing approximaiely 2 million tonnes and a kilometre in size, will miss thl earth by only 24,000 miles on 7th August 2027 and will possibly impact on its return in 20.44? Is he also aware that, unlike a NATO missile which travels at appmximately 500 miles an hour on a pre-pmgrammed trajectory, AN l0 is approaching earth at 25,000 miles an hour on a chaotic orbit and will reqBire a more detailed observational data before the International Astronomical Union can definitelv cenifv it as harmless in the years following irs approaih in thl year 2027? therefore ask the noble Lord the Minister for somewhat technical-how does he intend to calculate the risk for the next generation posed by the low probability but high consequence threat of 1999 AN l0 and other potentially hazardous asteroids which have a non-zero impact probability? Lord Tanlaw: My l,ords, I thank the Minister for for that Answer, which I shall study with "overarching" concordat dealing wirh the ielationship between the Welsh Assembly and the UK representative in Brussels? What is the further scope of that concordat and does it involve Scotland too? May I Science-I am sorry, but the issue is Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am happy to assist your Lordships in answering that question. The overarching concordats-they are plural-ielate to questions of Europe, intemational relations, statistics and inward investment between the United Kinsdom Covernmenr and the devolved bodies- That is pan 6f the continuing process ofdebare and negotiation tajdng place at the moment. noble Lord the Minister for l0 per cent of near earth obiects which could be classified as hazardous have been Science aware that only Furthermore, is the identified so far? of the situation and all that information on asteroid Spaceguard Programme ?.50 p.m. Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am aware 1999 Lord Tanlaw asked Her Majesty’s Government: What steps ate being taken to form a national spaceguard centxe, as part of a European spaceguard programme, to improve the assessment and probability factor of impact hazard of a near earth object on the continent of Europe or in the seas sunounding it. extremely rcmote. It is important that this information is transmitted regularly and we hope that in due course the spaceguard website will convey the information to the public. _ estimated probabiliry is one in 500,000 of collidins with the eafth during im 2024 encounter. It is the’refore AN 10. It was discovered in January. The D-epartment of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville); My Lords, the Government take the _ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord McConnell: My Lords, does the Minister agree if such a centre is to be established in the United Kingdom the obyious place is fumagh observatory in Northern Ireland where they have the experience, have undertaken a great deal of research and where work can that be carried out most effectively? - potential tbreat seriously, but we rcgard it as an issue where a common utemational approach is essential. The UK therefore supported a recent workshop on monitoring programmes Ior asteroids and comets in Turin eadier this month, which was sponsored by the European Space Agency of impact by near earth objects very Lord Sainsbury of Turvilte: My tnrds, one of the key issues in this regard is that any programme of detection or deflection should be on an international basis- [n view of the fact that we would not be able to tell where such things were going to land until the last moment, it would be absurd if each country were to ’l3l Spaceguard Programme lLoRDSl Kosovo: Retuhr of Refuge.s l)L [Lono Se,rNsaurv or Turvrur] have its own detection and deflection programme. Therefore, it is important that we have an intemational effort. The ESA is working on an international effort. When it has been produced we will examine what contribution we can make and the Armagh observatory will be an obvious candidate to play a part in that. to preserve their civilised past for the current seneradon, should they not be equally preDared to oiv for the pJservauon of a civilised future fo, rbe nexieJneration? Would not a first step in this direction U" ti-roUr"riUe to a national spaceguard centre as pafl of a European contribution to a global spaceguard programme which couro Denelrt the tuture of all mankind? Lord Winston: My t ords, in addition to consulting other agencies, has the Minister considered consulting the right reverend Prelates? Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My t ords, I believe that prayer would certainly be a key part of any strategy. Viscount Davidson: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the asteroid has already landed and is called Therefore, we propose to work throueh ESA. Of all subjecrs which come hefore rhis Housi, this is one in respect of which an international effort is the key. exkemely small, the impact of any object more than a kilometre in length couid be consideratle. rmpact_ are .Lord.Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I would not wish to imply in any way that this is a rrivial issue. It is a serious issue because mainly. while the chances of We shall play our part in that rather than independently. acting William Hague? Baroness Nicol; My Lords, am I right in believing in the odds quoted by the Minister are twice as good as the Kosovo: Return of Refugees 2.57 p.m. odds of winning the lottery? Does not that give him cause for concem? Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the odds are extremely remote and are comparable to winning the National Lottery. That means we should have one instance about every 100,000 years. Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty’s Govemment: Wlat preparations are being made for creating conditions in Kosovo which will encourage refugees to return there once a settlement of the disDute with Yugoslavia has been achieved. Baroness Amos: My l-ords, the refugees are keen to retum to Kosovo as soon as their security is guaranteed. As the intemational security presence is established in Kosovo and as Federal Republic of Yugoslavia security forces withdraw, so we, in close collaboration with the military and UN, can begin the considerable task of Lord Mackie of Benshie: My l-ords, how Minister propose to deflect these objects? does the consideration in deflection, if it ever gets to that point, is that the longer time one has between the time one observes the object and the time of impact the easjer it is to deflect it because one can deal with less force. A number of proposals haye been made ranging from Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the main impact on the asteroid, detonation on the surface of the asteroid. Clearly, in most cases, if we observe it early enough it would be possible to think rf a strategy to deal with it. to nuclear weapons, to providing the displaced persons and refugees with humanitarian support and assistance to rebuild their homes and essential infrastructure. The Department for Intemational Development is currently establithing a field office in Pristina in order to better assist with this task. Lord Blaker: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that statement. However, perhaps I Inay express my Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the fact that the name of spaceguard and the concept of it was devised many years ago by the eminent science fiction writer, Arthur C. Clarke, now Sir Arthur Clarke, who is a British subject and has his own telescope? Does that not fumish a very shong reason why we should have our o*n national agency, no doubt working with the international agencies, in order to draw on the great experience and imagination of that great v,Titer? by her noble friend Lady not an aid question. disappointment that this Question is not being answered Symons who I informed yesterday that my Question would be a political one and I want to refer to a matter which I believe is relevant to the question of the enthusiasm or Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, must disagree. There are more important considerations as to whether we have our own agency. The first question is whether work should.be done by any of the current bodies rather than invoking new agencies. Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister has been subjected to the giggle-factor, which is a problem involved with this subject. Does he agree on the general principle that if nations are prepared to pay I lack of enthusiasm of the refugees to retum to Kosovo; that is, the risk of continuing friction or disagreement between NATO and the Russians which could certainly discourage refugees retuming. Given the helpful role of Russia in securing the cease-fire and the known willingness of Russia to provide troops, is it not surprising that no role was provided for Russian troops in the military agreement? I am not justifying Russian action in relation to Pristina airport but it is important to understand why they may have taken this action. Noble tords: Order! to my Lord Blaker: My Lords, w.ith silence, I shall come Question. President Yeltsin referred to the
a *-.r’" rts-=-Crre 1999 ast month, the Govemment published a draft lreedom of Information (FOI) Bill for a period of public consultatron. More wide ranging than the present Code of Practice on Access to Govemment Information (it will apply not just to central Goyemment, but t0 many more bodies, such as local authorities, the NHS and the Police), the subsequent FOI Act wiil have the follo’r’ing key features: . it will glve anyone a right of access to information held by public authorities, enforceable in law; it will normally require the release of documents where requested, not just of information; it will establish an Information Commissioner with the power to overnrrn a Deoartment’s decision to withhold information and order disclosure; recognising that certain information should be protected from disclosure, it will contain a number of exemptions allowing for non- disclosure of information for a variety of reasons including national security, defence, international relations, personal privaq/, and commercial interests. Vexatious requests and those which could only be answered at disproportionate cost, can also be refused. The PUS, Kevin Tebbit, wites about what this will mean for MOD. "Giving people a right of access to information is part 0f the wider programme to Govemment. It is therefore modernise al important development in the way we work. Although Govemment Deparhents have been operating in accordance with the C0de of Practice on Access to Government Information since its introduclion in 1994, a Freedom of Information Act wiil put that right of access on a strtutory footing, which gives it that much more emphasis. The Bill itself can look daunting because of the legal language in which it is wdtten, but although the precise tirnescale is not )et certain, all staff will receive guidance in plain English Monthly distribution 37,000 Hard Copies and now available on MODWeb
contents
1-2 freedom of information
2 1999 mod snooker
championships
3 cssc sports and leisure,
dsra/mod lottery results
4 army familirisation visits ;
1999 pay award;
dasa
5 national service;
review of day subsistence
allowance;
acorn nursery places
6 opportunity 2000;
civil service offshore
racing club
7 rrib "see it right"
campaign
8 development of civilian
personnel strategy
9 introduction of maternity
leave survey;
emma's revenge
10-12 investors in people
13 new par reporting
timetable
14-16 training matters
16-20 letters to the editor
Please note that the deadline for articles
for Paper Clips is the 4th of the month (i.e.
4th June for July issue).
For more copies or change of delivery (Admin
Officers) please contact DSDC(L)3a at
Llangedwyn on 01554 822 421 or 420.
Opinions expressed by contributors sending
'letters to the editor' are not necessarily those
of the Editorial team nor the official views of
the MOD. The editor reserves the right to edit
all contributions including letters.
about how to use it before the Act actually comes into force.
MOD – Openness
This does not mean that there will be compromises over national security.
Where information has to be protected, the draft Bill recognises and allows for it.
Nevertheless we can, and should, be more open about our business. We are
already doing a great deal to remove unnecessary secrecy for which the
Department does not always get the recognition it deserves. To take the most
important recent example during the Kosovo operation journalists and film
crew s have been given unprecedented
access to the Defence Crisis Management
Centre briefing rooms: through briefings
and use of the Internet (including trans-
lation of part of the MOD Website into
Serbian), we are being as open as possi-
ble about our military action and the
reasons for it. More generally, we recently
held a Nuclear Information
Declassification Seminar with acade-
mics, journalists, scientists and others to
talk about the priorities for declassifying
information about our past and present
nuclear activities. In the refurbished
Main Building, we plan to have a public
area with exhibitions available to the
general public.
Freedom of Information
So there is already greater transparency
about what we do. We should see
Freedom of Information as an opportu-
nity to carry forward existing
Departmental policy to be more open
about Defence matters, where vital oper-
ational and security issues are not
involved. This means too, that we should
be more proactive and consider whether
there are areas of our business where we
should make more information available
to the general public without waiting to
be pressed for it, especially when it helps
to ensure that our policies and activities
are better understood and supported.
We only have to look at the material pro-
duced when the outcome of the Strategic
Defence Review was announced, or at
the range of information now available
on the MOD Internet site, to see how
things have improved compared with
only a few years ago.
So, Freedom of Information is about
changing culture in favour of openness,
and in recognising that more of our busi-
ness may be open to disclosure than at
present. But in MOD at least we will not
be starting from a blank sheet, and I
hope that we will be able to use it as a
positive opportunity to help build sup-
port for defence in this country."
(More information on the draft Freedom
of Information Bill can be found in the
June edition of FOCUS, on MODWeb
(under What's New), and in briefing
material that has been provided to all
TLB Command Secretaries. Agency Chief
Executives and staff in MOD HQ. Any
questions should be put to: DOMD,
Room 617, Northumberland House,
Northumberland Avenue, London WC2N
5BP).
The 1999 MOD Snooker
Championships
Entries are now invited from all MOD Civilian, DERA and Agency staff, as well
as retired staff, for the 1999 MOD Snooker Championships. All applicants
must be members of the Civil Service Sports Council. The Championships will
be held at The Dudley Snooker Centre, West Midlands, on the 7th and 8th October
1999. There is an entrance fee of £10.00 per person. Entry Forms can be obtained
from [REDACTED] Room 0105, Main Building, Whitehall, London, SW1A
2HB Tel: [REDACTED]. The competition, (which is singles only), will be
played over the two days. The closing date for entries is Friday 3rd September 1999.
Page 2 Paper Clips Issue 125 – June 1999[REDACTED] FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: how it work for info. more can be found on the MODweb [REDACTED] for ufo on CHOTS under policy, then open government [REDACTED] FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: HOW WILL IT WORK? What is Happening and When? 1. On 24 May, the Government published a draft Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill for public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny by the House of Commons Select Committee for Public Administration. This follows proposals set out in a White Paper entitled "Your Right to Know" published in December 1997. The consultation period ends in mid-July. The Government is committed to introducing the Bill to Parliament as soon as the legislative programme allows, but the precise timetable for implementation of a Freedom of Information Act is not yet known. Nevertheless, MOD is confident that there will be sufficient time before the Act comes into force to provide guidance to staff on how to operate in accordance with it. 2. In the meantime, the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information remains the principal guide to openness, and all staff should continue to operate in accordance with it. Guidance on the Code can be found in DCI 54/98, which will be updated shortly, or can be obtained from DOMD at the address given at the end of this note. The main differences between the Code and the FOI Act are: • the FOI Act will be law; • the Act will normally require the release of documents where requested, not just information; • the Act will establish an Information Commissioner with the power to order disclosure. Who Will the Freedom of Inform ation Affect? 3. The FOI Act will have much greater scope than the present Code (which is basically limited to central government departments), with coverage extended to areas such as local government, the NHS, educational bodies and the Police. The Ministry of Defence (including its Agencies) will be covered along with all other Government Departments, the Armed Forces (except for the Special Forces and units assisting GCHQ), the MOD Police, and non-departmental public bodies. The intelligence and security agencies and the Royal Household will be excluded. 4. Clearly, MOD staff most affected will be those whose responsibilities include responding to letters from MPs, Peers and members of the public. But Freedom of Information is about a change in culture towards openness, and so will impinge on all who keep records. All of us will have a responsibility to ensure that information is properly recorded and is accessible, and we will all need to consider whether there is more information which could routinely be made public, and not simply wait for requests to come in. Who Can Ask For Information? 5. The Act will give a right of access to any person or organisation, British or foreign, to all government information. The right of access is twofold: to know whether the information requested is held, and to have that information communicated. The Government recognises, however, that certain information properly needs to be protected from disclosure. The Bill, therefore, allows the non-disclosure of information if http://www.chots.mod.uk/policy/opengovt/foi2.htm 25/05/99
O FREEDOM OF INFORMATION:how will it work Page 2 of 5 it falls within one or more exemptions. The Bill also allows "neither confirm nor deny’’ answers, an ability to refuse vexatious or repeated requests, and has a disproportionate cost threshold, beyond which requests need not be answered (this will be set initially at 8500, the same as for PQs). A 40 day period will be set for answering requests (it is 20 working days under the Code), and guidance and best practice on answering requests will be set out in a code of practice. Exemptions from Riqht of Access 6. The exemptions (listed below) divide into those which are outright exemptions, and those which will be subject to a harm test. Some, such as that concerning policy advice, contain elements which are harm-tested, and others which are not. Each harm-tested exemption has its own self-contained definition, mainly expressed in terms of the ability to withhold information which "would, orwould be likely, to prejudice" the interest in question. Decisions about whether or not to withhold information will also be able to take account of whether apparently innocuous information in conjunction with other information would be likely to cause harm (known as "cumulative harm"). 7. Whilst these exemptions give scope to protect information which should be protected, the FOI Act is intended to contribute to a more open approach in the relationship between the public sector and the public. Decisions should therefore be made on a case by case basis, with a view towards disclosure where possible. The exemptions are as follows: Outriqht exempted information which will not be harm tested a. information already public (including information for which a charge is made, such as the services offered by the Met Office); b. information intended for future publication; c. information held by Departments which was supplied by, or relates to, the work of the security and intelligence agencies (including Armed Forces units in support of GCHQ), and the Special Forces; d. information required for national security purposes; e. confidential information from a foreign state or iniernational organisation; f. investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities; g. information contained in specified courts, h. information relating to the formulation or development of government policy, communications between Ministers, including Cabinet and Cabinet committee proceedings, and the operation of Ministerial private offices (see also the "internal discussion" exemption at (u) below); i. personal information. The main effect here is to allow access by individuals to personal information about themselves only through the Data Protection Act: j. information provided in confidence (to be subject to the Common Law of Confidence): http ://www. chots. mod.uVpolicy/opengovt/foD.htm 25t05t99
I FREEDOM OF INFORMATION:howwill it work k. legal professional privilege; l. trade secrets (but see the wider commercial interests exemption at (w) below); Page 3 of5 m. honours; n. information where a staiutory bar to disclosure exists; o. any additional information not covered by another exemption, which may be covered by an order-making power. Essentially, this is a fall-backwhich gives the Home Secretary the power to withhold something which would otheruise slip through the net; Harm-tested exemptions (ie information can be withheld if it "would. or would be likelv to preiudice" the interest in question) p. defence of the UK or overseas territories, or the capability, effectiveness, or security of the armed forces or those of allies; q. international relations; r. relations within the UK (ie with devolved administrations); s. the economy; t. law enforcement; u. internal discussion and advice (a wide exemption which will apply at all levels, not just Ministerial), or which would otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs; v. health and safety (here, the threshold is "endanger"); w. commercial interests of public authorities or other bodies. Who Decides? 8. Initial decisions about disclosure will, as is the case now, be made by the lead branch responsible forthe subject in question. Central guidance will be produced, and advice will be available on individual cases from DOMD. There will be scope for Departments to establish an internal appeals process (as MOD currently has for the Code) to act as the first line for appeals. 9. An lnformation Commissioner, who will also be responsible for Data Protection issues - the post will be combined with that of the Data Protection Registrar - will act as the next line of appeal. The Commissioner will have a key part to play in promoting, interpreting and enforcing the Act, and will be able to overturn a decision of nondisclosure by a public authority if he or she considers the exemption is wrongly claimed (except in the case of national security). 10. Public authorities (or the requester, if unhappy with the Commissioner’s decision) can then appeal to a 3-person Tribunal on the Data Protection model, one person representing legal interests (appointed by the Lord Chancellor), and the other two representing the interests of the public authority and requester of information respectively (both appointed by the Home Secretary). Appeals on national security, http ://www.chots, mod.ulcrpolicy/opengovt/foD. htm 25105199
O FREEDOM OF INFORMATION:how will it work Page 4 of 5 however, go straight to a Tribunal and not through the Information Commissioner. Appeal against a Tribunal may then go to the Courts for judicial review. 11. Departments will also have a duty to consider exercising their discretion to disclose information technically exempted from the right of access, if they consider it to be in the public interest. The Information Commissioner will have a duty to see that Departments do consider using this discretion, but the decision whether or not to disclose exempted information in the public interest lies with the Department, and cannot be overturned by the Commissioner. Duty to Publish 12. As part of the aim of increasing openness in the public sector, Departments will be required to make certain information available as a matter of course. Much of this MOD already does, through publications as the Defence White Paper, Annual Report, and Defence Statistics. Departments will, however, have to produce a publication scheme for approval by the Information Commissioner which sets out what information it intends to publish. Fees and Charqes 13. As under the present Code, Departments will be able to set up a charging regime within centrally set parameters under the disproportionate cost limit. Fees and charges are not, however, intended to recoup the full cost of the FOI regime. Outstandino lssues 14. Devolution. Ministers have agreed that organisations dealing wholly or mainly with devolved matters (in Scotland), or transferred matters (in Northern lreland) should be covered by local legislation. In other words defence, as a reseryed matter, will be covered by the UK FOI Act. In addition, Ministers have agreed that the ability to legislate on information supplied by the UK Government in confidence, to ensure that it was disclosed according to the terms of the UK FOlAct only, is to be reserved to the UK Parliament. 15. Parliament. Further discussions are necessary about whether Parliament and bodies accountable to it will be covered by the legislation. 16. Environmental Information Requlations. The current environmental information regime needs to be modified to enable the UK to implement the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on access to information on environmental matters. The intention is to do this through the FOI Bill, but this will follow on after publication of the draft Bill. FINALLY 17. This is a g[g[! Bill, it has not yet become law and will not do so for some time Guidance on how to comply with the Act will be provided for staff before it does. In the meantime, the Gode of Practice on Access to Government Information remains in force, and replies to requests for information must be made in accordance with it - details can be found in DCI 54198, but look out for a new DCI shortly. Where Can I Find Out More? A copy of the draft Bill and consultation paper can be purchased from the Stationery Office, but will be made available on MODWeb as soon as possible, and can also be http ://www. chots.mod. uVpolicy/opengovt/foi2.htm 2sl0sl99
O FREEDOM OF INFORMATION:how will it work Page 5 of 5 accessed at the Home Office website al www.homeoffice.gov.ukfioi. Links to the Home office site can also be found through the open Government section of the MoD lnternet site. Articles on Freedom of Information will be appearing in the June editions of FocUS and Paper clips. Further questions or comments can be put to DoMD, which is the MOD policy lead on Freedom of Information. They should be addressed to: DOMD Rm 617 Northumberland House Northumberland Avenue London WC2N sBP http://www. chots.mod.uk/policy/opengovVfoi2.htm 2st05199
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
From: [REDACTED] Sec(AS)2a1a
Secretariat (Air Staff)
Room 8245, Main Building, Whitehall
LONDON SW1A 2HB
Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218[REDACTED]
(Switchboard) 0171 218 9000
(Fax) 0171 218[REDACTED]
FAX MESSAGE
TO: [REDACTED] Org 1c, HQPTC
SUBJECT: Orders for HQPTC Duty Staff Officer
DATE: 16 February 99 PAGES TO FOLLOW: 2
[REDACTED]
Thank you for your fax of 8 Feb in which you asked whether your instructions for 'UFO' reporting
were up to date. All the information contained in the Order is correct, however, I have attached an
updated version of our 'UFO' report form which you may wish to use in future.
Yours,
[REDACTED]t REPORT OF’AN UNNXPLAIII-ED AERIAL SIGETING l. 2. Date and time of sighting. (Dwation of sighting.) Description of object, (No of objeots, size, shape, colour, brightness, noise.) J. Exact position of observer. (IndoorVoutdoors, stationary/moving.) IIow object was observed. (Naked eyg binoculars, other optical device, camera or camcorder.) 5. Direction in which object was first seen. (A landmark may be more helpful than a roughly estimated bearing.) 6. Approximate distanee. 7. Movements and speed. (side to sidg up or down, constant, moving fast, slow) 8. Weather conditions during observation. (cloudy, haze, mist, clear)
t, 9. To whom reported. (Police, military, press etc) 10. Name, address and telephone no of informant. 11. Olher witnesses. t2. Remarks, 13. Date and time of receipt.
Secretariat(Air Staff) Fax:0171-218-[REDACTED]
** Transmit Conf.Report **
16 Feb '99 12:17
Secretariat(Air Staff)——> [REDACTED]
No. 2545
Mode NORMAL
Time 1'25"
Pages 3 Page(s)
Result O K09-FEB-1999 10:24 FROM ORG SF WA P1 CER COPL TDA TO 9662[Section 40] P.01/03
Classification UNCLAS [RESTRICTED]
Caveat N/A
Covering N/A
[Stamp: ENCLOSURE NUMBER 21]
Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet
Transmission Details Document Details
Serial No: Date and Time of Transmission: Reference:
8 Feb 99
From: Fax Number: Subject:
ORG 1c [Section 40] Orders for HQPTC Duty Staff Officer - Order No 17
To: Fax Number:
Sec (AS) 2a1 [Section 40]
Total number of pages including this cover sheet: 3
Authorizing Officer Transmit Operators
Rank, Name and Appointment: Rank/Grade and Name:
EO. [Section 40] ORG 1c EO. [Section 40] ORG 1c
Signature: Signature:
[Section 40] [Section 40]
Message/Remarks:
Reference our telephone conversation this morning.
Find attached a copy of Order No 17 for the HQPTC Duty Staff Officer. The orders require examination as
some are now over 12 months old.
Any assistance you are able to give me in this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Covering N/A
Caveat N/A
Classification UNCLAS [UNCLASSIFIED]08-FEB-1999 10:24 FROM ORG SF WA P1 CER COFL TDA TO 9662[Section 40] P.02/03
UNCLASSIFIED
RESTRICTED
ORDERS FOR HQPTC DUTY STAFF OFFICER
ORDER NO 17
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
1. All sightings of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) are to be reported using the
format at Annex A. Reports are to be submitted as follows:
a. Out of working hours and only if considered of major significance to Chief
Defence Staff Duty Officer (CDSDO). The CDSDO may be contacted on MOD Main
Building, Tel GPTN (96621) Ext [Section 40] [Section 40]
b. At any other time to Sec(AS)2a, MOD Main Building, Room 8245, Tel GPTN
(96621) Ext 82140, Fax Ext [Section 40] Use SIC - Z6F with signal messages.
2. CDSDO will pass all reports submitted out of hours to Sec(AS)2a. Under normal
circumstances Sec(AS)2a will not respond to the originator.
3. Outside normal working hours all enquiries from the Press are to be referred to Duty
Press Officer at MOD who may be contacted at MOD Main Building, Tel GPTN (96621)
Ext 87907. The Press may be given the following direct dial BT Tel No for the Duty Press
Officer 0171 21 7907.
UNCLASSIFIED
RESTRICTED
Acc 9708-FEB-1999 10:25 FROM ORG SF WA P1 CER COFL TDA TO 9662[Section 40] P.03/03
UNCLASSIFIED
RESTRICTED
ANNEX A TO
HOPTC DSQ
ORDER NO 17
FORMAT OF A REPORT OF AN UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT (UFO)
A. Date, time and duration of sighting. (Local times to be quoted).
B. Description of Object. (Number of objects, size, shape, colours, brightness, sound, smell
etc).
C. Exact position of observer. (Geographical location. Indoors or outdoors. Stationary or
moving).
D. How observed. (Naked eye, binoculars, other optical device, still or movie camera).
E. Direction in which object was first seen. (A landmark may be more useful than a badly
estimated bearing).
F. Angle of sight. (Estimated heights are unreliable).
G. Distance. (By reference to a known landmark wherever possible).
H. Movements. (Changes in E, F and G may be of more use than estimates of course and
speed).
I. Meteorological conditions during observations. (Moving clouds, haze, mist etc).
J. Nearby objects. (Telephone lines, high voltage lines, reservoir, lake or dam, swamp or
marsh, river, high buildings, tall chimneys, steeples, spires, TV or radio masts, airfields, generating
plant, factories, pits or other sites with floodlights or other night lighting.
K. To whom reported. (Police, military organization, the Press etc).
L. Name and address of informant.
M. Any background on the informant that may be volunteered.
N. Other witnesses.
O. Date and time of receipt of report.
08V5981AA 17-A1
UNCLASSIFIED
RESTRICTED
TOTAL P.03Loose Minute D/Sec(AS)/64/1 7th January 1998 Comms Planning, DISN - [Section 40] UNION SKYLINE REQUEST: 'RIDDLE OF THE SKIES' Reference: Your memo and Union Skyline letter of 5 January 1999 1. We spoke about the request at Reference and I said that the Department does not participate in programmes about 'UFOs' (this is simply the latest in a steady stream of requests from 'UFO'- related TV and Radio programme makers and journalists wanting an MOD contribution to their work). I agreed to provide a written note about the reasons for this. 2. Sec(AS)2 acts as the MOD focal point for 'UFO'-related issues and, since no other Government Department has an interest in the subject, deals with Whitehall-wide correspondence and reported sightings from the public. MOD's interest in 'UFO' issues is very limited. Reported sightings and correspondence are examined solely to establish if what was seen might have some defence significance, namely whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised foreign military activity. Unless there is any evidence of such a threat and, to date, no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, no attempt at all is made to identify what might have been seen. Given MOD's limited interest in sighting reports, there is nothing it can contribute to programmes about 'UFOs' and as noted, offers to provide a written statement on the Department's position. 3. I understand the Press desk has already provided the Company with the MOD official line (I can confirm that the version attached to your memo was provided by Sec(AS)2). If it helps with your discussions with the Union Skyline, I attach at Annex the same information but set out as responses to their questions. [Section 40] Sec(AS)2 MB8247 [Section 40] CHOTS: SEC(AS)2 FAX : [Section 40]
Annex OUESTIONS FROM I’NION SKYLINE is the MODrs official line on rUFOsr ? The Ministry of Defence examines any reports of ’unidentified flying objectsr i! receives solely to establish whether what lras seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kj-ngdornrs airspace rnight have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. The MOD has no experfise or role in respect of lUFor/flying saucerr matters or to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it renains totally open- minded. To date, MOD knows of no evidence to substantj.ate the exj.stence of these alleged phenomena. 2. Does MoD investS.gate reports? If so, lrhat are the findings? 3. Is MoD proactive or reactive in itts investigations? Unleas a report provides evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external military source, and t,o date no ruFor report has revealed such evidence, MOD makes no atlempt to identify the precise naLure of each reported sighting, MoD believes that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenornena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MoD to provide this kind of aerial identification service and it would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if MOD was to do so. 4. t{as MODrs attitude changed in the last 40 years? What No. 1. 5. Would MOD consider investigating further objects for which there is initially no obvious explanation? MOD| s interest in these natters is limited to that set out in the response to Ql .[Defence Information Division logo] Defence Information Division Ministry of Defence [Section 40] [Handwritten text, partially illegible:] Dear [Section 40] We spoke re the letter from Union Skyline + statement faxed to the union [?]. Enough [?] and confirm (or Amend) we [?] our course been [?] in [?] [ILLEGIBLE] my [?] be the [?] of statement in [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE]. Thanks [Section 40] COMMS PLANNING, DIN Ext [Section 40] With Compliments
5 Jan. 1999 16:02 UNION PICTURES No. 7260 P. 1/2
Phone: [Section 40]
FAX: [Section 40]
Union Skyline
36 Marshall St
London W1V 1LL
[Handwritten: For transmission early Jan/Feb]
Facsimile
To: [Section 40] MOD
From: [Section 40]
Date: 05/01/99
Ref: INTERVIEW FOR C4 DOCUMENTARY
Fax: 2.18 [Section 40]
Tel: 2.18 [Section 40]
Pages: 2
Dear [Section 40]
Following my call to you yesterday I'm faxing you with a formal request for
an interview with an official from the MOD in connection with the documentary
series - Riddle of the Skies - that we are making for RTL (Germany), Channel 4 (UK)
and The Learning Channel in the USA.
The broad thrust of our series is a considered, journalistic, serious and
rigorous scientific appraisal of the global phenomena of anomalous objects in the
world's skies. The series is in three parts, each an hour in length, and will transmit in
the UK in the middle of February (tbc). To date we have filmed in Chile, Mexico, all
over the US, Belgium, Germany, Russia, Puerto Rico and of course the UK. Our
interviewees reflect the seriousness of our programme, and encompass civil and
military pilots, air traffic controllers, cosmonauts & astronauts from the space
programmes in the US, Russia and Europe (serving and non-serving), and senior
scientists drawn from civilian universities and from NASA.
Broadly speaking our series is divided into three subject areas. Part one sets
out the history of this phenomena and specifically deals with sightings from space.
With the growth in space travel sightings of unexplained objects are also increasing?
Does this add to the evidence that UFOs are real or is there a simple explanation?
Part two returns closer to earth and looks at the area of black budgets, secret
military developments and civil aviation. Could secret military testing and the growth
in civil aviation in part explain many of the unusual things that are being reported?
05/01/99 15:04 071 287 [Section 40] PAGE.015 Jan. 1999 16:02 [Section 40] No. 7260 P. 2/2
[Handwritten: Already received]
Part three looks at the future of science and explores the gap between science
fact and fiction; encompassing the theory of time travel, the research being done on
faster than the speed of light and the remarkable work being done in the area of
Quantum Transportation at Innsbruck University.
Any contribution from the MOD would be used in part two of the programme
alongside contributions from the Belgian airforce, (F-16 pilot, former deputy head of
the Belgian airforce, Professor at the Royal Military Academy, Brussels), senior
contributors from NASA (Alan Ladwig - Senior Advisor to Head of NASA), the
Chilean Airforce, the Head of the Federation of American Scientists, several senior
personnel in the Russian Airforce and civil pilots from UK, US, Mexico and Germany
- to name but a few.
In all cases we are dealing with high-ranking officials and we are asking them
for their organisations official line on the issue of Unidentified Flying Objects.
Specifically we would like to ask anyone the MOD can put up for interview:
1. What is the MODs official line on UFOs.
2. Do you investigate reports? If so what are your findings?
3. Is the dept proactive or reactive in it's investigations?
4. Has the MODs attitude to this phenomena changed in any way in the last 40
years?
5. Would the MOD consider investigating further objects for which there is
initially no obvious explanation?
Hopefully this gives you some idea of the series and the kind of questions we
would like to ask. As we discussed we would be happy simply to get on camera the
official MOD line on this issue as outlined in the statement you faxed to me.
Hope this is all ok. Please call me on [Section 40] if you need any further
information.
Yours sincerely,
[Section 40]
[Section 40] Assistant Producer, Union Skyline
[Footer:] 091 061 7223 PAGE 02MOD INTEREST Ir "I’FO" SICHIINES The Ministry of Defence has no interest or role with resPect to the existence "UFo/flvina saucer" matters, or to the question of of extraterrestrial lifeforms about lvhich it remaine "i "ifr=iwi5e To date, however, the MoD is unaware of any evidence open-rninaed. wirich proves that these phenomena exist. The Ministry of Defence examines any reports of "uFo" sightings it Eome receives solely to establ,ish r,/hether r{hat was seen mig}rt have uK Air the evidence.that any is there nanely significance; defence Defence Region night have been compronised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. The reports are examined, with the assiotance of the Department’8 air delence exPerts as required. unl-ess there ie evidence of a Dotential mil-ilary threat; and to date no "UFo’’ sighting has precise ievealea such evidence, we do not attemPt to identify the dov’rn to nature of each sighti-ng reported to us’ We believe that earth explanationi could be found for these reporte, such. as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, if reeourceEi vTere diverted ior tfris p.tipose but it wouLd be an inapproprl?!? ulg of defence to provide this kind of aerial identification service. ’"ion."""-Loose Minute
D/Sec(AS)/64/1
12th December 1998
CR(RM)2e
Copy to:
CS(RM)1
Ex-S4f(Air) 'UFO' FILES
1. I enclose the following files for archiving:
AF584 to 602 inclusive (total 19 files)
(covering the period January 1974-July 1975)
AF447 Part 1 (total 1 file)
(covering the period August 1975-Jun 1976)
2. The files, which were opened by S4(Air), were transferred to
Sec(AS)2 by AHB(RAF)PCB(Air), the Air Historical Branch, for
onwards transmission. I am afraid that the whereabouts of the MOD
Form 262a for each file is unknown to us. A completed MOD Form
262f for each file has been completed.
[Section 40]
Sec(AS)2
MB8247 [Section 40]
CHOTS: SEC(AS)2
FAX : [Section 40]
[Stamp: ENCLOSURE NUMBER 18]LOOSE MINUTE D/Sec(AS)/64/1 2 December 1998 MOD Main Building Switchboard Staff MOD Public Enquiries Office Copy to: DCDSDO OUT OF HOURS 'UFO' REPORTING BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC 1. Since February 1997, an answerphone facility has been provided by Sec(AS)2 to enable members of the public to report sightings of 'unidentified flying objects'. In the past, the answerphone was switched on between 0800-1700 Monday to Friday, however, with effect from 19 October 98, the answerphone has been left on 24 hours a day. 2. Now that this facility is constantly available, would you please ensure that members of the public, whether telephoning in or out of office hours, are put through to the answerphone (0171 218 2140) and not through to the CDSDO Cell. 3. If you have any queries regarding this minute please give me a call. [Section 40] Sec(AS)2a1 MBB245 [Section 40] Chots: SEC(AS)2A1 [Handwritten:] Minute sent at request of DCDSDO. [Stamp: ENCLOSURE NUMBER 17]
LOOSE MINUTE D/Sec(AS)/64/1 20 October 1998 CDSDO OUT OF HOURS 'UFO' REPORTING BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC 1. Since February 1997, an answerphone facility has been provided by Sec(AS)2 to enable members of the public to report sightings of 'unidentified flying objects'. In the past, the answerphone was switched on between 0800 - 1700 Monday to Friday, however, with effect from Monday 19 October, the answerphone has been left on 24 hours a day. 2. Some members of the public may still be put through to you out of hours by the switchboard but you may transfer them or ask them to redial on 0171 218 2140 (x82140MB) to leave details of their report. 3. If you have any queries regarding this minute, please give me a call. [Section 40] Sec(AS)2a1 MBB245 [Section 40] Chots: SEC(AS)2A1 [Handwritten: 16]
D/Sec(AS)/64/1 16 October 1998 *** FILE NOTE *** With effect from Monday 19 October 1998, the 'UFO' answerphone will be left on 24 hours a day. This is in response to PQ 37851. [Section 40] Sec(AS)2a [Stamp: ENCLOSURE NUMBER 15]
FROM CRO WALES 64/1 10.12.1998 10:02 P. 1
[Royal Air Force crest]
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
RAF COMMUNITY RELATIONS OFFICER (WALES)
Room 2-04 New Dolanog House
Severn Road Welshpool Powys SY21 7DA
Tel : 01938 556363
GPTN & Fax: Worcester MOD X1490
[Section 40]
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET
[Handwritten notes in margin:] What are the LTT on this incident; you will note that this piece of ancient history is being dredged up in a TV programme, seemingly entitled 'Weird Wales' (or something like that)
To: ROT BREWER.
SEC (Al) 2a [?] 400 MAIN BUILDING.
From: [ILLEGIBLE] COMMUNICATIONS
Date: 12 Oct 98
Number of Pages Sent (Including Cover Sheet): 3
[Section 40] Message/Subject:
[REDACTED]
Re attached. I have heard stories about this incident before. Has anyone there thrown any light on what happened?
Regards,
[Section 40]
[Handwritten at bottom:] No mil a/c crashes as far as we can tell. UFO files from 1974 are stored in archives + without an exact date we would have to look through the reports individually. If we get press/media interest, we can give the standard line on our policy. [Section 40] 12 Oct 98.
PLEASE ADVISE PROMPTLY IF TRANSMISSION IS ILLEGIBLE OR INCOMPLETE
[Stamp: ENCLOSURE NUMBER 14], fRot’1 FRBII cRo dnlEs t9.12.199 t0!gS F. 2 * (rrffi o -i- gEE H X E r E= ’l ==3: I F;.8 ije 3 rg O = E 5 9{ o $Ftr ;ga= L I eEEE s ;E;.E .= ITFR0tr FRofl CR0 ldfiLE5 19. 12.199 t0r05 o Ell (D= cct Eg ffiffffiffi$mff EEE Eg# ’* EEEEI EHga-HrtegEEsg, Effi’ ffi*t’ut’g ffiffi#ffi
Reference ...........................................................................
1974
29 OCT LIGHTNING 5325N 0025E FIRE.
15 NOV 1089am LANE 2M NORTH WHITCHURCH
1 NOV JETSTREAM 1/2 M LITTLE RIDINGTON.
21 NOV PHANTOM 5121N 0600E ENGINE FAILURE
5 DEC GNAT 1500 5M SW LEADBURY BIRDSTRIKE
CAT 4.
[Drawing of pen/pencil]
[Handwritten notes:]
ASK [Section 40] about
MAP references.
Any in N WALES? -
Not references used by complaints cell
so consult you
[Section 40] 38 A31 Whitchurch
16 B34 "
Correct AREA (?) lots of Whitchurches
but not correct
true.
CODE 18-77LOOSE MINUTE D/Sec(AS)/64/1 25 August 1998 Sec(AS)1a - [Section 40] CLAIM FOR PAPERBACK VERSION OF 'THE UNINVITED' BY MR N POPE 1. I am writing to request reimbursement of money I recently spent on the purchase of a paperback book on behalf of my branch. 2. The book, 'The Uninvited' by Mr Nicholas Pope, is about the alien abduction phenomenon. Sec(AS)2 has already purchased the hardback version, which we needed to do to ensure Head of Sec(AS)'s amendments had been actioned. However, it has come to our attention that in the paperback version some of the amendments have been edited out. We therefore intend to make a thorough examination of the paperback to see just how many of our requested amendments have be ignored in this latest version. [Section 40] has approved the purchase. 3. My bank details are as follows: Bank: Sort Code: [Section 40] Account no: Staff no: I have attached the receipt. If you require any further information please contact me. [Section 40] Sec(AS)2a MB8245 [Section 40] CHOTS: SEC(AS)2A1A [Stamp: ENCLOSURE NUMBER 3]
I ft/0e/",lE:15 5 i 1 r? r,.-s8 #,11ffi8H4 t|lfit$JITts ldafsrpf*Rs’s { I a .c ltst f,.g$ TnlAt icc ’lf] or1 fil{t[fi ti#fli [A$1 ti tr, Itl-: 8a.;eit ftrdeft, 6aiiick 01?1 8y, {,T5? Stret, la’dsn tliT t#: ?i#,lll$iLOOSE MINUTE D/Sec(AS)/64/1 30 July 1998 DPO(RAF) - Sqn Ldr [Section 40] GRANADA TELEVISION - REQUEST FOR MOD POLICY ON 'UFO' SIGHTINGS 1. I have received the attached self-explanatory letter from a researcher at Granada Television. I should be grateful if the attached statement which sets out the MOD's interest in this subject could be sent to [Section 40] through the Press Office. 2. If you have any queries, please give me a call. [Section 40] Sec(AS)2a1a MB8245 [Section 40] [Stamp: ENCLOSURE NUMBER 12]
GRANADA TELEVISION
To Whom it May Concern,
We are currently preparing to make a programme about UFO's, and I am writing to
see if it would be possible for you to send me any information you may have about this
subject. I would also be very grateful if you could send me an information pack on the
policies of the M.O.D. I would be very grateful if you could assist me with the
information that I need.
Thankyou very much
Yours Sincerely
[Section 40]
(Researcher)
[Stamp:] MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
SEC (AS) 2
23 JUL 1998
FILE
GRANADA TELEVISION LIMITED
REGISTERED OFFICE: QUAY STREET, MANCHESTER M60 9EA
TELEPHONE: 0161 832 7211 GENERAL FAX: 0161 827 2039 TELEX: 668859
REGISTERED NUMBER: 840590 ENGLANDIl{ "UFO’ SICHTIIiTGS The Ministry of Defence has no interest or role with respect to ’uFo/flying saucer’ matters, or to the question of the eiistence or otherwiee of extraterrestrial lifeforme about which it remains open-minded. To date, however, the MOD is unaware of any evidence which proves that these phenonena exist. The Ministry of Defence examines any reports of ’UFO, sightings it receives solely to establish whether what lras seen might-have some defence significance; namely j-s there any evidence that the UK,s airspace might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign rnilitary activity, The reports are examined, with the assistance of the Department,s air defence experts as required. UnLess there is evidence of a potential threat to the Unit,ed Kingdom from an external military source tde do not attenpt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to u6. We-befieve thaf down to earth explanations could be found for these reports, such as aircraft Iights or natura], phenomena, if resources were diverted for thie purpose but it would be an inappropriate use of defence resources to provide this kind of aeriaL identification service. MOD INTERESTUNCLASSIFIED
RESTRICTED
LOOSE MINUTE
D/DOMD/2/3/4
22 July 1998
[Stamp:] MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
SEC (AS) 2
23 JUL 1998
FILE
Sec(AS)2a* - [Section 40] *by CHOTS
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
Thank you for your letter dated 21 July in which you ask for the latest
`line to take' on the progression of the proposed Freedom of Information
Act.
2. Unfortunately, it seems that the information I provided to [Section 40]
back in January was passed on incorrectly in response to the member of the
public who wrote to you. It was not the case that the consultation period for the
White Paper `was followed by a draft Bill.' Having looked back at my response,
I said that the consultation period `will be followed by a draft bill this spring.' It
may therefore be worth providing both the previous correspondent to whom this
information was given, and your latest enquirer with the following information
(some of which is repeated from January for clarification):
*The Government is committed to the introduction of a Freedom of
Information Act as part of its programme of constitutional reform and in
fulfilment of its manifesto pledge. The FOI Act will apply to MOD as a
whole, encompassing the Armed Forces, Agencies and Non Departmental
Public Bodies, and requests for information on any aspect of the
Department's business will need to be considered with a predisposition
towards openness.
The Freedom of Information White Paper, `Your Right to Know' was
published last December, and the consultation period ended in February. A
draft bill is currently being produced, which it is proposed will be published
later this year for further consultation. The Bill is currently intended to be
placed before Parliament in the 1998/99 Session and will come into force
sometime thereafter, although the precise timings are not yet known. Until
this time, the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information will
remain, unchanged, as the reference for the provision of information.*
3. It should be noted that the proposed publication date for the draft bill has
now slipped slightly, and will certainly not be before the Summer recess. The
contact points remain the same as in my last letter: the White Paper can be
ordered by telephoning the HMSO Publication Line on (0171) 873 9090 and
quoting CM 3818. It can also be accessed on the Internet at: http://
www.open.gov.uk/m-of-g/foihome.htm
4. In addition, however, it seems to me that you need to address the
implication from the correspondent that an FOI Act will allow access to
information that is not releasable now. As far as Sec(AS) is concerned, I assume
that this is not the case? You might therefore wish to add something along the
following lines:
" The Ministry of Defence already operates in accordance with the existing
Code of Practice on Access to Government Information which encourages
the provision of information unless its disclosure would, for example, cause
UNCLASSIFIED
RESTRICTED
[Handwritten annotations:] No it went to drafted / [Section 40] / not knowing / used the exact / what she provided / 21/7/98 / [Section 40]
[Stamp: ENCLOSURE (number obscured)]UNCLASSIFIED
RESTRICTED
harm to defence, invade on an individual's privacy, or if it would take an
unreasonable diversion of resources to respond to a request. This branch,
therefore, deals with requests in this light, with a predisposition towards
openness. Details of MOD's Open Government policy can be found on the
Internet at: http://www.mod.uk/policy/opengovt/dci5498.htm"
5. I hope that this is helpful. If you have any further queries, please do give
me a call.
[Section 40]
OMD14
NH617 [Section 40]
UNCLASSIFIED
RESTRICTEDLOOSE MINUTE D/Sec(AS)/64/1 21 July 1998 OMD 14 - [Section 40] FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1. As you may know, Sec(AS)2 is the focal point for correspondence concerning 'unidentified flying objects'. I have received a letter from a member of the public who has asked if the UK is going to have a Freedom of Information Act so he can have access to more government material on this subject. 2. The last time this question arose we used the following statement provided by you: "You may be interested to know that on 11 December 1997 the Freedom of Information White Paper, entitled Your Right to Know - the Government's Proposals for a Freedom of Information Act, was published. The consultation period for the White Paper ended in February. This was followed by a draft Bill. The formal Bill is expected to be laid before Parliament during the 1998/99 session. Until that time, the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information will remain as the reference for the provision of information. A copy of the White Paper can be ordered by telephoning the HMSO Publication Line (tel: 0171 873 9090) quoting "CM 3818". It can also be accessed on the Internet at: 'http:// www.open.gov.uk/m-of-g/foihome.htm'." 3. I should be grateful if you could let me have your latest line to take on this issue. [Section 40] Sec(AS)2a MB8245 [Section 40] Chots: SEC(AS)2A1A [Stamp: ENCLOSURE NUMBER 11]
[Royal crest]
with the compliments of
Ministry of Defence
[Section 40]
[Handwritten:]
I have spoken to Sec(AS)2
and as expected it would not
be appropriate for me to be
interviewed on this subject.
Offer Granada the attached
MOD statement instead.
[Section 40] [MOD Form 195 (7/94)]
6 Jul 98 MB.
Offered to GRANADA in response to
their request to interview me on
UFOs received on 3 Jul 98.
[Stamp: ENCLOSURE NUMBER 0]
[Handwritten: 64/1]Ministry of Defence has no interest or role with respect co ’uFo/flying saucer’ matters, or to the guestion of the eiist".r"e or othervrise of extraterrestrial lifefoims about, which it remains open-minded. To date, however, the MOD is unaware of any evidence which proves that these phenomena exist. The Ministry of Defence. examines any reports of ,UFO, sightings it receives gofgly to establish lihether what was seen might-have some defence significance; namely is there any evidence th;t the UK Air Defence Region might. have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign rnilitary activity. The reports are examined, with the assistance of the Department.,s air defence experts as required. Unless there is evideirce of a potential threat to the united Kingdom from an external rniLitarv source, Lhe MOD does not attempt,to ident.ify the preciee nature of each sj-ghting reported to it. The
o HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSION 1997 wH008976 ililIililil ffffi tilill|| ilil til til ||1 puBLIC ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE lrlll o o s\ 1L Third Report YOUR RIGHT TO KNOW: THE GOVBRNMENT’S PROPOSALS FOR A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT Volume II Memoranda of Evidence Ordered by Tlne House of Comrnons to be printed 19 May 1998 LONDON: THE STATIONERY 19.50 OffiCE HC398-U
176 MEMORANDA SUBMITTED TO parties and the court are in no doubt as to the relevant issues. An improvement on thc current scheme would be the imposition of a duty on the satutory bodv to comDlv witb an urgent response prompdy, within 24 or 48 hours of a requst bing made. such requeits would onlv’# made in genuinely urgent cases and we do not believe that a duty to comply with such a request would be onerous. In som cases, arly disclosure of the file would allow resolution of the pafiicular ;roblem to b achicved without tecourse to the courts. Where legal action is necessary to protect our cliint’s interests, proceedings could be launched on a sure-footing if all relevant documents havJ been disclosed, so that both 1998 April MEMORANDUM 95 Submitted by lhe Ministry of Defence Ir.mnooucttov The Ministry of Defence welcomes the opportunity to assist the Committee’s inquiry into rhe Freedom of Information White Paper Your Right to Know. Ttis memorandurn aims to answer th; sFecific questions oosed b-y the Committee, bearing in mind that further work is curently in hand to translate the broad p-porutt irf O" White Paper into a draft Bill, Ql’ what concemt do you have about the white paper in termt of the impact on your department? what is likely to cause you pafticular difrculty? The Ministry of Defence already oprates under the tcrms of the Code of Practice on Access to Govemmenr Information, which has done much to encouage a culture of increased opnness and a willingness to providc information about how it does its business. Tbe department already publishes a great deal of iiformation about what it does in its srtnual white Paper, Departmental Performance Reporr, and many other publications, such as its conservation magazinc, Sanctuary. At least in thc early stages, we anticipate an increase in applications for information, which could impose a heaYy admilis$ative load. The depadment is concemed that the FOI regirne should be easily understood by all staff and be simple to operate in order that it does not become an exlessive and costly burden. We neef in particular to ensure that staff are clear about what is meant by "substantial harm" in ordir that they are atrle to operat the harm test effectively, both in order to favour release where possiblc, and to withhold information where that is warranted. In addition, the change to a requirement to provide copies of documents, rather than providing information, will require dme and effort to identify specific documentJ and to decide whether all or pan of them arc suitable for disclosure. Q2. Will the exemFtiot provisions of the White Paper provide sfficient protection to the kind.s of inlornvtion hald by yow department which you think need to be protected? The White Paper’s proposals recognise, particularly in the spcified interesrs covering national securiw -of defcnce and intemational relations, and commercial confidentiality, that there rr. a.i"n;. ;;;;i; which should remain protectd. Therc is further protertion fo,r such interests by "t"rn.nts the acknowledgement that a decision taken under the FOI Act should rot forcc a disclosure under the ofii;ial Secres Act.’whilst somc issues remain to be clarified, such as what is meant by "substantial ham" and the mechanism for anv third oarty right of appeal (given that the depanment holds a grat deal of information provided by individuals, compunieJ. forcign govemments and irtemational organisations), in general the proposals in th; white r"p", tt" typs of information that the depaftment believes netds to be protected. "oi"i fieA of responsibility? If not, which el]sting Q3, Can the FOI Act repeal and supersede all the existing stqtutory bars to disclosure statutes need to be preserved, and why? in your departnent,s There are provisions of the Naval Discipline Act i95?, Army Act 1955, and Air Force Act 1955 whict contain bars to disclosure. work is in hand to determine their future in relation to the Fol Act. operotion of the FOI Act? Q4. ltlhat lessons have ywu leamt from thz operarion of the Code of Practice which are rclevant to ,he tikel! The principal- lessons_ are- th9 importance of clear guidance for staff and the availability of a clear and well-publicised focal point for intmal advice. We have a single secrctariat which provides advice across the +Partment and its existence helps to establish a consistent and positive approaih towards the release ol information throushout MoD.
THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE 177 Q5, What .lo Jov estinete to be the likel! volume of requests tlnt you v’ill receive arter passage of the FOI Act? lvhat is the bdsis of these estinutes? (e.g-, overseas compaisow: experience of the Code). What arc the cost and staffing implications? We have madc no estimates of the volume of requests under FOI nor of the likely cost implications. As the process is demandled, such estimates would be highly speculative. We have assumed that there will be a considerable increase in FOI requests compared with Code requests, at least initially, simply be.cause of the iucreased public awareness of the FOI Act. The numbcr of formal Code requests received in 1997 was about E0 but we do not believe that this can be uscd as the basis for any stimatc of the likely demand under FOI. We are curently considering the staffing implications, particularly of the likely [eed to increase the size of the cetrftal secretariat in order to provide training and advice, although this will depend in part on any decision on whether to phase in the Act. Clearly, however, we are not startilg from a zero baseline as wc already have experience of dealing with the Code. Q6. Is thc proposed regime for fees and charges realistic and workable from the departmcnt’s point of view? Yes it is, We already oprate a charging regime under the Code for requests that involye significant costs, although it is rarely invoked. Q’l, Will there be any difficuky in the overl.apping access regimes Chapter 4? for FOI and Data Protection proposed in The White Paper acknowledges that 6e two regimes need to accommodate each other and that the access regime wiu be intended to cnsur that ar|y complexity is not rcflected in the way that it is presetrted to th user. It will obyiously be important for staff to be aware of any significant differences betwee[ the two regimes in order to opemte them effectiYely. Q8. Whet dfficulties will arise fiom the proposed third pertf notification procedure in cases of personal privacy, commercial confidentiality and information supplied in confidence (paragraph 5.19)? As noted in the response to Q2, MoD holds a great deal of information which is provided by or concems third parties, whether they be individuals, defence companies, foreign govemments or intemationa.l organisations (such as NATO and the uN). The precise details of a third party appeal mechanism remain to be defined, but there will certainly be cascs where the deparbnent will need to consult third parties prior to making a decision on discloswe. learly that could be a burdensome and iirne-consuming exercise if it has to be undenaken on a regular basis, The depadment nill therefore be keen to consider procedures which avoid the ned to co[tact third parties at the time of a request. These could include ensuri]lg that third parties are aware in advance that information may be disclosed, and clarifying which elements they believe should oot be disclosed, and why. @. Where you have controcred with pivqte contrqctors to provide senices to you, do you know whcther they have received requests for access to infonnation under the Code? We ale not aware of any contractors receiving such requests, but we would cxpect that requests for information about MoD conhacts for services (and goods) would usually be directed to the department. Moreover, i! is likely that if conttactors had received such requcsts, they would have sought guidance from the Departmetrt about the requiremetrts of the Code. QlO. What truining, if any, have your staff received for dealing with the Pq.rliamentary Connissioner for Adminktretion is resorted to? ifiernal "appeals" against relusols before Guidance on how to oprate the present Code of Practice is p.ovided to all staff in the department, civilian and military, iDcludiflg within iti agencies, That guidance includes an explanation of the review procedures, and is available orl the department’s main intemal computer networks as well as the lntemet. Alt appeals arc handled by the single secretariat that proyides the departrncnt-wide guidance, so although no formal training in dealing with appeals is given, a common approach is adopted. Assistance in irterpreting the Code is gaircd ftom examples of cases that have becn considered by the Ombudsman, and advice is also sought as required from the Cabinet Office’s Freedom of Information Unit and the Ombudsman’s office. Qll, In the contrscts tlut you have with commercial organisations, is therc anything which you thin* shouw remain commercially conftd.entiol? If so, whot son of things are they? The department would not wish to disclose information from our cortracts with comrnercial organisations that would jeopardise our ability effectively to manage commercial tsansactions in a manner and to the standards
178 MEMORANDA SUBMITTED TO demanded of a public sertol procurement organisation. In meeting these. standards, the rights on whicb we rery are based on industry’s clear understanding that the depaffnent caribe relicd on to piote"i"-r.-."r.iiy inf. ormation. To prevent this position being prcjudiced. ther" fou, r"in inro which fall information which we believe shouid remain commercitllyconfidential (and rhus should "ut.gones be-co".r"a ty -. of commcrcial confidentiality): ,""rii." til’rffiii;j;il" (l) (2) (3) (4) Information that would prejudice negotiations or comrnerciavcontactual activities; Information relatin to trade secrets. or intelectual property beronging to a third pafty whicb would harm the competitive posirion of a third party 1e,g., an’M# contractor)l Information given to MoD itr confidence, such as price breakdowns and pricing data; The issuc of comrncrciar confidentiarity arso arises in the case of tbe Defence Expon services -rrlob Organisation’s support for defence exporte.s, where information is provided io aonria’"n"" t by exporting compades and foreign g;vemments. Q12’ Does the department have an Internet site? what documents hqve lou pubrished on the sire? How ofren has it been updated? When uias it last updated? The Ministry of Dfence does have an Intemet site at http://rywv.mod.uk A wide variety of itrformadon is on it, including; ------ w.ork is- specbes of the Seffetary of Stat for Defence; documents and explanatory notes on NATO enlargement; information on the UK’s bilateral defcnce relations with cenhal and eastem Europe; a rnaJor section on Gulf veterans’ illnesses, to address the concems of Gulf wal veterans and make available MoD-sponsored repotts and research; the reced Creen paper on Defence Diversification; and irformation on doing business with MoD. The site is updatcd regularly, usually atound twice a wek. now underway to re-establish the MoD’s worrd-wide web presence on a basis more focused on the user. Based on exre*ive consultation,. as well.as anatysis’oi r"bph;;; ;;"*;;;;;;r,il; il: deprtment.is implementing a new strategy. The guiOng princifie jl thar rntormatron should be clear and easv to fiDd, without needing prior knowleOgJor I\4Od.s inri-ul st u"rui". rt.r" enquiries. A ceotral internct team has ben. set up io deverop and promote quality ttana;d, ;oi ;;;;;i; strategic, elitorial aDd design assista&e for information providers wiihin me oepartment. neds of the ;ii;i;;;;;.:ffi;dffi;:1 Apfl 1998 MEMORANDUM Submitted 96 b! the Norrhem lreland ffice what concems do vou hqve about the white paper in terms of the impact on your department? what is likely to cause you particular difrcully? I our experience of other initjatives, such as the six national standards of central govemment under the code on openncss’ is that we have not been inundatedqith requesls for information. t" iii"’** a"ti",,p"" public authorities to make cenain information publicly an"it"ul. "ioitr", ."n.r ot coursc, such as facts and analysis on policy proposars and decisions, should not iause particurar dirncurties ", " ai trre Jepail;#;ilH;,ii: uaancea. The Ptobarion Board for Northern. Ireljyrd (pBNI), ooe of the department’s NDpBs, has stessed the imponance of maintaining confidentiality. clienrconnairtiaity ir to the Board’s work and PBNI have pointed out tbe risk of releasine informadon which could rreip "L"iui oit""Jy or indire.tly to ro*ary Decisiom abour rerease of particiurar inform"ri* ;iii ;;;;;I#ii? ri,olraii"lr. PBM have also raised concems.about the_ possible emergence of a prcscnptlve approach to FOL The departnent would hope to address this tlx’ougtf the centrar c5-ordination itr trr"’e,bi ,iirl"iri], ii iriiai"g -nainrrg. flexible guidance incorporating an elemcnt of iiscretion "ureruny , 2’, . will the-exemption Provisions in.the white Paper provide suficient protecrion to the kinds of inlormation held by your department, hich you think need to bi pirened? "" The department considers tbat the exemption provisions will, in most cases, provide sufficient protection (see answer to Ouestign 3). "nO tf,rougt
bq-l \ 1065 - t. Oral Answets IO JUNE 1998 Oral 066 book. proPerty recoro holdings? Would not a comprehensive to I ili;’i’f; ;i;;;. ;;ittd;* "ppi"pti"tt Au"^" costs in tti"e the potential rales use’ increase occupancy services to the Public? t"’t i3ry:: am to get the draft- Bill on have delayed ln any il"- o*1i3" tt* u""n taken that will for inclusion in the *av consideration of that teglslaqon Qulen’s SPeech later this Year’ ElderlY PeoPle * thing as the ,ttui",rt"* it last year’ initially .on 24 November p"lii.rt"d iirti.’tt ** are holdings’ DroDertv "".tt assels. including il;it’;i ,it"* the wider to are’^cceisible and ;; t*"met ;ilffi;;; public. Mr. Kitfoyte: The hon Gentleman national assets regtsrer’ tqy t:lb:-::f." elderly. n". to ltoptu" tn" o"tivery of covemment \\hat 9. Mr. Bob Bli’zard (Waveney): ,he t"*i""tt;;5:Jl: ProPosals Frceilom ot Information s"#i" il’i"]-ii"Lt Ir,. Ofrice of Public The Parliamentary ( SecretarT’ weet<’ we launched will make a statement 8. Mr. Ivor Caplin (Hove): lf on Public comminee seiect the .’-;;’r;;;;T- for^a proposals on tht Gou"tn’n"ncs - ;;#ii#ffi t435021 (HC 398)’ ir"Jom of information Act he ;;;;; i*?-* il*u"i-’,i.it ""."*igt.g u"Liiou"*..nt p"blic services foioldil f- ovle): t-asi for older people progranm’ which and recognising their contributio[ needs. .listening to q*p\ bl b"::i their views ano C.L-.A.- dJ<’rt 4 , o{ LPcast:l Tbe Chanceltor of the Duchy repon’ corffnittee’s the wlcome I rp"."b"Ja cr""U our ot- i"tti.t--t.’,i out a clear - gen"ral endorsement repon.rs rhe Act’ ;;;;;;i; i", , fteedom of information plocess and we I’tlu gov-emmen: to: Mr, Btizzard: I welcome the bener schemes .have pilot .ri"rii, il.ir-" pr"rect’ when the 28 be rolled out H;"";"dr"d: ;ill nationwide? ’ -UrOo,, the best examples il"ill;t&"’Ji recommenda$ons .r"rn"n, in the overall consultation committee’s detarreo -o1. careruttY’ ti’" people in my constiruency complair to Govemment Depanments ,o l*.-,il"i ,t’iy have written encoumged them to make have reply a -I had to wart "",1"..w.i0 ,rttougtt me’ but I have sometimes from-time [HoN. MrFrsets: overdue "A Freedom of lnformarion Act is ldng We are allowed to quote I quote from lhe PAC repon- Mr. Caplin: "Oh!"]-which states: " Members’ thgold:".1l Madam Speaker: Order’ Hon on the Modemisation ot tne know Conservative Membrs should rule? or 18 years of Tory *i tJrltin" and then not received a -Before il’;;h; ;""tit for a reply’ I came to the House’ ;J"il;;;J;t " Minister’ v"I-:l: had to publish il:".*iil iriui r r"a :$ had made within a cerarn itit."""*" "f replies that it consider introducing league lliir] ft-triittt i;n’ Friend thev would i;;i;i;;’6;;;-."tt Departments’ so that reply within specified timesl Conuniftee "lint House of Commons’ tu"’rlptn better. ls that not symPtomanc Mr. Caplin: my hon Friend’s Mr. Kilfoyle: The short answer to *’ simplv no’ is tables. -boultl o";,.ion;;’"i i""gue Nevertheless like $’irh like l,-rufO’toi’u. coriparing ’the iraterial that has alwavs beet "-*it ot’l-*""rl.e’r?iu" an assurance conclusions on fteedom ;;il;""d;,";"t and consideration in the i"iJ#i""" *iri u" given of th -utmost Bill? information ot chancellor of the Duchy *t itn, t on i’i"na the that the rePort’s 40 or so’ ii.Je’;;ittht"c to hon Members J"uirti.[ * .it" ?ffrciency of rePl.ies time the figure frst rhe for puutiih th".iv #;;;"[ and pubtic sovemment ;;.;;;;;*"’bitween the question’ it is tru )il’ oilit.- ""i".,1"" " by the Dr, Clark: I am panicularly impressed co"n.i,iJi-l"pln’.becausei:l"JA.TPl-ltJ,ffi : D issues that have not been rarsed .f freedom On the fitst pan of my hon Friend’s from th ,h""*l .tt^fi’i"ff out the lessons to be leamed -e"f-" ;i Denineot comments on coverage #".iffi information and data Protecuon n: my thinking. ;";d in Scotland- following ol ;h; *t""."luti*-thiP"btt**n frdo* ani Maclennan (Caithness’ Sutherland the accePt that nor on\v the chancellor i[ ii h:;J;;t ;i;;’;; wanted I with the other 26 authorities that but coul scheme’ "’"i’rt ",i.t i".r’t an advennrrous Pilot oari’"T year two first rhe for r.,’ua. ea the schemes roll out practtc good the from benefit also then’ we are networking thos Mr. Eric Forth #il i;ij,’D*; ^ Mr. Robrt for.Govemment DePanme i"’’ui.t ""i g*d eno’’ugh fro^ !h: lt?" Y:Tl quesdon. Fir"*i"g ,rtE excelleni wl good enough for hosPiuts and schools’ ( Brornley. and chislehurst)r lf leag’ i;’ii;;";v ’N.i;;;;d Minister? 61,o"’in.. u’,nro’t PPpr" I1"^#lgi:TiiJflf ilt and irnprove the .qualitv :1, i:il;;; ; it and hope white PaDer’ back his Personal co ;;’# ;’si"ffi; ; * :{::-’,,H’i:oi:,r*f:,[" #: tegtstat the Minister consr( letters that hr o"ifitftitg’-,i," p-podion of ministerial not signed bv t (litr’ Bliz;rd)’ will ""do*ilv get that are dmerable on innoducing operung up lJti.i.’*,i""L-i" ,tte doveinment’s goal of decision making. has a long record Dr. Clark: The right hon Gen’leman his kind cornments l-repe-at t" -no tnan one in the House is keener .,riO earlieri C.rif.ni- ii"" *rii-*"Jr that the tron. Mr. Kilfoyle: I recall crossing swords with the ri of league tab ln the past on the-subject -always ;i-;;;’ldfireciate *t li 5.r2 *i.,it"i .itlv lii’tlii"oii,’*" cannot compare unlike Depart’mr iiuir. nri"rarOl,’on" me comparisoni would not be valid’ ii’ii """l-",ti’i. were meaningtul comparisons ’ Ar wave non’ E leno ihe Member for argument centred CO|34’ORAUTHOUSE OF COMMONS SESSION 1997_98 wHo10454 ilil I lilillillil ill llil illillililfi ffi SELECT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Third Report YOUR RIGHT TO KNOW: THE GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSALS FOR A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT Volume I Report and Proceedings of the Committee toeether with Minutes of Evidence Ordered by TheHouse ofCommons to be 19 May 1998 u,qtn tlrrni 25- s- se LONDON: THE STATIONERY OFFICE f. |9 50 [r{i., r .. t- 398-l ., i,* ., ’ F tt .--r’),THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PUBLTC ADMINISTRATION e,astgrn Group plc !!. 65. Northern Electric plc 54. Medical Practices Committee 55. Mehopolitan Police Committee 56. National Institute for Biological Standards and Control 57. Police Negotiating Board 58. Public Health Laboratory Service . 59. Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RWMAC) ............. 60. Secretary to the Central Advisory Committee on War pensions (CAC) . . Trent plc . . . {1. 62. -Sevgrn Yorkshire Water . . 63. Water Services Association 108 109 l0 12 u6 lt9 120 120 l5 66. Hyder plc and SWALEC (South Wales Electricity Board) . . 67. South Westem Electricity plc .. ........ 68. Electricity Association 69. Cenhica plc 70. British Energy plc . . 71. PowerGen 72. Stewart Ashurst, ChiefExecutive, Essex County Council . 73. David Radford, ChiefExecutive, Somerset County Council . ......... 74. Katrine S-!orle, ChiefExecutive, Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council . . . . . . . 75. Dundee City Council 76. Manchester City Council 77. Scottish Borders Council 80. Professor Vemon Bogdanor 81. Centre for Utility Consumer Law 82. Des McConaghy 83. James Michael . 84. Mrs Jane Pearson and Dr David Clark . . . . . 85. Electronic Data Syslems Limited . 86. Group 4 Limited . 87. Newspaper Society . 88. Royal Historical Society . 89. Defence Le-ague of British Pensioners and War 90. Borough of Hackney . 91. Warwickshire County Council ...... 92. British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering 93. National Foster Care Association ......... 94. Shelter 95. Ministry of Defence . 96. Northem Ireland Office Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council . il 79. l"{tt Dr Ross Anderson . . . . 1.tt 126 121 t26 130 l3l 132 t34 r36 138 139 140 140 l4l 142 144 145 145 148 tfu 153 156 161 162 r64 Veterans (DpV) r68 . t7l ttL I IJ 174 175 168 176 97. David Davies, Chairman, Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment 98. Robert Hazell 99. Intervention Board t78 180 t80 190THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ADMINISTMTION ACCESS TO INFOR}IATION AND TTIE RIGIIT OF PRIVACY | 0. One ofthe most difficult and crucial issues that the Freedom of Information Act needs to address is the extent to which the public’s right of access to information may ovenide the individual citizen’s right ofprivacy. Some ofthe issues ofconfidentiality involved are illustrated in the box below. This is the least satisfactory aspect ofthe proposed Act. It has been seriously complicated by the fact that there are three pieces oflegislation which deal with these matteri which have been, or are to be introduced separately: the Human Rights Bill; the Data Protection Bill; and the Freedom of Information Bill. We have serious doubts that the regime proposed strikes the right balance between privacy and openness, or indeed whether it will be workable. PRMCY VS TIIE RIGHT TO KNOW: WIIAT SORT OF INFORMATION RAISES THESE PROBLEMS? "Foster carers do not have the legal right ofaccess to the records ofthe children and young people in their care. To give carers direct access would not only conflict with the rights of children to confidentiality, but also would not be practicable because ofthe nature ofthe records... Social Service Departments (SSDs) have a statutory duty to pass on all ofthe information that carers need to care for each child in placement... However, in practice, social workers make decisions about what information it is appropriate to pass on, and what is not. NFCA often hears from foster carers who find that crucial information about the child and his or her circumstances is not passed on. In the worst scenario, a foster carer may welcome into their home a young person who has already abused other children, without being told of National Foster Care Association. this".r6 In a judgment in March (R v Chief Constable of North Wales Police and others ex parte P.Thorpe and another), Lord Woolf decided that the police had acted lawfully in informing the owner of a caravan site ofthe presence there of a couple who had been released after serving prison sentences for sexual offences against children. The Times 19 March 1998, p.5. The fees earned by individual barristers from legal aid have hitherto been treated as confidential. But in April I998 payments to the 20 solicitors’ firms and 20 banisters who received the largest sums ofmoney fiom the legal aid fund in 1996-97 were pubtished by the Lord Chancellor’s Department. HC Deb 28 April 1998, 311 cols 65-71Y. Do the press or public have a right to know the whereabouts ofhigh profile prisoners, or is this personal information which should not be released? Should a doctor be allowed to warn a patient that his or her partner is HIV positive, without the patient’s consent? Should employers be able to ascertain whether ajob applicant has a criminal record, by requiring the applicant to request a copy ofhis or her own criminal record and then produce it to the employer (so-called "enforced subject access")? rbEv, p.124-
THE SELECT COMMITIEE ON PUBLTC ADMTNISTRATION In most countries which have separate privacy and Freedom oflnformation regimes, there is an inevitable conflict between the two competing values. The story of the relationship between the two in Australia and New Zealand indicates the possible results: I l. "Australia has had a relatively weak Privacy Commissioner, who has not established a separate access regime under the 1988 Privacy Act; who has not succeeded in extending the privacy legislation to the private sector; and who has acquiesced in FOI being the goveming statute. In New Zealand by contrast the Privacy Commissioner has been highly effective in arguing for the separate access regime in the new Privacy Act 1993; and in upholding privacy as a value. Freedom of Information observers remark on the chilting effect which the Privacy Act is beginning to have on Freedom of Information disclosures and on information policy more generally. In part this results from public ignorance or misinterpretation ofthe provisions of the Privacy Act; but in part it is because the Privacy Commissioner is an effective ooeralor".r7 The box opposite summarises the relationship between privacy and Freedom of Information regimes in other countries. the individual’s right Protection for of privacy 12. The UK does not have a single law defending individuals’ privacy; but two Bills currently under consideration deal with privacy rights. The first ofthese is the Human Rights Bill, which will make provision in order to give fullet effect in UK domestic law to the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 of the Convention says that: (a) (b) "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise ofthis right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests ofnational security, public safety or the economic well-being ofthe country, for the prevention ofdisorder or crime, for the protection ofhealth or morals, or for the protection ofthe rights and freedoms ofothers". The freedoms in Article 8 are balanced by the freedom of expression in Article l0 of the Convention which includes the right to receive and impart information. lTEv- p.188.
THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 14. Freedom of lnformation and these two pieces of legislation inevitably pull in different directions. On the one hand, there is a risk that by taking a liberal approach to Freedom of Information the UK may find itself in breach ofArticle 8 ofthe European Convention on Human Rights. On the other, there is a risk that over-scrupulous concem for privacy may prevent the disclosure of information of legitimate concem to the public. The Lord Chancellor sought to reassure us about the conflict between the Convention and the Freedom oflnformation Act: ’the important thing, I think, is that the Human Rights Bill represents a floor ofrights; it does not represent a maximum ofrights, it is a floor ofrights beneath which people should not fall. These are minimum rights. However, there is nothing in the Human Rights Bill which prevents the freedoms and rights of individuals.being enhanced above that floor. This is exactly what the Freedom of Information Bill does".re We agree with him on the Article 10 side, but whether that solved the Article 8 infringement problem is another matter. It might be added that the Council ofEurope, which is responsible forthe Convention, in l98l recommended to Member States that they implement Freedom of Information laws.z0 15. The difliculty for Freedom of Information represented by the Data Protection Bill is not easily assessed. In any conflict between the two regimes, the Data Protection Bill may well take precedence, because it is derived from European Community law. The Data Protection Registrar, Mrs Elizabeth France, argued that "there would be recourse to the European Courts directly if we were to deny people the rights which were contained in the Data Protection BilP’.2r If the Freedom of Information Bill were not drafted so as to be compatible with the Data Protection Directive, she said,’te courts would make it clear if challenged that in the case of an individual the Data Protection Bill’s requirements would be the ones which took precedence".2r Furthermore, the Registrar gave us an indication ofwhat her approach will be to finding a balance between privacy and freedom of information: in cases relating to information supplied in confidence she was, she said, likely to "start from the position that processing such data in order to disclose it without the consent ofthe individual or some over- riding compelling public interest (such as the saving of life or the prevention or detection of serious crime) is either unlawful or unfair processing ofpersonal data ... it is wrong to have to satisry any test of harm in order to protect personal records from disclosure to third parties. Indeed, there is a strong public interest in preserving the privacy and confidentiality of individuals [which] will only be ovenidden (in the absence of consent) on limited compelling grounds ofpublic interest or for the protection ofthe vital interests of individuals".:r On the other hand, the provisions in the Data Protection Bill appear to allow for the disclosure of information withoutthe consent ofathird parfy ifit is done "underany enactment", which would presumably include the Freedom of Information Bill. The White Paper seems surprisingly phlegmatic about the possibility ofconflicts about the disclosure ofpersonal information and their resolution. It says that "in the unlikely event of a dispute arising between the Commissioner and Registrar, on which they were unable to reach agreement, this would ultimately be resolved by th courts".2a This may be true, but strikes us as an abdication of responsibility for drafting clear legislation, which avoids recourse to the courts except where unavoidable. 16. The right to privacy has a head start; the Government should ensure that the right ofaccess to information is not left behind. We accept the Data Protection Registrar’s view that preserving the privacy and confidentiality of individuals is a vital interest, which should be overridden only on careful consideration and for good reasons. But there must be a mechanism to ensure that it can be overridden where necessary and in a systematic way. In the absence ofajoint Data Protection and Freedom oflnformation regime, there needs to be careful consideration to ensuring a proper balance between the two values of privacy and openness which does not stifle Freedom of Information early on. We recommend that the Government clariff to what extent it believes that the Data Protection Bill will work to prevenl access ’"Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe R(81) :lQ.zlo; se aho Ev, p.154, llq zsr 19, -Q.2tr. of,e"- I ,if;in se, n" . z.z.
THIRD REPORT FROM by tbird perties to informrtion about an individual, and how it is proposed that the Data Protection Bill is to provide the protection for the individual’s right to privacy against the right to information held by the Government. Access to persorul information 17. Besides protecting the individual’s rights of privacy, the Data Protection Act is also the vehicle for a certain type of Freedom of Information. The Data Protection Act 1984 gives individuals the right ofaccess to information relating to themselves which is held on computer. Under the new Data Protection Bill they are also to gain the right of access to information relating to themselves held in ordinary (or "paper" or "manual") files. The Box opposite shows the main provisions conoerned). The Freedom oflnformation Act, when enacted, is, in addition, supposed to give individuals another system of gaining access to information which directly relates to them. The Govemment has argued in the White Paper that it should therefore be possible for anyone to find out what is held by public authorities about themselves under either the Data Protection Act or the Freedom of Information Act. There would in other words be considerable overlap between the two regimes: they will, according to the White Paper, cover the same ground in providing access for an individual to data held about them by public authorities. This raises the possibility of a confusing and messy patchwork of different provisions under which one may obtain access to one’s own file. How the system works for individuals is crucial: overseas experience suggests that a great majority ofrequests are likely to involve personal information. The White Paper suggests that these problems can be overcome. It says that "as far as is practicable, we will align the systems for access to personal information under Data Protection and Freedom of Information. This is likely to include the means of access, time limits for reply, charges and appeals... In addition the Govemment proposes thatpublic authorities willhave a duty to ensure that any significant difference between the two regimes is made known to any applicant who might be aflected by such a difference".25 18. The access rights in the two pieces of legislation, however, will be very different. The Freedom of Information Bill will allow access to all records; the Data Protection Bill as introduced will allow access only to computerised, or "structured" personal files-information aranged "either by reference to individuals or by reference to criteria relating to individuals, in such a way that particular information relating to a particular individual is readily accessible" [clause l]. The two pieces of legislation will have different exclusions and exemptions. For example, personal data processed for purposes of the prevention or detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution ofoffenders, or the assessment or collection ofany tax or duty is exempt from the right of access to personal data under the Data Protection Bill in any case where disclosure would prejudice those purposes [clause 28]-a straightforward exemption based on atest ofharm. Underthe Freedom of Information Bil[ some of the same data may be completely excluded as information relatingto the investigation and prosecution functions ofthe police, prosecutors and other bodies carrying out law enforcement work; or it may be exempt because it could "substantially harm the effectiveness of law enforcement or encourage the avoidance or evasion oftax"; or it may be disclosed because it would not cause substantial harm or because it was in the public interest to disclose it. Again, under the Data Protection Bill, a Minister will be able to issue a certificate exempting certain descriptions ofpersonal data from most ofthe provisions ofthe Act on the grounds ofnational security; there will, however, be an appeal to the Data Protection Tribunal on the grounds that the decision to issue the certificate was not reasonable [clause 27]. The same information could be totally excluded from the Freedom of Information Bill, and therefore placed beyond the possibility of reference to the Information Commissioner, because it relates to the security services; or it could be exempt under the "national security" specified interest. An individual searching for personal files is likely to be left bewildered. Just as likely, the Information Commissioner and Data Protection Registral5 may make incompatible decisions in similarareas. The Data Protection Registrar told z5oara 4.1 l. Data Protcction Rcgistrar will become the Data Protection Commissioner under the provisioN ofthc the sake of simplicity, the Office is rcferrcd to as the Data Protection Regislrar throughout this Rcpon, 26ihe Bill. For
THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Protection regimes in order to make a more coherent and more workable system for access to persotral information. We are most unhappy that the Government has been so vague about the relationship between the Freedom of Information proposals and the Data Protection Bill, and that it seems that it has not until very recently got to grips with the problems involved in reconciling the two. It is essential that the conflicts we have identified are resolved, and resolved soon. There must be a simple and comprehensible system for individuals to gain access to their own information, which avoids the complexities presented by differing access regimes and ensures that the right ofaccess is effectively enforced. Third party appeals 22. The White Paper asks for views on whether a mechanism should be established to allow third parties to appeal against decisions to release information which they believe would cause "substantial harm" to their interests.32 As the Data Protection Registrar pointed out, Article 6 ofthe European Convention on Human Rights says that "in the determination ofhis civil rights ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public he_aring within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law"." [t seems difticult, therefore, 10 prevent such a system ofappeal even if it were wished to do so. We agree that a system ofappeals for third parties is essential, This does, of course, cause a number of practical problems. DSS have a great difliculty with it: the process of providing access to records could be complicated and delayed ifthe third party or parties had to be consulted aboutthe release of their information in each case. "The Department will therefore be keen to explore the scope for procedures to avoid, as much as possible, the need to contact third parties at the time an access request is made. Letting third parties know in advance that information may be disclosed could be one way forward... Where a third party is aware ofthe possibility ofdisclosure there should be no need for firrther contact following an access request".3a DTI make a similar point: "we would not wish, in the extreme, to be required unnecessarily by the Act to ask third parties whether they would object to the disclosure of information which they had provided to the Department in circumstances where the information was manifestly suitable for public consumption (eg was already in the public domain) and where the third party clearly could have no sustainable objection to its further promulgation".rt It may be diflicult to find the third party concemed; the public authority may not have a contact address for the person. Appeals would negd to be heard before disclosure, and there may, in some circumstances, be compelling reasons to release information before an appeal can be dealt with. We are also concerned about the possibility of accidental or wrongful disclosure ofcommercial or other confidential information which causes damage or distress, and the legal implications this would have. It is not clear from the White Paper whether this possibility has been fully considered. EXCLUSTONS 23. The White Paper says that Freedom of Information "as a fundamentalelement ofour policy to modemise and open up govemment, should have very wide application".K The proposals are, it claims, designed to replace the previous "piecemeal and inadequate system with clear and consistent requirements which would apply across government".rT We have been impressed by the breadth of the White Paper’s commitment to Freedom of Information. But this has made the Government’s decision to exclude certain bodies and classes of information altogether from the scope ofthe proposed Act all the more regrettable, This means that the information will not be accessible at all, unless it is voluntarily made public or is required under other statutory provisions; there will be no opportunity to request the information or to weigh the public interest in its provision against the public interest in withholding it. The Information "Min ofEv. "-Ev. p.10. p.60, para.8,3. :’Ev, p.14. 2. "pata t. paftL l.o.
Tl.tE SELECT COir.’IMITTEE ON PUBLIC ADMINISTMTION Information is unlikely to be among its first priorities. It may be some time until it enacts lesislation about Freedom of Information. The Lord Chancellor, in evidence to the Committee, aciepted this point;?3 and we believe that the degree to which Freedom of Information should cover Scoftish authorities should not be left in such doubt. The Scottish Consumer Council, in their submission to the Cabinet OfIice on the White Paper, point out that there is a further source of confusion in the fact that Data Protection (across all departments) is a reserved matter, for which the Westminster Parliamentwill continueto be responsible, whileFreedom of Information (in relation to non-reserved matters) is not.74 They also raised a concem that there might be differing provisions in Scotland and in the rest of the UK: "it will clearly be unsatisfactory if Scottish citizens do not have access to the same categories of information on the same basis as citizens in other parts of the UK’. We do not regard it as unsatisfactory for the Scottish Parliament to be able to introduce differing provisions for Scotland to those ofthe rest ofthe UK; that is the nature ofdevolution. The rights ofthe Scottish Parliament to accept or to reject the provisions should be preserved. We do believe, however, that there needs to be a system which can be used to facilitate the application ofthe Act in Scotland as soon as possible. We recommend that there should be provision to ensure that the Actwill be brought into effect in Scotland in relation to devolved matters as soon as it comes into effect in the rest of the UK, to ensure that there would not be a lengthy period in which Freedom of Information will not apply to devolved matters in Scotland. ,GATEWAY" PROVISIONS 47. The White Paper sets out a series ofwhat amount to conditions for requesters: "applicants will be encouraged to act reasonably and not abuse or misuse the access rights that the Act provides".75 Making a request 48. As noted above, the White Paper says that there are a number of circumstances in which the authorities subject to the Act will not necessarily be required to deal with requests in the normal way, by assessing them against the harm and public interest tests and then taking a decision to release the information or not to release it. These circumstances would include, for instance, cases where the information was already available, or where the information would be published in due course; where the request was not specific enoughto allow the body concerned io look for it; or where the request appeared to be-a ’large-scale "fishing expedition"’, or multiple applications for related material. and so on.’o 49. We accept that some such defences for the bodies subject to the Act are necessary’ There may well be vexatious requests, and it should not be the role ofauthorities to provide routinely information which could be easily obtained fiom (for example) a public library. But the option ofnot releasing information if it is likely to be published could be an excuse for indefinite delay in permitting access, and will need to be subject to cle_ar guidelines; and the option of not deiling with a request if it is suspected that it is simply a "fishing expedition", oreven an attempt to "obitruct or intlrfere with thepublic authority’s business"T? could be misused by some bodies, which might be too quick to make inaccurate assumptions about the nature ofan application or the intentions ofan applicant. These provisions need, therefore, to be balanced by provisions requiring bodies subjeclto the Act to help applicants find the information they want. During our visit to lieland, we heard how its Fresdom of Information Act required bodies subject to it to publish general guides to their role, operation and records, and also to publish intemal guidance or rules ihey hold. A good deal of the second type of material has already been made available under the Code of Practice. But the first type, the general guide to the role, operation and llq.:sr ’-Ev. p.l8l. -.pafa. t.zt. 77itia. ’"owa.2.26.
T1IIRD REPORT FROM type of records it holds, and its policies on disclosure ofdocumenb dno tn"t tn"y ,nlur’J be under a sJatutory duty to advise and assist requesters to narrow ana ainne tli information lhev want records ofthe body concerned, has not. we recommend that bodies subject to the Act shoutd be obliged to publish a detailed booklet covering the role ofthe body, how it *orr.s, ihe so. rh" campaigx for Freedom oflnformation proposes that the public should be given access to a.ny intemal indexes held by the authority. lt atso suggests ihat authoriries ,rfufu-;di; available an index to the records they have released in riiponse to Freedom or Inrormu-tion requests, and copies ofthose records; and that authorities shbuld be requirea to provia" putuc reading rooms where such information, as well as the guides and manuals whos; discloil;;i; proposed in the white Paper, could be inspected. AII ofthese proposals are reasonabi" ;;;, Ib; major bodie-s: govemment departments, for example, or locil authorhies. rn"v ,nav ue tiss practicable torsmaller bodies such as schools or smalladvisory NDpBs. Affangementjforthese could no doubt be made, however, through larger bodiis, for example -the so".*;ini departments or local authorities concerned, oi else ipplicants might be allbwed to ;;";;;k;;; the establishment concerned to review the records-ivailable. fhe Govemment ,"riit.J it slggestion that bodies to which the Act applies should be obliged to creute inaex"s *tii.i tt " do not already exist. Dr clark did say to us, however, that depa-rtments .,mav want for ihiii owi "" convenience to work out some form of index or list and iftiey do that then certaintv iiwoutJ be my intention that that information itself will be subject to ... freedom of info..uti6n;;.td w" recommend ihat public authorities should be required to make available existine indexes to their records, where it is practicable to do sofshould be required to create ifroexes-to new recordsg and should be encouraged to create indexes for old records. w" acc"ot tt this need not be in the Bill itself, but we recomnend that authorities should ue orii,’eeJlo "l prepare a slrategy for cataloguing their records. The way that information is recorfred oi indexed is vital to an effective right ofaccess; this is something the importance of which was madeclear to us during our visit to Sweden; and we will retum t6 the issue in ou, trtu.e reports. It will be essential to make sure that applicants are able to identifo rhe aocuments ttrey aie seeking. Fees and charges _ 51. The white Paper sets out a system of charges for applicants. It points out that Freedom of Information carries costs, and that "every major Freedom of Informition regime in the;oriJ contains provisions for charging". Itdividesthe systems into two types: flat-rite,,entrv charsesi made each time an application is made and charges for dealing *ith the requesl rit,i"t increase depending on the amount ofwork required in order to deal with it, ind possiuly aii6 depending on the nature of the requester (whether an individual or a commercial ’operatilony.tt fr* white Paper pro?oses to employ both ofthese. public authoriries covered by the Act be able !9 lhare a "limited access fee per request", of no more than f,l0; rhen puuiic authorities will be able to set their own charging schimes,.within parameters tald aown’eiflrei in the_Act itself or (more probably) an order made under it".E’ These would exctuae a po*"i to make a profit; prevent bodies charging for information which a public authoriw is,eluirJ under the Act itselfto make publicly available; and "should be strucrured to falt primariiv in ttre limited numberofapplications which involve significant additionalwork ana cotisiOeratie costs. rather than.straight forward application"s which, for public authorities, should be part anJparcei of normal interaction with the public".EI 5,2..The. will 53. How expensive is. it likely to be to obtain the information requested? under the code, . there is no access fee, but bodies _subject to it could make chargei depending on rt"ir ti*. required. The charges vary widely between departments. They are preseirtea inlhe table on the llq-r re- BO’ ’’para.2.29. Ddra, IDIA. , 8l’., . z,J!.
THIRD REPORT FROM interest.r5r Documents written by third parties (for example the govemment of a Member State) are also excluded from the regime and requests must be made to that third party.r5z Could the EC regime inform the approach of UK authorities to such requests when made to the UK ’author’ of the document? Or would the EC regime influence the attitude of UK authorities in releasing otler EC documents in their possession? If so, then this will.probably result in a less liberal initude than under the proposed Freedom of Information Bill.’1r The EU Ombudsman has managed by negotiation to exten d the Code de facto to a wider range ofEC bodies, including the EC Parliament and the ECJ is discussing a possible extension of the European Code to its Ombudsman. (The European Ombudsman has said that a own documents even though the latter is not within the jurisdiction of the European to information could amount to maladministration)’ The Amsterdam Treaty failure to adopt proper rules on access elevated the Freedom of Information question to a Treaty provision (new Article 255) stating that principles and limits would be set out in an act made under Article 251 and each institution covered by the provision: the Council, Commission and_the Euro-pean Parliament would elaborate speciftc orovisions in its own Rule ofProcedure.rsa This will take several years to achieve and there is no guarantee thatthe regime will be any more liberal than at present’ W visited Sweden inMay in order to discuss this point (among others), and we will retum to it in our next report on the draft Bill. PUBLIC RECORDS 98. The Freedom of Information Act, the White Paper says, will have a considerable impact on our public records system. The public already possesses the right ofaccess to govemment recordi over 30 years old under the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967. The right applies to central govemment bodies and the courts. Most old records are, in fact, destroyed: onJy a small percenttge ofthe records,created by govemment are transfened to the Public Record Oftice and preserved permanently.r" 99, The White Paper considers whether it should be necessary to uniry the systems ofaccess to,.current" records-those less than 30 years old-and of access to older records. It proposes that the Freedom of Information Act should cover access to both current and historical material: .,this will provide a comprehensive right ofaccess to all records, regardless oftheir age". There will, however, continue to be different systems of access for current records and historical records. Records ofover 30 years old will, as now, be assumed to be open to the public (with no need to apply the "harm" or "substantial harm" tests). Records that were created more recently may-be released before their time; but in general they will g.!ly be available ifthey are not subject io an exclusion and if they pass through the harm tests.rr6 ,,cunent" to becoming "historical". Its conolusion, that "it is preferable to retain the from being 30 year rule which is in line with intemational practice" is, itwould seem, based largely on the coit ofaccelerating the process of reviewing old records to determine whether they should be preserved as ..historical’r or not. Changing the 30 year rule to a 25 year rule would cost f,60 million over five years,r5t a cost, the White Paper says, which "would not constitute the best use of scarce public resources".rtE lhe White Paper does, however, commit the Govemment to 100. The White Paper discusses the possibility oflowering the threshold at whioh records pass tstSee World Wide Fundfor Natxre (WllF) v Comnission 99?l ECR Il, 313. The court of first instance said that reasons have to be givcn iven when ii is decided that mandatory intcrests should prevcnt disclosure l5?See also Declaration 35 ofthe Amsterdam Trcaty, from which it may be infcned rhat the cxclusions will not cover Dalties other than member states. ls3see van der waal u European Commission, Case T 83/96 ( | 9 March 1998) on a request for access to documents in policy the Commission sent by national courts relating to points ofcompetition law and l5’See lJJoaras.6.1-6.4. also the new Aniclc 207(3). lJ6oaras,6.5--0.6- l57Min of Ev- p.84. ls8oara.6.5.
THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PTJBLTC ADMINISTMTION releasing more records earlier than the 30 year threshold. Earlier release is already encouraged under the Code of Practice.rse l0l. Not all preserved records are opened after 30 years. Some may be withheld for longer, and are either retained within departments indefinitely or sent to the Record Oflice but closed for a specified period. In either case, departments have to show that the records comply with criteria for non-disclosure laid down in 1993 Guidelines. Documents whose disclosure might harm the defence, intemational relations, or national security ofthe counby may be closed for up to 40 years; documents containing information supplied in confidence may be closed for periods of up to 100 years; and so on. The Home Secretary said that the earliest files in existence in the Home Office that were still olosed date from 1874 and concemed files created by the then Irish Secret Police.’uo The White Papet says that these criteria---already not too dissimilar to the specified interests under Freedom of Information-will be recast to make the relationship between them much closer. 102. There is already a system by which it is possible to appeal against extended closure of some documents. Appeal is to the Advisory Council on Public Records which advises the Lord Chancellor. The White Paper argues that this is ineffective; it proposes to direct appeals on public records instead to the Information Commissioner.’u’ We note, however, the point made in evidence to us by the Royal Historical Society, who argue that the Information Commissioner should be supported by professional historical advice in reaching ajudgement on such cases.162 103. Our principal concem about this section ofthe Wlite Paper is about its application to bodies outside central government to which the Freedom of Information Act will apply. The White Paper itself is silent on this; the background paper says merely that "Records of local authorities are not covered by the Public Records Acts: separate provision is made for these records to be made available to the public. It is envisaged that this will continue under FOI".163 This is inadequate in relation to local authorities; and more inadequate in relation to all ihe other bodies cbncemed. It is reasonable that the Public Record Oflice should not become a repository for the records ofbodies not within central government; but further consideration might have been given to whether other bodies ought to be required to meet the standards of central govemment in record keeping, and whether the rights of access given to central govemment records, currently through the Public Records Acts, and in the future through the Freedom of Information Act, should coverthe otherbodies as well. Lord Irvine referred to such an extension ofthe Act as constituting an "upheaval";run but it is not clear to us why ensuring that central government standards ofrecord-keeping apply to other govemment bodies as well should cause an upheaval. If it is not done, freedom of information will almost inevitably be less effective as it applies to these other bodies. 104. The White Paper also refers to the importance ofproper records management. It proposes "to place an obligation on departments to set records management standards", with regard to best practice guidance drawn up by the Public Record Office---and particularly relating to the implications ofthe new extensive use ofelectronic systems for processing information and for communicating. As the White Paper says, "statutory rights ofaccess are oflittle use ifreliable records are not created in the first place, if they cannot be found when needed, or if the arrangements for their eventual archiving or destruction are inadequate",r65 The Public Record Office is only likely to help those govemment bodies which come under its remit. There will be a great need---a greater need-for the same sort ofhelp among the other bodies to which the Act applies-local authorities, schools, contractors, the utilities-which may not have been used to the discipline which a statutory obligation to keep records requires. lVe recommend that the expertise ald assistance of the Public Record Olfice should be made available to these bodies as well as those which it is obliged to help. lJeoaras, 6.7-6,9, 160;t s14 iili"* i r63p.65, r r ’o’Ev. D.t68. fn.l8. ilb++o ’"’para.6.12.
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Rm 8245
Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB
Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 21[REDACTED]
(Switchboard) 0171 218 9000
(Fax) 0171 21[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
British National Space Centre
== by fax ==
[REDACTED]
(2 pages)
Your reference
Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/1[REDACTED]
Date 18 June 1998
QUESTION RELATING TO "UFOs" ON BNSC WEB SITE
1. Thank you for your fax message of 17 June, in which you sought our confirmation that we would be content for a question on Government responsibility for this subject to be included on the BNSC's Web Site.
2. Attached you will find the text we would prefer to see used. If you wish to discuss further with me please feel free.
[REDACTED]
SECRETARIAT(AIR STAFF)2A1
Enc.I To r,rhom do I talk about "Unideutified rlying Objects?" threat from an external nilitary Eource, no attempt is rnade to determine its precise nature. The MoD doe6 not provide an aerial identification service in cases where there is no defence interest , The MOD focal point for queries relating to the above is: Ministry of Room I245 The Ministry of Defence (MOD) is the Government focal point, However, it only exarnines the reports it receives for one rea6on! to establish whether there is evidence that the UK’s air defences have been penetrated by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. unless the eightinq reveale evidence of a potential Secretarj-at (Air Staff) Main Building Whitehal l Defence 2a London SW1A 2HB
Secretariat(Air Staff) Fax:0171-218-[REDACTED]
** Transmit Conf.Report **
18 Jun '98 13:40
+---------------------------+
| Secretariat(Air Staff)--> |
+--------+------------------+
| No. | 0218 |
+--------+------------------+
| Mode | NORMAL |
+--------+------------------+
| Time | 1'11' |
+--------+------------------+
| Pages | 2 Page(s) |
+--------+------------------+
| Result | O K |
+--------+------------------+17/06/98 15:07 ND.713 P01
[Handwritten: 64/1 fax betta sat back to AP 18 Jun.]
[BNSC logo]
BRITISH NATIONAL SPACE CENTRE
FAX COVER SHEET
+---------------------+---+-------------------------------------+
| To: | | From: [REDACTED] |
| Secretariat | | British National Space Centre |
| (Air Staff)2a | | 151 Buckingham Palace Road |
| Main Building | | London. SW1W 9SS |
| MoD | | |
+---------------------+---+-------------------------------------+
| Fax: [REDACTED] | | Tel: [REDACTED] |
+---------------------+---+-------------------------------------+
| Date: 17 June 1998 | | Fax: [REDACTED] |
+---------------------+---+-------------------------------------+
| Total Pages: 2 | | Ref: |
+---------------------+---+-------------------------------------+
Update of BNSC's Web Site
You will recall that Mr Battle- the DTI Minister for Science- has received a number of letters recently from members of the public regarding the government's policy on UFOs. BNSC sought your advice, for which we were grateful, before answering these letters.
BNSC is currently in the process of updating its website. We intend to include a page called "Frequently asked Questions" where we will provide answers to the most common questions asked by the public. It has been suggested that we include a question on UFO's and I attach with this fax a copy of the question and answer we intend to put on the website.
I would be grateful if you could confirm that you are content for BNSC to include such a question on our site and that you are happy with the answer and the fact that it gives your address as the appropriate contact point.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you wish to discuss this further.
[REDACTED]/ r?/86/ffi 15:ffi tt]. ?13 trtoqnentb adrod Oucofloff tilts tr) , c>t’ , . l t( ,rn o.rt-.:*^ rtUl-^+ot obi El . lill,tD* uua ,. t* sP c-cta’r’! *f iffi5SF*;j.’;XH*,H1** oovcrnmrtporiovoi’uro’i"pottsis*ffi hdilior,!tuthods0d ftrdgn milirnfy il’ffffid;Hx""*;; ilJ;;;ft;d-ii broce Unbse the dghpg -_ --e-E-o,-r4A ej’<G..\^’,^c- f?-Fa’-s :l;\-b m ffiffiffiffi;;ro,,u ;#;;";Ji -({ of t p6t*nlrt tbreat frou cn taomnl milbw isErds,to . _";l-;";;r;;’fto,itcbti"e ,gg*dd euch wideuce . ro attomPt investi*Li4’ th$ fEl FE trog@u co.,.*nt*r doe,s trot "ffiu the lffge putlic terotmas requkerl I smrrte *tr"ilffie-6iustiry t*6rlsGie*tt il policy I,eed respamibilfu for Gwcrnment lie$ritb Ure lWoi$ry of Dtdmoo m tfu -19f tho followilg tdffess;I Secrstctint (Air St8ff)24 MidstrY ofDeftnoe Room8245 MainBdldinS whirhrll tmdou, SWIAZHB[ENCLOSURE NUMBER 5]
Loose Minute
D/Sec(AS)/64/1
9th June 1998
DDI Sec
DI55c
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE ON 'UFOs'
Reference:
A. D/DI(Sec)6/2 dated 3rd June 1998 [Handwritten: anc 3/1]
B. D/DI55/108/15 dated 7th April 1998
1. You asked (Reference A) if we would reply to the letters from [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] about 'UFO' research. I agree that another line of correspondence with members of the public on 'UFOs' would be unhelpful. We have a voluminous file of correspondence from [REDACTED], each letter more insistent than the theories. I am happy to take this latest missive on and the similar approach from [REDACTED].
2. [REDACTED] is an expert when it comes to expanding officially provided fact with fiction to suit his own purposes. He is adept at offering such hybrid information to others as reassurance that he already 'knows' something in the hope they will be lulled into providing further information. I can assure you that the only information we have given to [REDACTED] about DI55 is the penultimate paragraph in the attached letter. It was provided by Wg Cdr [REDACTED] at Reference B. Sec(AS)2 staff have not provided any other information about your organisation, and certainly not official addresses (which, for the record, he has not sought from us).
[REDACTED]
Sec(AS)2
MB8247 [REDACTED]
CHOTS: SEC(AS)2
FAX : [REDACTED]From: [REDACTED] Secretariat (Air Staff)2
Room 8247, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB
Telephone (Direct dial) 0171[REDACTED]
(Switchboard) 0171 218 9000
(Fax) 0171 21[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
Your reference
Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3
Date 24th April 1998
Dear [REDACTED]
I have received your letter dated 8th March.
In response to your further questions about the alleged reports on our files from the Defence Radiological Protection about the Rendlesham Forest Incident, I should explain that there are no reports on our files from the Defence Radiological Protection levels mentioned in that document. The content of any internal memos held on our files would not be open for disclosure because they contain opinions and/or views not intended for publication. You will know that Departmental files on alleged 'UFO' sightings are routinely preserved for public release at the 30 year point and I can assure you that any internal memos would remain on the files and be released at that time.
You also ask about unusual radar tracks. It is for the operators of radar equipment, using their experience and expertise, to define at any moment in time what might be an unusual track; the Official Secrets Act covers the disclosure of any information of a classified nature; where it was judged that an external military threat to the integrity of the United Kingdom Air Defence Region was of concern, action as appropriate to that threat would be instigated; and, witnesses would not be 'interrogated' where circumstances did not warrant such action.
I am sorry I am unable to provide any details about DSTI branches from 1967 onwards or how they might have been reorganised. You will, perhaps, know that DI55 is a branch within the MOD which is concerned with scientific and technical intelligence in matters of air defence.
Finally, I have to say that the information you are seeking about possible radar and visual sightings for the last five or thirty years cannot be provided since to try and gather the information from a very large number of files would involve significant staff effort to the detriment of essential defence-related tasks.
Yours sincerely
[REDACTED]ACS(F&S) HQLC Fax [REDACTED] 8 Jun '98 13:36 P.01/03
[Handwritten: Sec(AS)2a K8 64/1]
[RAF crest]
HEADQUARTERS LOGISTICS COMMAND
Royal Air Force Brampton, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, PE18 8QL
Telephone: Huntingdon (01480) 52151 ext [REDACTED]
RAFTN x 95331 ext [REDACTED]
Fax ext [REDACTED]
Please reply to the Air Officer
Commanding in Chief
For the attention of: CS(Fin Sec)1
See Distribution Our Reference: LC/356805/3/F&S
Date: 8 June 1998
Please find attached a copy of our reply to [REDACTED] who has made further enquiries about RAF Rudloe Manor and in particular the role of Building Property Facility Management (BFPM) Ltd and Building and Property Defence (BPD) Ltd.
Addressees will wish to note that [REDACTED] is now describing himself as a "student studying a course in Environmental Sciences"!
Please let me know if you have any questions.
[REDACTED]
For AOCinC
[Telefax slip:
To: Sec(AS)2a
Fax: [REDACTED]
From: [REDACTED]
Date: [REDACTED]
Pages: 3]ACS(F&S) HQLC Fax [REDACTED] 8 Jun '98 13:36 P.02/03 Distribution: External: Information: Sec(AS)1a* ES[REDACTED] RAF Rudloe Manor* [REDACTED] Building 32, Erskine Barracks, Wilton, Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP2 0AG [REDACTED] Building & Property Defence Ltd, Corsham Navy, Old Shaft Road, Corsham, Wiltshire, SN1 9RF
ACS(F&S) HQLC Fax:6984 8 Jun '98 13:36 P.03/03
From: [REDACTED]
[RAF crest]
HEADQUARTERS LOGISTICS COMMAND
Royal Air Force Brampton, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, PE18 8QL
Telephone: Huntingdon (01480) 52151 ext [REDACTED]
RAFTN x 95331 [REDACTED]
Fax ext [REDACTED]
[REDACTED] Please reply to the Air Officer
Commanding in Chief
For the attention of: CS(Fin Sec)1
Our Reference: LC/356805/3/4/F&S
Date: 29 May 1998
Dear [REDACTED]
Thank you for your letter of 6 May in which you enquire about the role of Building and Property Facilities Management (BFPM) Ltd and Building and Property Defence (BPD) Ltd. I am also replying to your identical letter to the Secretary of State for Defence.
Although I believe that you have already been given the information you are seeking from me, the points of contact are as follows:
For the Wiltshire Works Services Management Contract:
[REDACTED]
Building 32
Erskine Barracks
Wilton
Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP2 0AG.
For the Avon Works Services Management Contract:
[REDACTED]
Building and Property Defence Ltd
Corsham Navy
Old Shaft Road
Corsham, Wiltshire, SN1 9RF.
Yours sincerely
[REDACTED]UK UNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTED UNCLASSIFIED
[REDACTED]
LOOSE MINUTE
D/DI(Sec)6/2
3 June 1998
-->Sec(AS)2a
Copy to:
DI55c
REQUEST FOR UAP SIGHTING RECORDS FROM [REDACTED]
[Handwritten: This letter implies that [*] is responsible for [*] and that we have not accurately reflected [*] in correspondence with this public. I have prepared a draft for your consideration back to DDI Sec. Setting the record straight. (see attached). [REDACTED]]
1. You will see from the attached that AD DI55 has received correspondence direct from [REDACTED] and one of his associates. We are uncertain as to how AD DI55's address was revealed since his move to Room 283 only happened at the end of last year. There appears to have been a breach of classified information. [*]
2. [REDACTED] and his colleague are obviously under the misapprehension that we keep comprehensive records of all sightings of unidentified aerial phenomena(UAP).
- They are also overlooking the fact that reports passed to the MOD are on a confidential basis.
3. It would be unhelpful if we replied directly and developed a second line of correspondence from the MOD. Moreover although the DIS is an avowed organisation, individual appointments and detailed organisational responsibilities remain classified. Therefore there is little scope for entering into direct correspondence with the public. I would be grateful if you could respond on behalf of AD DI55 pointing out that the reports MOD receives are official and in confidence. It would assist us if you could also inform them that DI55 is concerned with scientific and technical intelligence in matters of air defence and does not undertake any wider responsibilities in relation to UAP; as such DI55 does not receive all UAP reports.
[REDACTED]
[Handwritten: Replies sent to
[REDACTED]
held on 64/3 pt N.]
DDI SEC
WH212 x [REDACTED]
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
SEC (AS) 2
-5 JUN 1998
FILE 64/1
UNCLASSIFIED
UK RESTRICTEDWALES FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT UFOLOGISTS
[Decorative header with dragon and UFO symbols]
Everyday people searching for answers
Anglesey Branch Co-ordinator: [REDACTED] C. Chem., M.R.S.C.
Correspondence Address: [REDACTED] PENTRAETH [REDACTED]
AD/DI55
Room 283
Old War Office Building
Whitehall
London 21/5/98
Dear Sir,
I am an industrial chemist and a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC). My main interest lies in the field of unidentified aerial phenomena. I have learned of your Department's extensive role in this field through [REDACTED] of Secretariat (Air Staff) 2a and also through data currently available in the Public Record Office.
I am currently in the process of collating as much data as possible on aerial phenomena. This information will be archived either in the Royal Astronomical Society or RSC sections at Burlington House. In particular, I need details on close-up visual sightings by aircrew, details on radar sightings, details on soil/vegetation analysis and also, most importantly, classification charts on craft types.
I appreciate that you are a busy Department; however, this is precisely why we need the information so urgently. I think it's time you lads had a little help from industry and academia-if we work together, I think we can achieve this.
yours sincerely
[REDACTED][REDACTED] 24 May 1998 AD/DI55 Room 283 Old War Office Building Whitehall London Re: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Dear Sir, I am assisting a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) in archiving data on unidentified aerial phenomena. Through the Parliamentary Office of the RSC, [REDACTED] has presented a report to the Select Committee on Science and Technology outlining data currently available in the Public Record Office. It is clear from [REDACTED]'s research that a large body of information is still unaccounted for since there are no classification charts to categorise the unidentified objects and numerous incidents alluded to in Intelligence reports are simply not available. My understanding is that all information obtained will be archived in the library at Burlington House, the HQ of the RSC. The aim here is to provide sufficient evidence to promote the formation of a SETI sectoral panel for the next round of the DTI Foresight Programme. I trust that you will co-operate with me on what is clearly a tremendous opportunity for DI55 to publicise some of the work that has been carried out into investigating unidentified aerial phenomena. Kind Regards, [REDACTED] MINISTRY OF DEFENCE OLD WAR OFFICE BUILDING 1 JUN 1998
Mon 1 Jun, 1998 16:12 mailbox log Page 1
DATE TO SUBJECT CODES
01/06/98 ICS(OR)1ADV PUBLIC LINES ON MOD INTEREST IN [ ]
Sent: 01/06/98 at 16:12
To: ICS(OR)1ADV
CC:
Ref: 1803
Subject: PUBLIC LINES ON MOD INTEREST IN REPORTS OF 'UFOs' AND ON THE
ALLEGED 'UFO' SIGHTING OVER THE NORTH SEA
Text: [REDACTED]. Still have not tracked down the article. My colleague
has looked through the Telegraph as well as The Times, Guardian
and Independent. Are you sure it's in today's paper?
I attach some lines which you may find of use. I'll ensure [REDACTED]
[REDACTED] (DPO(RAF)) is alerted to the latest Press mischief.
Priority: Urgent View Acknowledge [*] Attachments [ 1]
Reply Request [ ] Delivery Acknowledge [*] Codes [ ]MOD INTEREST IN REPORTS OF 'UFO' SIGHTINGS
The Ministry of Defence has no interest or role with respect to 'UFO/flying saucer' matters, or to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms about which it remains open-minded. To date, however, the MOD is unaware of any evidence which proves that these phenomena exist.
The Ministry of Defence examines any reports of 'UFO' sightings it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely is there any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity.
The reports are examined, with the assistance of the Department's air defence experts as required. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external military source, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that down to earth explanations could be found for these reports, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, if resources were diverted for this purpose but it would be an inappropriate use of defence resources to provide this kind of aerial identification service.
Any further Press Enquiries should be directed towards:
DPO(RAF) - [REDACTED]
0171 218 [REDACTED]
Enquiries from members of the public may be directed in writing
only please to:
Ministry of Defence
Secretariat (Air Staff) 2a
Room 8245
Main Building
Whitehall
SW1A 2HB
Public Line concerning the alleged North Sea 'UFO' sighting
reported in the Daily Mail and Daily Express on 27 April 1998
There were a number of Press Articles in April alleging a 'UFO' sighting over the North Sea. All of the Press reports were incorrect and speculative. RAF Fylingdales has not tracked any 'UFOs' on its radar. The RAF Cranwell 'Military Exploitation of Space' Symposium in June is not concerned with alleged 'UFO' sightings.Mon 1 Jun, 1998 15:40 mailbox log Page 1
DATE TO SUBJECT CODES
01/06/98 ICS(OR)1ADV SUBMISSION TO USofS [ ]
Sent: 01/06/98 at 15:40
To: ICS(OR)1ADV
CC:
Ref: 1802
Subject: SUBMISSION TO USofS
Text: [REDACTED] The submission I've just sent you is classified
RESTRICTED. As you are on CSV8 it won't show when you print it
out. Will you please write it on the document, especially if
you intend copying it to any of your colleagues.
Thank You
[REDACTED]
Priority: Urgent View Acknowledge [*] Attachments [ ]
Reply Request [*] Delivery Acknowledge [*] Codes [ ]RESTRICTED
Mon 1 Jun, 1998 15:34 mailbox log Page 1
DATE TO SUBJECT CODES
01/06/98 ICS(OR)1ADV SUBMISSION TO USofS CONCERNING [ ]
Sent: 01/06/98 at 15:34
To: ICS(OR)1ADV
CC:
Ref: 1801
Subject: SUBMISSION TO USofS CONCERNING PRESS ARTICLES ON THE MILITARY
EXPLOITATION OF SPACE SYMPOSIUM AND "UFOs".
Text: [REDACTED]. Attached as promised a further copy of the above
mentioned submission. DPO(RAF) is out of office at present but
on his return I'll find out what he knows of the latest article.
I am trying to lay my hands on a copy now. I'll send you down
some lines on our general interest in reports of 'UFOs' and what
we said about the articles at the time shortly. [REDACTED]
Priority: Urgent View Acknowledge [*] Attachments [ 1]
Reply Request [ ] Delivery Acknowledge [*] Codes [ ]
RESTRICTEDUNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTED
LOOSE MINUTE
D/Sec(AS)/64/5
30 Apr 98
APS/USofS
(thro [REDACTED])
Copy to:
DPO(RAF)
ADGEl
AD OR(ICS)1
PSO/ACAS
UFO ARTICLES - DAILY MAIL AND DAILY EXPRESS - 27 APRIL 1998
ISSUE
1. To provide advice following the Daily Mail and Daily Express articles of 27 April alleging a 'UFO' sighting over the North Sea.
RECOMMENDATION
2. To note.
BACKGROUND
3. On Sunday 26 April the MOD Press Office received calls from the Daily Mail and Daily Express about an alleged 'UFO' sighting over the North Sea involving an object 'the size of a battleship' travelling at around '17,000 mph' (the published articles subsequently alleged 24,000 mph). No additional information about the date of this alleged incident was provided at the time or has been since. A further 20 phonecalls from the print and broadcast media have now been received.
Source of the Story
4. The Daily Mail has said that [REDACTED] was the source of the story. [REDACTED] a former editor of the [REDACTED] believed to have left the paper under a cloud and has, we understand, been contributing material to the national Press on a freelance basis since that time. [REDACTED] known to be rather inventive of the facts.
RAF Fylingdales, Yorkshire
5. The Fylingdales radar is tasked only to detect and track objects in orbit and those with a ballistic trajectory. The Officer Commanding at RAF Fylingdales has confirmed that for the
1
RESTRICTED UNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTED
35 years it has operated, no 'UFOs' have been tracked. It is the case that the radar is not configured to track such objects, particularly in the reported areas, and there is therefore no substance to the claim that recorded data of this nature is held at RAF Fylingdales.
6. OC Fylingdales also confirmed that the station has not been approached to provide supporting information for the Space Symposium at RAF Cranwell in June. The RAF Fylingdales Crew Commander received a call from a journalist on Sunday but was asked only about RAF Fylingdales' involvement with the Symposium. The Crew Commander denied all knowledge of any involvement and referred the journalist to the MOD Press desk.
Symposium at RAF Cranwell
7. The Air Warfare Centre and the MOD branch Operational Requirements (Information & Communication Services) are jointly hosting a 'Military Exploitation of Space' Symposium on 3-4 June at RAF Cranwell. It is open to Service and MOD civilian personnel and industrialists with an interest in this subject and is mentioned on the Internet.
8. The newspaper articles allege plans for one of the speakers at the Symposium to present radar tapes from RAF Fylingdales to substantiate the 'UFO' claims. Neither the Air Warfare Centre's focal point for this event, nor OR(ICS) staff, have knowledge of any material of this nature on the agenda and have confirmed that the Symposium has nothing whatsoever to do with 'UFOs'. A copy of a brochure about the Symposium is attached for information.
Conclusion
9. All enquiries indicate that there is nothing of substance in the claims made by the media.
[REDACTED]
SEC(AS)2A1
MB8245 [REDACTED]
CHOTS: SEC(AS)2A1
2
RESTRICTED UNCLASSIFIED32t * l{iden Ansnrers mDNJD R0BIN )F 5 ff:*i jhH*"llffij.#.# "::TlT" (a) Car mileag clains prt4 ,"".^" 1997-9lt prices ’i.ea,u,y’cnp .*:*:^^’*"" rhe ’v, st-.,r aliowance Deparf,nent il ;;-il;;ffi:1"1’," employees who hold does ’,u’,ucr ur i:i:" documents. Departnentat Energy Use j,::" ..,, whilr of,*ddu, such )r, :e Cottetant price Actual cosr ar 1997-98 values 13,954,0)0 r3,437,000 12,384,000 12,493,000 12,896,500 r3,043.000 | 2l )y 199l-92 t992-93 t993-94 1994-95 1995-96 t946_97 1997-98 l |,800,00t1 I1,840,m0 I I,230,00{) I I,500,000 | 2,200,000 12,700,000 | 2, 100,000 y.:.l^ll"i:_r, To ask the.secremry , ( , I., what was the quantirv nt of State for Defence (b/. sas and rci .r..l’i.ii"-p*ini#"i3’ -;;;#ldi:^ieatins’ il-tfl-.:u’ lishtins and powering oi ;’r D-epanment wi ’n - llinili;*", th i n the ; the toral cost i" ;,i ;lji" r"T.iit#, .""r ,i.’n, roJn_fdi "i7,r.#i.ii,i 1’.’f 2, t00,000 ifff ,l"J#."’*: ^J_T,"9t, of rail travel undertaken by civil servants on same period and siven in the same (b) Cost oJ rai! fares Con$unt price and each major amongsi whose responsrbiliries is the cotiecrion oJ relevanr data. However. ir,is .ateri"r is ioi hetd cenrrally in the form requesteO unO.orfO U" piuu"iji"j only at disproponionate cost. il{1’;{.f i*f,x?1;-"ft"jJ’"ffii:iff Mr. spelrar: The MoD ,, manasement MT"t:" ’,# to"tu’ a-:,:lql J" iJHji::X,f Jfi.fl at 1997-98 taluer by 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 t 997-98 5,129,660 4, t,+0.6I 7 5,767,148 4,49R,253 Informadon ." rf hjs Department persisrent inquirers 4,817,745 4,888,864 4,89?,571 5,U)2.796 5,020.863 4,891,5’73 DIr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of Stare for Defence operates tbi informarion. a monitoring .*ar.ira’oi tJl6:91 ’or LCS from 1994-95 onwards are ai follo*r, /’s p,:"ges, and ?ercentare changes by year. ..,#: -il"l :vnrcn. Te reflected in the figures piovided it ("i ain , 199+95 1995-96 43.8 196-97 t99?-98 46.I 45.4 +J formal ;:TtJ:,Iol,[ff by conrinuing the c-onespond"n.". ir,l Jo..irlon :b:.s:rveq rs tarrcn by an official at Cnde t"r.f o, uUou. unO ln accordance with Exemption 9 of the Code of a. ro send however, rn;; from the public sent to Ministers to in responding to it. rVt*."’l :::lTl","* performance comespondenr has persistenrly corresponded with the on. a panicular iisue and t u. U.rn Jiulo ::p"{,**, , rne tu est possible answer. several . correspondence Spellar: W do not monitor inquiries in such an ^-.Mr. exerctse centally, We do, t;*, ;; ;;’,’# :T:; i Access,to Govemment Information: vexariqfs requests. rts Stunell: ,Mr. th" To ask the Secretary of State for Defence total number of staff of all grades emplt.ryed 1111.tT by hrs,De.panment; and what percentagi of thesi siaff wre_ tnd p.r;ti;;; Vril;;;; ;; u Correspondence 3l eligible to claim March a car mileagi in each year since 1990. a.llowance on l-rl555J To ask the Secretary of Srate for Defence wrten he plans-to reply ro rhe leneiof l7 M.rJ ;om-;; non. Member for Totnes. about Mrs. K Lranmouth Royal Naval t,Tn, ,,.11.., Dr. Reidt The total number of civilian staff of all grades employed by the Ministry ofDefence on 3l March in each year since 1990 are list;d in the table. rce rge College. Cr"y;;;’;l ;; 142696l of receiving the ,^Mr. non. Member’s ietter. We have, however. now obtained a copy and a reply will be sent as soon as possible. Spetlar: M] office has no record caf the r 990 l99l t992 1993 t |]9. i00 t38.000 117.300 not 994 |]6.r)00 I ?-1.900 rck ten ivil for rty’ 94. as 1995 1996 1997 1998 I 18.000 i I I .6rn I I t.rxxl ,,2 Defence Analytical Servlces Agency Alexander: To ask rhe Secretary of Srare for ,.,^Mr. if wiI make a statement on the ourcome of rhe ir: Xllli.! \<un,’lucnnrat Review of the Defence Analytical Services brsets have been set ror the ff:ili’t’J,"Lll1trtev 105.$0 :;:I^] The Defence Analytical ,h?:."Reid: *u, ser up in 1992 and the ..-,.", O’::::1 For each year, all staff with a valid driving licence and vehicle insurance were eligible to claim a cat mileage t6t ct! t?.r PAc l/l il,.:,: ^:f".,1.I euinquennial REvieri has now been completed. The Evaluation l P,uvlorng its customers wirh an improved L::iJ:"i; standard of ;;"."ir"rii’’,[Tl*r;’:’’,X’jj’i]il J:"r:f "ffLOOSE MINUTE
D/Sec(AS)/64/1
19 May 98
DPO(RAF)
REPORT OF AN EXPLOSION OFF THE BUTT OF LEWIS ON 26 OCTOBER 1996 -
PRESS LINES
1. As requested, attached please find the line to be taken in response to the request for information you have received from the BBC on the above mentioned subject.
2. For your background information, media reports at the time focused on the possibility that the incident was caused by space debris, although the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System at RAF Fylingdales, which tracks all satellites in orbit within the UK's area of responsibility, had no evidence to support that theory.
[REDACTED]
Sec(AS)2ai
MB8245 [REDACTED]
CHOTS: SEC(AS)2A1,o Following media reports of an explosion on 26 October Lgg6, initially att.ributed to a mid-air corrision north of the Butt of Lewis, an extensive search of the area v/as carried out by RAF and coastguard search and Rescue assets but was later abandoned after it became cLear that no aircraft had been reported overdue. There was no evidence cause to support any of the media theories about tlle . of the incident
Loose Minute Covering RESTRICTED UNCLASSIFIED
B/Sec(AS)/64/1,
15 November 1999
APS/USofS [REDACTED]
Thank you. [REDACTED]
Copy to:
•APS/SofS
•APS/Minister(DP)
•APS/Minister(AF)
•PS/2nd PUS
•DAO
•D News
•D Fin Pol
•DCC(RAF)
•D News (RAF)
•PCB(Air)
•DCC(RAF)SIO
Hd of CS(RM)!
'UFOs': NEWSPAPER ARTICLES
Issue
1. News of the World (14 Nov) and Daily Mail (15 Nov) articles about 'UFOs'.
Recommendation
2. To note.
Timing
3. As soon as possible in the event of any further media interest.
Background
4. It is standard practice to release to the Public Record office at the 30-year point MOD 'UFO' files. The files are withheld until that time to protect the personal details (names and addresses) of members of the public reporting what they have seen and themselves failed to identify. The files do not contain highly classified material (two examples are provided herewith). The issue of early release of files was address in September last year (CS(RM)/4/6/37 - copy attached for USofS) in response to Lord Hill Norton's request; legal advice was that the Department would be at risk of legal action for breach of confidence if it did so.
Covering RESTRICTED UNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIED Covering RESTRICTED
5. Under the 30-year rule, a total of 13 'UFO' files from 1969 have been passed to the Public Record Office and will be released on 1 January 2000. The files contain sighting reports, public correspondence and associated papers. As I explained (D/Sec(AS)/64/1 of 8 September copy also attached), it is simply not possible to say whether other 'UFO'-related papers might be filed elsewhere in MOD archives.
6. There is little factual information in the two newspaper articles. It is likely they are misrepresenting the arrangements for the Department's release of files, perhaps hoping to force MOD into expanding their limited interest in publicly reported unidentified sightings. I attach lines to take in the event of any further media interest.
[REDACTED]
Sec(AS)2
MB 8247 [REDACTED]
Covering RESTRICTED UNCLASSIFIEDNEWS BRIEF DTG: 15 NOVEMBER 1999 SUBJECT: 'NEWSPAPER ARTICLES: 'UFOs' SOURCE: Branch: Sec(AS)2: [REDACTED] MB[REDACTED] PRESS OFFICER: [REDACTED](News RAF) BACKGROUND 'News of the World' (14 Nov) and Daily Mail (15 Nov) have printed speculative articles that MOD is about to release all 'UFO' files. KEY MESSAGE MOD routinely releases files containing information from the public about alleged 'UFO' sightings under the 30-year rule. We are unable to release more recent files because there is a need to maintain third party confidentiality (ie the personal details of those providing information). There is no evidence to support the view that the UK Air Defence Region is being breached by hostile foreign military activity or anything else. There are no plans to change Government policy on 'UFOs'. KEY POINTS * As is the case with other Government files, MOD files are subject to the provisions of the Public Records Act of 1958 and 1967 and official files generally remain closed for 30 years. Prior to 1967 it was the case that 'UFO' files were destroyed after five years as there was insufficient interest in the subject to warrant their retention but since 1967 all 'UFO' files have been preserved and routinely released to the Public Record Office at the 30-year point. * We have looked carefully to see whether early release of 'UFO' files is possible. However, the files contain personal details of all those contacting and corresponding with the Department. MOD has a duty to protect the third party confidentiality. Staff would need to be diverted from essential tasks to manually scrutinise and remove all personal details on the files and the knock-on effect would be a major disruption to MOD's overall programme for release of files to the PRO. It cannot be justified. * Mr Pope was an EO in Sec(AS)2; he left the Branch in Jul 94. The views expressed by Mr Pope in books and the media are entirely his own. * It is Government policy that any air defence or air traffic implications of 'UFOs' are a matter for MOD and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) respectively. MOD's interest is limited to establishing from any reported sightings it receives whether the UK Air Defence Region has been breached by hostile military activity, and responding to any associated public correspondence.
a r- SUBSIDIARY POINTS * Mlitary Task 9 is to maintain the integnry of the uK’s airspace. This require,ment is met by the continuous recopised air picture (radax) and an air policing capability. Any threat to the UK Air Defeirce Region would be handled in the light ;f the paticula circumstances at the tif,e (it might, if deemed appropriatejnvolve the soambling or diversion of RAF air defence aircraft). Alleged sightings sent to us are exemined, but consultation with air defence staff and others as necessary is considered only where there is suffrcient widence to suggest a b,reach of UK air space. OnIy a handful of reports have been received in recent years that warranted any firther investigation and no evidence was found of any threat. Where tlere is no evidence in a report of deforce concern, no action is taken to try and identifr what might have been seen. From the types ofdescriptions generally receivd aircraft or uatural phenomena probably account for most ofthe * * obsewations. Sec(AS)2 is the Air Staff Secretariat. It deals with a wide range of RAF-related issues. It also acts as the focal point within MOD for the Govemment’s limited interest in ’UFos’. A 24-horu’ answerphone is provided so that members of the public can telephone through sighting reports. Reports made elsewhere, either to military establishments, air traffic control centres or ttre civilian police are forwarded to Sec(AS)2. Some 230 sighting reports and 250 leuers were received last year Wbere a military or civilian pilot considers his aircraft has been endangered by the proximity of another aircraft (including any flying object he is unable to identifu), or in regulated ainpace where an Air Traffrc Controller believes there has been the risk of a collision, the pilot or ATC would be obliged to file an airmiss report (Airprox). * *
DAILY MAIL l5llll99 by byrhe Civit rtvir tionrtH,rhority NICK POPE sharp, angular movements. $liH:{f3LT:ilLT*H’hT.i $iffii;*mfr?Htrfi ffi’lHeBsiiffffitlrstl omy margrnary smaler than a Jumbo jei. It llew slowly ovii tlhg base at a beight, oi200ft. tuing a nslrow bearn of lisht ai ground, before fiylng the trylngbE af !!e- Founq, speed- hlgh speeo- tugo ’fhese thell are t.}le sorts of lncidents to be found |ll the Tte objects were visible for tg/o to three hours. occasion- aUy nashing down beams of llghf or energy. Radiation readings were subsequently taken &om the landins site in the forest and were l6und to pea* in the ttuee indentations #i#itr#"ffit# MoD! UfO fles. But ttre liles also contatn reports of alien abductlons, UFOs. where the cralt had touched doqrn in a clearirg. intriguing aerial encorEters in Britaln’s so-called X-Eles too. One ot the earliest took Dlace -UFO tn August 1956, when a ’fhere ale a nutuber of E6-deterririne any tbreat to the UK. I exDlanatlons for 90 Pc of oOCUMENTS and res-. was tracked on radar systems at wh.lch tumed out to photographs detailing UFO investigations in Britain over 50 years are ordlnary oblects or Phe-uom’ ena: aircraft lights, saielutes’ of at last being made available for public scrutiny undor New Labour’s policy of greater openness in Government, according to rePorts at the weekand. Here, NICK PoPE, the Minlstry of Defence otficial formerlY responsible for Investigating extra- meteors and airships. However. there has always been a bard core of sightl+gs that couldn’t be explaureo ur RA.F Bentwaters and RA.F Lskenheath lrx Sutrou{. Two RAF jets were scram- bled to intercept the nystery cralt, snd arr energetic game of cat ard mouse ensued 8s the oilots attemDted to lock-on to the appeara.uce ofcrop circles and ardrnal mutilations. all of wNch have been lir*ed wllh fhe target. But the UFO was conventlonal terms, where trained observers such as Dotice ofdcers and Pilots have ieen rrnidentified Cralt doing sDeeds and manoeuwes vay b-eyond our capabi.tities- Blitain s most sensational UFo case occurted in 1980 h was terrestrial visltations, previews the eagerlY awaited contents. Rendlesham Forest, near the USAF/RAF alrbase at wood’ bridce in Sulfolk. UFO aclidty, -witnessed ^or niEhts. then on Decemoel zo over a series too qulck end aglle, and mar- aged to elude the pilots, who eventudly rar low on fuel and were forced to return to base. Almost 40 years lateq a num- ber of RAF Tomado lets were overtaken bv a UFO over the North Sea tn November 1990. No adequate explanation was ever forthcoming. Lsst year, also over tfie Nortl-l Ses- a 900ft UFO was Pursued by two fighter Jets before l! took oEat l?.000mph. reoorts to the MoD thal deta! [lE MoD was drawn into the croD-circle - when a farmer in Middle wallop, Hampshire, found corps base- I .l debate in 1985 6ve - ftrst years alter they appearing stalted a ouintuDlet of croD circtes sjrd tjlameil ttre local Army air lnvestisated and submitted A Lt-Col Edgecombe More disturbing are the ai2ari two Datrolmen tour of the camP Perimeter saw brishl liRhts among rne trees and wenl to investigate. on a FFICIAL inter- est in UFOS has always had more to do with the eye virsit from Martians. But in keeping an Russians than any impending out for Iniiially. theY thought an 8lr- craft had overshol the runway’ a.lthoush there was no accgm’ oanvinE noise. But what they 3as/-wa! |ike no aircraft they’d nriar-misses between UFos and civtl aircralt. There wete two such cases in 1991, boih oYer Kent. In 1995, the Pilots ofaBoeing Bhotographs and rePorts to the MoD, a routlne Prccedure bui one which gave cledence to the UFO link and auega- tions that ihen I’rime Minister Ttatcher had asked Marsalet for -a report on the Phe’ nomemon. ?37 encountered whal lney I have reviewed all the theories about crop circles and. wNle many are hoaxes’ there aje those wNch have YeL to be explained; for- example’ described as a brightly Ut UTo la!Ee metallic. triangular obj-ect which theY chased ever encountered before: a whtte on their approach lo Manchester AlrPort’ and believed that it had Passed ’i"his incideot was Lnvestigated why do crop samples laK-en from these ’genulne’ clrcles onlv vards trom their aircm.ft. betore loslng trees , it among lne show disti,nct cellular chalges. Some details of UFO sighting the Soviet aircraft that routinelv Drobed our air defences duhng the Cold ltrar’ cleat lnal it soon became more exotrc soace. there were other craft operaiing in British atr’ stream 113.’"" to the Mirfstry ofDetence over There has been a sieady Of UFO reports sent 50 Years UST two nlghts laier’ there was a stmllar sishting. This time lne d;puttbasqcog -tm:l: I#""1iil,;%*s""r"".’;f$ the past - Delween ;.T."?8t ?i’"d. if; :’" H which I have had acc.ess. rI’ and vrherL they are maoe ava!’ abte publicly, I can promrse some exciting revelarrons. i:;:"ji*nit’uB*i,’iita in il’i.i in.J’iJFo- as ’rietallic ti’";{,rin{Ytg*fifi rn aooearance arrd triangular snape . which reveaF tape, ",3rll’"i::i; t8-minute "’i, "i^lili,, betweeo 11aru conversaiions ’rii-il.ii "1’ ^^hv.rsitions as itiev moved. to r eeric the MoD to lnvesllgate sucn "Tl’S,?illiT#{,*’f{l’.? iif r;rhin 6n vr..k.f the movurg o{th wibhin wichin 150 150 red and yellow Ughut Yards in" idpo.t s;vs that,s.ud’ --,r u g$i"s?ffi=ry;ffi!:i.t’fr’ iS:""1’l?n: gi g"iifii{ ;5i: itiiiii’ii-.iif n au directions inDAILY MAIL /,a" r-- t5/It/99 o #i,iiffir""’iiflTff::lE ffiffi [:i; gi:S:-’*:}f"+l,*i;"* g#sti$n":ffi srnuceotxNERsa ffitt’lgffi ’h"ffgi’;g{’"51*""’ le d seen the bodies, and that iil"rr"?? f,’"1!""i:1Ttt: Ene technologlcal secrets - Colonel Conso ctalmed that unLikely to be satisfied by anv release of papers that ddesn’t support their own theorles. lnese claims, so took the secrefs to hls grave. Conspiracy theorists love trus sort of thing, and are snonly atter going public with gi:Hif"trr":T."fl :?ffi #effi -_, -- The Le.ds Rifles lratnccof Welat.s Own (cgrment of yo.khiFel lT*llif*lia$r1r,1,"** iifltili’$i.,,,llnft ?,"Tlr,i""7 play down the subject of IIFOs’. My three years of ofticial research into the UFO as a sceptic, but came to well be extra-terrestrial - If these iles a.re io be made pubtic,I thtu* people are in for a blg surprlse, and I believe that, like me, they will come to believe lhat some ItFOs Edsht let0er sent from the MoD to the U,S. government in 1965 adrnits that MoD policy ’is to cover-up in the LIK a-lthouch But there really lsn’t any Er phenomenon changed my life for ever. I’d come into the Job _ Iighland Fietdcrrf( _. rrrrn-tflg Certrc Association frft#:;idTHffr;.l}fiT 20I ,rE*?-, ;usE Etii tt,it .’*fu*i EI E6t:;:!ig :l l ol l cl ot gl ol !l el Ilfiiifii 9l ltl ffii;fi?fla3ffi*i,ffis *l 6l 6 ttI 6 !tl gl iiiiifitr+ii*t’t #*fiff’u ffiffigEfrgi:g!:llg:ie::xg il+l aiffiifil*fit
1L ot o rf .o (D art o c 2 o 3 u,l B ci J G F o o ur IL z ; l{ ; E3l!43’ !e: lr ETt:.:: *. E ,P : s; lE l.t; i:: o=53 lE ! B aEE+ +t 5a!E, _: I h; E h;F" *>*P- .o v z E I s; i:i3 !;Hl +Ee I iit; ss gi rri | ’sgaoiisi $E I I l=;i;;ff;E T E.E Fiigff ff Iiig’r ruffi ffixiiilfi i’llgili*i;litit* I Et I --B iiiiiii$i**
t Loose Minute D/Sec(AS/6all 8 September 1999 ’?T ’i$-;r"’, %iiu"’ APS/IJSofS Copy to: AO/AD1 .UNIDENTIFIED ISSUE FLYING OBJECTS’ _ MOD INTERXST l. To provide a note on the Depaflment’s interest in .UFOs,. RECOMMEND.A,TION 2. To note. DETAIL Policy implications of .UFOs, and the. Civ_il Aviation Authority (CAA) iespectively. MOD,s rr limited to estabrishing from it:yq -y r.pott.J tiihitgs it receives whether the Region has-beenbreachid by hostitelitiiary activity, and respondmg to any associated public correspondence. t:9,:"pent policy that any air defance or air raffic l^tl are a &ater for MOD $IP:F* 4’ Military scrambling or diversion of RAF air defenc-e arrcrarty- tn"t p"opective, reports of ’UFO’ sightings are examined, but consultation with air defence staffand ::ll_,: -1. is considered only where there is sufFrcient evidence to suggest a urs.’t or uA a* space: such as reports from credible wimesses (pilots, air traffic ,hose supported by photographic, uideoo, Aocom*tary evidence; ::T:l^t_T, i"]r orare of a phenomenon currently being l nybef^of Yrnesses; therefore, be capable of detection. Only a handtul oireporis ff::T::T1Ttght, trave Deen recelved in recent vears in these categories and fi.uther investigation of them has found uo eviden." of" tloa"t. is met by the continuous recognised air picture qradarl and an air policing capability. Any. threat to the UK Air DefJnce Region would be(;dled in the light of the particular circumstances at the time (ii migbt, ii a"e*"a app-priatg involve the Task 9 is to maintaiu the integriry of the uK’s airspace. This requirement r.# :::::.T"i.j::ny llll",lltlE_lt Airprox Repons or civilian pilot considers that his aircraft h", 6gen en.tangercd b] l;-Y:::*i[:ary rne proxrmlty of another aircraft (including aoy flying object he was unable to-
identify), or in regulated airspace where an Air Traffic Controller believes there has been the risk of a collision, the pilot or ATC would be obliged to file an airmiss report (Airprox). Spaceguard Programme 6. The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for the Spaceguard Programme. We understand that there are currently no plans to set up a national spaceguard agency; the potential threat of impact by near earth objects (such as asteroids) is taken very seriously but they regard this as an issue where a common international approach is essential. In June, the House of Lords debated the Spaceguard Programme; Lord Sainsbury, Minister for Science at the DTI, led the debate for the Government. Role of Sec(AS)2 7. Sec(AS)2 is the focal point within MOD for the Government's limited interest in 'UFOs'. A 24-hour answerphone is provided so that members of the public can telephone through sighting reports. Reports made elsewhere, either to military establishments, air traffic control centres or the civilian police, all eventually make their way to Sec(AS)2 where each report is considered only to establish whether it has any defence significance. Some 230 sighting reports and 250 letters were received last year; so far this year c150 reports and 160 letters have been received. Sec(AS)2 is not constituted as a 'UFO' information bureau. There are no defence resources allocated for this purpose and, where there is no evidence in a report of defence concern, no action is taken to try and identify what might have been seen. From the types of descriptions generally received, aircraft or natural phenomena probably account for most of the observations. 8. Some 'ufologists' are unhappy with MOD's limited interest. A small number lobby vociferously for defence funds to be used for 'UFO' research, have their own agendas for such work and use all possible avenues (eg writing to the Prime Minister, other Government Departments, the media etc) to pursue their aims. All such approaches find their way to MOD, Sec(AS) for action. 'UFO' Files 9. As is the case with other Government files, MOD files are subject to the provisions of the Public Records Act of 1958 and 1967 and official files generally remain closed for 30 years. Prior to 1967 it was the case that 'UFO' files were destroyed after five years as there was insufficient interest in the subject to warrant their retention. However, since 1967 all 'UFO' files have been preserved and routinely released to the Public Record Office at the 30-year point. 10. For some time, Lord Hill Norton, the only Parliamentarian with any interest in 'UFOs', has been asking that all files containing 'UFO' information be released to the PRO ahead of the 30-year rule. We have looked carefully to see whether this is possible. However, in the absence of a Departmental-wide file database and without knowing the details of all the originating branches, a manual search of in excess of one million files at two main MOD archives would be necessary to locate and list
them. In November last year the location of some 55 'UFO' files was established. The files contain personal details of all those contacting and corresponding with the Department. Legal advice was sought: the Public Record Act gives an implied override of the Department's duty to protect the third party confidentiality by use of the 30-year rule. Release after that date would present no problems to MOD, but release in advance would lay the Department open to the risk of legal action for breach of confidence. To remove the personal details from these files would be a time consuming task. Staff in CS(RM), the MOD's Records Branch would need to be diverted from their essential tasks to manually scrutinise and sanitise some 5,000 pages on the files. The knock-on effect would be a major disruption to the Department's overall programme for the release of files to the PRO and cannot be justified. Mr Nicholas Pope 11. An ex-Sec(AS)2 employee, Nick Pope, has published two books on 'UFO' matters since leaving the branch in 1994: 'Open Skies, Closed Minds' and 'The Uninvited', the latter about alien abduction. A third book, about an alien invasion of the UK, is likely to be published next month. In all three books Mr Pope puts forward his personal views and is critical of MOD's limited interest in 'UFOs'. The two books already published resulted in media and public interest in 'UFOs', which in turn led to temporary increases in the number of enquiries and sighting reports received. Mr Pope continues to be employed by the Department. CONCLUSION 12. There is no evidence to support the view that the UK Air Defence Region is being breached by hostile foreign military activity or anything else. There are no plans to change Government policy on 'UFOs' or implement a research programme to investigate 'ufologists' claims. We are unable to release to the PRO all 'UFO' files because there is a need to maintain third party confidentiality. [REDACTED] Sec(AS)2 MB8247 [REDACTED] CHOTS: SEC(AS)2 Fax: MB[REDACTED] Personal/Parliament/ufos@brief99
Loose Minute
CS(RM)/4/6/37
September 1998
PS/USofS *_
Copy to:
APS/SofS * PS/DUS(CM) * DDC&L(F&S)Legal *
PS/Min(AF) * DGMO * DMOD *
PS/Min(DP) * Hd Sec (AS) * PRO IDO *
PS/PUS * DISN * * CHOTS only
LORD HILL-NORTON: REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF FILES
Reference: A. D/USofS/JS 28/1/0 dated 9 March 1998 (not to all)
B. D/DOMD/2/3 dated 3 April 1998
Issue
1. To provide Lord Hill-Norton with the outcome of our consideration of his request for the early release of files on the subject of "unidentified flying objects".
Recommendation
2. That USofS responds in terms of the attached draft letter.
Timing
3. Routine.
Background
4. Lord Hill-Norton, aged 83, and Chief of the Defence Staff from 1971-73, has a long standing interest in "UFOs". He approached the department earlier this year (undercover of Reference A) pointing to the public interest in this topic and to the forthcoming Freedom of Information Act, requesting that all closed files on the subject of UFOs be released in advance of the normal, 30 year point.
5. In his submission dated 3 April 1998 (reference B) DOMD advised that in the region of 55 files were held with planned releases dates of 1999-2003, in addition a further 12 (with a release date of 2004) were in the early stages of preparation for transfer to the PRO. These files concern correspondence from members of the public reporting such occurrences, therefore question of personal confidentiality had to be resolved.
Outcome of our review
6. Three options have been considered:
(1) obtain permission from members of the public on an individual basis to the release of their details;
(2) remove personal details (the 55 processed files would require further examination and sanitisation in the order of 3,500 enclosures);
(3) agree that a shorter period, say 25 rather than 30 years, was acceptable for protection
UNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIED of privacy. The first option was considered time-consuming and, given the fact that we would be attempting to trace individuals whose addresses were 25 plus years old, impractical. Option two, is possible, but would represent a major diversion of resources as each file would have to be re-reviewed, a note made of every page requiring extraction/deletion of personally sensitive information and for these actions to be carried out. It is estimated some 200 man hours would be required and so as not to adversely affect our existing review and transfer programme the task spread over a six month period. For the third option advice was sought from MOD's Legal Advisers. Their advice is that the Public Record Act gives an implied override of the Department's duty to protect third party confidentiality by use of the 30 year rule. Release of records pertaining to that period are, therefore, not a problem but the Department would be at risk of legal action for breach of confidence if it released documents containing the personal details of members of the public before the 30 year point. We have therefore concluded that, having rejected options (a) and (b), we are unable to make a block release of the files before the 30 year point. A draft letter to Lord Hill-Norton to this effect is attached. [REDACTED] Hd CS(RM) MTA8/3[REDACTED]