Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman / Improving Services / Selected Cases / Investigations Completed November 1999 to March 2000 Volume 1 PCA - 4th REPORT - SESSION 1999-2000 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Case No: A.7/00

Mr N complained that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) refused to provide him with a satisfactory response to three requests for information relating to unidentified flying objects (UFOs). He asked MOD: (i) whether they agreed with three statements regarding UFOs contained in records dating back to the 1950s and 1960s; (ii) whether it was their present policy to play down the subject of UFOs; and (iii) to provide specific information regarding UFO sightings made between 28 July 1998 and 28 July 1999. The Permanent Secretary of MOD said that it was not within their remit to provide an official comment on alleged incidents and policy from the 1950s and 1960s and noted that the files containing the statements were in the Public Record Office and open to anyone to draw their own conclusions. He said that their present policy on UFOs had been explained to Mr N on several occasions and went on to outline the limited interest MOD had in UFO issues. As regards the specific information relating to UFO sightings, the Permanent Secretary was satisfied that their initial decision not to release the information under Exemption 9 was justified. However, he decided on this occasion, as a one-off exercise, to provide the information requested by Mr N, albeit for a charge of no more than £75. The Ombudsman considered MOD's response to the first request as being reasonable and was satisfied that they had provided an adequate response to Mr N's second request. He found that MOD could reasonably have withheld the specific information about UFO sightings under Exemption 9 but welcomed their decision to provide it to Mr N.

5.1 Mr N's complaint is that MOD had refused to provide him with information that should have been made available to him under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (the Code).

Background

5.2 Mr N wrote to MOD on 24 May 1998 asking for information about incidents in the 1950s involving 'unidentified flying objects' (UFOs). MOD replied on 24 June. In their letter they explained their policy towards the storage and destruction of files on this subject. They said that all surviving contemporary paperwork had been forwarded to the Public Record Office and, as such, was a matter of public record. In reply (in an undated letter), Mr N asked them to confirm the following statements as a matter of public record:-

'1. An incident occurred on 4 April 1957 and was witnessed by radar operators at the Ministry of Supply Bomb Trials Unit, West Freugh. The resulting Technical Intelligence investigation concluded that the incident was due to the presence of five unconventional [aerial] objects of unidentified type and origin (Ref DDI(Tech)/C.290/3/, report dated 30 April 1957, PRO File AIR 20/9321).
'2. It was official MOD policy to play down the significance of unidentified flying objects (AIR 2/17527).
'3. Non-hostile unidentified aerial craft with design and performance parameters far in excess of cutting edge technology have on occasion been witnessed by HM Armed Forces in UK Airspace (PRO Files AIR 20/9320, AIR 20/9321, AIR 20/9994 and AIR 16/1199).'

5.3 MOD wrote back on 6 July, to say that they could add nothing to their letter of 24 June. Mr N had earlier written separately to MOD on 25 June 1998, asking for information about visual and radar observations of aerial phenomena by Royal Air Force pilots and ground crew. He asked for details of the types of craft which had been observed (their shape, size and performance), their location and the dates of the incidents. He cited the Code and requested that MOD quote exemptions if they were minded to refuse the information; he also asked MOD to conduct an internal review. On 10 July 1998, Mr N wrote to MOD about the three statements (paragraph 5.2 above) and asked them to review his request that they confirm the statements as a matter of public record.

5.4 On 30 July 1998, MOD wrote to Mr N about the outcome of their review of both his requests. In respect of details of 'aerial phenomena', they told him that the information could be justifiably withheld under Exemption 9 of the Code (see paragraph 5.12 below) because providing it would require an unreasonable diversion of resources. As to the three statements they told him that, to the best of their knowledge, the files held at the Public Record Office contained the full details of any alleged incidents and decisions made at the time in respect of them; all contemporary paperwork was therefore available for public scrutiny. They also told him about his avenue of appeal to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

5.5 On 28 July 1999, Mr N wrote to MOD with a more narrowly focussed request for information. He asked for abstracts from all UFO reports witnessed by commercial pilots, military pilots and radar personnel between 0100 Hrs 28 July 1998 and 0100 Hrs on 28 July 1999. He asked for details of the types of craft which had been observed (their shape, size, speed and unusual flight patterns) and the conclusions reached by MOD on UFOs. He also asked if MOD now agreed, in 1999, with the three statements given previously (paragraph 5.2 above) and expanded on the second of those statements by asking whether it was now, in 1999, official MOD policy to play down the subject of UFOs.

5.6 MOD replied on 14 October 1999. In their letter they said that the position with regard to the information requested by Mr N was explained to him in July 1998 and that this position remained unchanged. As regards present MOD policy in respect of UFO related issues, they replied that this had been explained to Mr N on many occasions. Mr N was not satisfied with that reply and sought the Ombudsman's intervention.

Departmental response to the Ombudsman

5.7 In offering his comments on the complaint, the Permanent Secretary of MOD said that he was satisfied that MOD's previous responses on the three specific statements had been correct. He said that it was not within MOD's remit to provide an official Departmental comment on alleged incidents and policy from the 1950s and 1960s, and noted that the files were in the Public Record Office and were open to anyone to draw their own conclusions.

5.8 With regard to Mr N's request as to whether it was official MOD policy to play down the subject of unidentified flying objects, the Permanent Secretary said that the Department's policy on UFOs had been explained to Mr N on several occasions. He said that MOD had only a very limited defence interest in UFO issues, which was simply to establish from sighting reports whether or not there had been any breach of the UK Air Defence Region. He went on to say that investigations into sightings were only carried out if there were corroborative evidence that such a breach had occurred.

5.9 As regards Mr N's narrower request for specific information regarding UFO sightings between 28 July 1998 and 28 July 1999, the Permanent Secretary said that he was satisfied that the decision not to release this information under the terms of the Code was justified and referred to Exemption 9. He said that, in order to meet Mr N's request, they would need to scrutinise, and copy as appropriate, some 800 pieces of correspondence. In addition, in order to respect third party confidences, personal information relating to the correspondents would have to be blanked out prior to publication. It was estimated that it would take about 14 working hours to handle the request. However, although in his view the Code had been correctly applied, the Permanent Secretary said that he had asked the responsible division within the Department to make the information available to Mr N on this occasion as a one-off exercise, and noted that there would be significant resource problems in repeating it.

5.10 Given the extent of the work involved, the Permanent Secretary also took the view that it would be reasonable to levy a charge for the information requested. The Department's policy under the Code is to charge a rate of £15 per hour for every hour worked in excess of four hours to produce non-essential information. This would equate to a proposed charge of £150 but as a gesture of goodwill, he said that Mr N would be charged a maximum of £75 on this occasion.

5.11 The Permanent Secretary also commented on his Department's general handling of Mr N's correspondence. He took the view that Mr N's requests, which amounted to over 35 letters since July 1996, had been handled according to the Code and that the only identifiable shortcoming was the failure to answer Mr N's letter of 28 July 1999 within 20 working days. He accepted that a holding reply should have been sent to Mr N and that more might have been done to explain to him why his request was considered unreasonable.

The Code of Practice

5.12 Exemption 9 of the Code, which was cited by MOD, reads as follows:

'Requests for information which are vexatious or manifestly unreasonable or are formulated in too general a manner, or which (because of the amount of information to be processed or the need to retrieve information from files not in current use) would require unreasonable diversion of resources.'

Assessment

5.13 In assessing this complaint there are two aspects I have to consider: the substantive issue of whether or not information should be released and the general handling of Mr N's complaint. I turn first to the release of information. Mr N's first request was that MOD confirm as a matter of public record the three specific statements contained in historical records. In asking this question, Mr N appears to be seeking a current view from MOD in respect of both factual matters and their policy in the 1950s and 1960s regarding UFOs. MOD's view is that all the available information regarding these statements is in the Public Record Office and that it is therefore open to anyone to draw their own conclusions. Paragraph 3(v) of the Code commits Departments 'to release, in response to specific requests, information relating to their policies, actions and decisions and other matters related to their areas of responsibility'. However, the Guidance on Interpretation of the Code states that Departments are not obliged 'to give an opinion on a particular matter unless there would be a reasonable expectation that it should do so in the normal course of business'. MOD have provided Mr N with details of their present policy on UFOs but I do not believe they can reasonably be expected now to provide an opinion on policy or statements made 40 to 50 years ago, particularly when all the available information relating to those statements is already in the public domain. I do not therefore consider that Mr N's request can be dealt with under the terms of the Code and I do not see the Permanent Secretary's response as unreasonable.

5.14 I am also satisfied that MOD have provided an adequate response to Mr N's request for a statement of their present policy on the subject of UFOs. The Permanent Secretary said that MOD's policy on the subject of UFOs had been explained to Mr N on several occasions, to the effect that MOD had a very limited interest in UFO issues, which was to establish from sighting reports whether there had been any breach of the UK Air Defence Region.

5.15 I very much welcome the Permanent Secretary's decision to provide Mr N with the specific information regarding UFO sightings that he has requested. The Code recognises that there are limits to the resources that a body can reasonably devote to answering requests for information. Exemption 9 of the Code allows requests for information to be refused after proper consideration if - because of the amount of information to be processed or the need to retrieve information from archived files - meeting a request would require an unreasonable diversion of resources. Clearly it is a matter of judgement as to whether or not information requested in any given case is sufficiently extensive to justify the application of Exemption 9. On this occasion, the MOD have agreed, in spite of their view that Exemption 9 could be held to apply, to carry out that work and release the information. I welcome this decision and consider the prospective maximum charge of £75 to Mr N to be reasonable in the light of the demands placed on the Department's resources.

5.16 As regards the general handling of Mr N's correspondence, I am pleased to note that, apart from the delay in replying to his letter of 28 July 1999, which was acknowledged as an error by the Permanent Secretary, all of Mr N's letters were answered promptly. He was also advised of his right, if he remained dissatisfied with their reply, to submit a complaint, through a Member of Parliament, to this Office. It is clear to me that MOD handled the matter in full accordance with the requirements of the Code, and for this I commend them. I am also pleased by the Permanent Secretary's comments that his Department is continuing to promote full awareness of the Code.

Conclusion

5.17 I found that the MOD acted reasonably in refusing to confirm the three specific statements contained in public records, and that they had provided Mr N with an adequate response on their present policy on the subject of UFOs. While the MOD could reasonably have withheld the information on UFO sightings requested by Mr N under Exemption 9, I regard their willingness to release this information on this occasion as a satisfactory outcome to a partially justified complaint.

Total screening and investigation time = 18 weeks

Previous < Contents > Next

Last updated: 4 April 2005