No Threat to the UK: The House of Lords UAP Debate
THERE’S A PHRASE attributed to George Bernard Shaw that reads “America and Britain: two countries separated by a common language”. We are separated by various political, social and financial differences, but here’s a new one to add to the list – Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, or UAP. Despite some disappointment from some quarters, the much-anticipated UAP Task Force (UAPTF) Report, submitted to the Senate Select Committee for Intelligence on Friday, 25th June 2021 instantly became something of a landmark on the map charting the progress (or lack) of official UFO investigations. The public saw a nine page-long unclassified section, one which was extremely illuminating. The report did not seek to deny, hide or obfuscate the UAP issue, instead confirming that unknown objects flying in military exercise areas or other restricted airspace posed a risk to safety and a matter of operational security. Out of 144 reports, only one had been positively identified (as a balloon). The UAPTF report even went as far as to state that scientific processes would have to advance before some investigations would bear fruit. Hot on the heels of the report being submitted to the Select Committee, the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued a release directing the formalisation of the mission that is currently performed by the UAPTF.
Military investigations, reports released with unclassified sections and directives by high-ranking officials – just a day in the life of the UAP issue unfolding in America. Contrast this with the subsequent debate that took place in the House of Lords, the unelected “second chamber” in the UK Parliament that examines bills, questions government action and also investigates public policy. If a serious official UK debate on UAP was to take place, this was where it would happen. On the early afternoon of Wednesday, 30th July 2021, this took place. Was it serious, and did the government’s spokesperson give the whole picture? The answers provided can be summed up in a single sentence. “Nothing to see here, move on.”
The House of Lords. image via Houses of Parliament on Flickr. http://www.parliament.uk/
Due to the time of day, many missed the live coverage of the debate, but thanks to Hansard, the official record of what is said in both the House of Lords and the House of Commons, there is a transcript of the exchanges on the floor of “that place”. Lord Sarfraz (Conservative) asked the first question:
“To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by the United States Office of the Director of National Intelligence Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, published on 25 June; and what data they hold on unidentified flying object sightings in the United Kingdom.”
Answering for the UK Government was Baroness Goldie (Conservative), the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (MOD):
“My Lords, the Ministry of Defence notes the contents of the report. The department holds no reports on unidentified aerial phenomena but constantly monitors UK airspace to identify and respond to any credible threat to its integrity and is confident in the existing measures in place to protect it.”
What did “notes the contents” mean? Was it shared by the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing service, had a team from the MOD pored through a copy of the classified report or were a few tea-boys simply lifting the details from a story printed in the Daily Star? Baroness Goldie did not give any further details. Either way, the Government spokesperson was holding the usual line about how the MOD isn’t in the business of looking at the UFO issue any more. She stopped short of using the “no matters of defence significance” line, but the official line that was going to be taken was clear from the get-go.
Lord Sarfraz was not to be deterred by such a boilerplate response:
“My Lords, for decades, people who have been concerned with UFOs have been dismissed as fantasists, but now the US Director of National Intelligence, who oversees 17 intelligence agencies, has published a report saying that the data on UFOs is inconclusive. The report offers several possible explanations and does not rule out that these could be military aircraft with very advanced capabilities or even extra-terrestrial phenomena. Either way, can the Minister reassure members of the public that the Ministry of Defence takes reports of unidentified flying objects in our airspace very seriously? Will she consider publishing a detailed assessment of the data that we hold?”
Baroness Goldie replied as follows:
“The MoD deals with actual threats substantiated by evidence. The Government continue to take any potential threat to the UK seriously. The integrated review and the defence Command Paper published in March set out the MoD’s assessment of the threats we face and how we will meet them.”
This was a classic example of replying to a question without actually answering it. There was no reference to UAP or UFOs, merely a blanket statement that “actual threats” were always taken seriously, with the caveat that evidence of such threats would be needed first. The MOD’s Integrated Review Command Paper, delivered in March 2021, did not include any specific reference to UAP or UFOs, although the Defence Minister, Ben Wallace MP, did state that the MOD would help the Government “keeping ourselves informed of the threat and ahead of our rivals means that Defence Intelligence will be at the heart of our enterprise. We will exploit a wider network of advanced surveillance platforms, all classifications of data, and enhanced analysis using Artificial Intelligence.” It seems as though the MOD has the necessary tools to complete UAP data analysis on a par with that employed by the UAPTF, but were they going to use it in this way?
“We will exploit a wider network of advanced surveillance platforms, all classifications of data, and enhanced analysis using Artificial Intelligence.”
The debate took a brief diversionary route when Viscount Ridley (Conservative) spoke:
“My Lords, unidentified does not mean suspicious. Does the Minister recognise that the US report referred to says that there is no clear indication that there is any non-terrestrial explanation for the 144 sightings that it specifies? The idea that, in an era of mobile phone cameras, drones and frequent travel, there could possibly be alien spaceships whizzing about undetected in our atmosphere on a regular basis is not very plausible. It is much more likely that these blurred images have boring explanations, alas. Does my noble friend agree?”
The thrust of this argument appeared to be that an iPhone 12 could obtain as good an image as a multi-million dollar Forward-Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) system installed in a US Navy Hornet fighter jet – if not better. It was not clear which “blurred images” Viscount Ridley was referring to, but it may well have been the infamous 2004 and 2015 FLIR videos. The camera fitted in a mobile phone was not going to be able to obtain the same images as FLIR systems installed in an RAF Typhoon jet or an F-35 Lightning II operating from the carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth. It is not exactly clear what imagery and/or video the MOD holds on the UFO/UAP issue in any case, such is the secrecy the organisation has wrapped around the subject since the 1950s.
The Minister replied as follows:
“The important point, on which I wish to reassure your Lordships, is that the UK air defence community detects and monitors all flying air systems 24 hours a day to provide an identified air picture as part of the UK’s national security posture and our commitment to the integrity of NATO airspace. That is supported by Typhoon aircraft at RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Coningsby, which are held at high readiness to intercept any threat to UK airspace.”
In short, “we’re constantly watching the skies”, and can identify anything crossing into our airspace 24/7. But can they? Some of the UAP witnessed off the coasts of America were only picked up on state-of-the-art radar systems, tied into networks of combat vessels and not ground-based radars stations. Others were not picked up at all, and the UAPTF report states that there was evidence of “signature management” in some cases, a possible deliberate attempt to disguise or hide radar returns, or maybe even the image received by a FLIR system. Those interested in UK military aviation may note that the country only has interceptors based at two airfields nowadays, one in the north-east of Scotland and the other in Lincolnshire, on the east coast of England. During the 1990s there were three, cutting down on the transit time Tornado F.3s would need to reach any potential threats. Back in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s there were even more stations available although this was due to the Cold War.
Labour’s Lord Browne of Ladyton pitched in next:
“My Lords, in 2008 the MoD began the process of releasing all its UFO files. In 2009 Sir Bob Ainsworth, the Secretary of State, accepted the advice that ‘In more than 50 years, no UFO sighting … has indicated the existence of any military threat to the UK; there is no defence benefit in … recording, collating, analysing, or investigating UFO sightings’ and ‘the level of resources devoted to this task is … diverting staff from more valuable defence-related activities’, and he closed the relevant unit. Does the US report reveal any evidence containing any reason to review that advice?”
Baroness Goldie replied as follows:
“I simply say to the noble Lord that I seek to reassure him that, as I have indicated, we deal with actual threats substantiated by evidence. He is quite right about the closure of the UFO desk in 2009. I can confirm that the department holds no reports on unidentified aerial phenomena and that all relevant material created and held by the UFO desk has been passed to the National Archives.”
Lord Browne was correct when he stated that the MOD started releasing UFO files in 2008, and that Bob Ainsworth had been the Defence Minister when the organisation’s Sec(AS)2a was shut down in December 2009. Sec(AS)2a was otherwise known as “the UFO desk”, where Nick Pope worked between 1991 and 1994 as a civilian member of staff, responsible for taking calls, passing on sightings details to and liaising with other departments, and also replying to queries submitted by members of the public. This was only a small part of his overall duties, and he did not carry out field investigations, nor did he ‘run the British Government’s UFO project’ as his Twitter profile claims. Ainsworth closed “the UFO desk” as, according to an RAF spokesman at the time, it was “consuming increasing resource but produces no valuable defence output.” In addition, there was “no defence benefit” in continuing to record sightings made by the public, and presumably those passed to Sec(AS)2a by the police and certain RAF departments, as noted in the files released to the National Archives. In short, UFOs were tying up money and manpower that could be better used elsewhere. According to Ainsworth, during 50 years of receiving sightings details, not a single one had indicated any material airborne threat to the UK. Not one. Some high-profile cases occurred during that 50 year-long period, including the Rendlesham Forest incident in December 1980 and the Calvine sighting in August 1990. The first involved US Air Force personnel who allegedly encountered a strange craft in the woods near RAF Woodbridge in Suffolk, whilst the second saw two men photograph a diamond-shaped object in a glen north of Pitlochry, in the Scottish Highlands. The latter may or may not have been accompanied by two Harrier jets. Details of these two cases were certainly handled by Sec(AS)2a. Did that mean that the MOD had identified both of the vehicles concerned, and were either American or British secret technology, so they were correct in stating that no threat had been detected, or was the Government in 2009 and again in 2021 not telling the whole truth – or did they simply not care about intrusions into UK airspace by unknown airborne craft?
Questions have also been asked on social media as to whether all of the MOD’s files created and held by “the UFO desk” have been handed over to The National Archives. Clearly not all have, given some of the records regarding the Calvine incident have been retained until 2072 at the earliest. However, look at Baroness Goldie’s reply again, and see the words “all relevant material” being used. Plenty of wiggle-room there. One wonders what “irrelevant” material has been held back from release, what is contained in those files, and who made the decision to retain it?
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative) asked an unrelated question about the possibilities offered by the UK space program. Lord Coaker (Labour) was the next to ask something related to UAP:
“Given the subject, it is very reassuring to see the Minister here physically, not beamed in. The Pentagon has said that unidentified aerial phenomena are a serious national security threat. Notwithstanding what she has just said, does the Minister agree with the Pentagon’s analysis of the threat from unidentified aerial phenomena? Is the UK therefore suffering from a threat similar to that identified by the US? Given that the MoD abandoned its UFO desk in 2009, where are such sightings to be reported and to whom? The truth is out there and, we hope, in the Minister’s answer.”
Baroness Goldie replied as follows:
“I endeavour to provide veracity to this Chamber on all occasions. Again, the underlying important point is the security of our airspace. I have already indicated how we address that potential threat and how we are well sustained and well provided to deal with any such potential threat. However, we regard threats as having to exist in the first place and to be substantiated by evidence because we need to know what we are addressing and how best we can address it. We are of course aware of the US assessment. The MoD has no plans to conduct its own report into UAP because, in over 50 years, no such reporting indicated the existence of any military threat to the UK.”
The end of the last line was a rehashing of the wording the Labour government had used to justify the decision to close “the UFO desk” back in 2009. Whilst the security of UK airspace is paramount, the MOD clearly do not believe a threat from UAP exists, at least according to their public statements. Given that they are aware of the American position, and the UAPTF report, either it is true that no UAP have been reported in UK skies over the last 50 years (which we know is not the case) or the MOD do not consider them to have posed a threat. If the latter is true, then it suggests that they know what the UAP that have been reported are or are not telling the truth. As we know RAF aircrew and radar stations have seen and plotted unknown aerial vehicles over UK airspace during the last half-century, how is it possible that the MOD knows these objects did not constitute a threat or danger to air operations? The UAPTF report clearly states that UAP pose a risk to safe military flying, especially in exercise and training areas. It seems rather strange that the MOD claim that there is no issue at all.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Labour) asked a long question, the first part of which mentioned the fictional Torchwood Institute in Cardiff. However, she did move onto a more serious point:
“Seven decades after unidentified aerial phenomena first appeared on the radar, defence ministries around the world ought to know what they are. The recent report does not require us to accept the reality of alien visitation, but it does require us to take UFOs seriously. Therefore, how seriously do Her Majesty’s Government now take UFOs in the light of this report?”
The Minister replied as follows:
“I refer the noble Baroness to my previous answers. The short response is ‘very seriously’, in relation to addressing threats where those threats are identifiable and can be substantiated.”
At least here was an admission that the MOD takes UFOs/UAP “very seriously”, although just how seriously is not known, given the lack of interest in declaring that they either record or investigate such matters. Given the closure of “the UFO desk” in 2009 and the Government’s refusal to admit to any behind-the-scenes analysis of UAP reporting in the UK, it is hard to see what weight they actually put behind this statement – although the inclusion of the caveat in the last part of Baroness Goldie’s reply brings us back to the MOD’s refusal to believe that any UAP reports constitute a threat or a danger. Therefore, we can assume that the MOD do not currently take UAP very seriously as otherwise there is a large contradiction here.
The penultimate question in the House of Lord’s debate was posed by Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Conservative):
“My Lords, is the Minister aware of the role that one of the largest single-dish telescopes in the southern hemisphere—in Parkes, New South Wales, the place of my birth—played in transmitting the TV footage of the Apollo 11 moon landing? More recently, it tracked NASA’s Curiosity rover during its descent over the surface of Mars in 2012. Might it be of assistance to the Government in helping to modify, monitor and assist any unidentified sightings?”
Baroness Goldie answered thus:
“I would say to my noble friend that the MoD and particularly our air defence community have the most sophisticated electronic surveillance. I myself witnessed how this operated when I visited RAF Coningsby. There is also the added support of visual identification, if that is thought to be necessary, by alerting a rapid reaction from our Typhoons, which are able to take on a visual inspection if there is any doubt about the nature or character of an alleged threat.”
It is not clear what assistance a radio telescope situated in Australia would offer in terms of recording and investigating reports of UK UAP sightings. However, at least there was the prospect of RAF Typhoons being scrambled from Coningsby in Lincolnshire (or presumably Lossiemouth in Scotland) to check on any unidentified contacts. These types of operations are currently conducted when suspected Russian maritime patrol, long-range reconnaissance or bomber aircraft are detected heading for the fringes of UK airspace, usually in the North Sea. Airliners have also been intercepted on occasion, especially when they have failed to respond to repeated radio calls and there is a fear that a hijack or terrorist event is about to take place. One would think that the Typhoons would be scrambled if and when a UAP is detected in UK skies. There have certainly been reports over the years of strange objects being either chased or accompanied by RAF jets.
Lord Rogan (Ulster Unionist Party) asked the final question of the UAP debate:
“My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to read the report and the frankness with which it was written. Have the report’s contents yet been raised by Her Majesty’s Government with representatives of the United States Government? The Minister has said that our Government have no reports on this matter, but given the interest that it has generated around the world—and, indeed, perhaps other worlds—do Her Majesty’s Government now have plans to produce a similar document summarising any recent UAP or UFO sightings within UK borders and overseas territories?”
Here was a rather interesting question, and one which asked whether or not the UK had been in contact with the US Government about the UAPTF report. Predictably, the Minister was not going to be drawn on such matters:
“As I indicated earlier, we have no opinion on the existence of extra-terrestrial life, and we no longer investigate reports of sightings of unidentified aerial phenomena. We have no plans to conduct our own report into UAP, because in over 50 years no such reporting has indicated the existence of any military threat to the UK.”
Baroness Goldie would not comment on conversations between the US and the UK regarding the UAPTF report. Did “no opinion” and “no longer investigate reports of sightings” mean that the MOD was out of the UFO game? According to Her Majesty’s Government, the MOD is not about to form its own version of the UAPTF and request a 180-day report – or even a three-year one. No threat = no report. As far as the MOD is concerned, there is no UAP issue to start with, at least one that presents any kind of threat. As there is no perceived or actual threat, there is no need for recording, analysis or investigation. Nothing to see here, move along.
The long history of UK UFO/UAP cases would suggest otherwise. However, we in the UK are hamstrung by the lack of a Luis Elizondo, someone at the centre of a UAP investigation force and who has the grit and determination to see things through. Neither do we have a Dave Fravor, an Alex Dietrich or a Sean Cahill, all of whom never fail to impress when retelling their stories on camera. We certainly do not have a Christopher Mellon, someone at the heart of intelligence matters in two administrations with different political leanings. There is no UK equivalent of Kevin Day, Gary Voorhis or Chad Underwood, and we certainly do not have investigative reporters or film-makers such as George Knapp or Jeremy Corbell, conduits for information relating to UAP. Those of us advocating for more transparency regarding UAP in the UK seem to be operating with one arm tied behind their backs, at least in comparison with those across the pond.
The House of Lords debate may give the impression that everything’s fine in the UK and there’s no need to be concerned about UAP, but that’s not the case. A growing number of us want answers from our Government and will not be put off by glib statements suggesting that there is no issue to consider. The history of UFO/UAP sightings in the UK tells us otherwise, and the recent UAPTF report confirms that in one part of the world, at least, there is an issue. We would simply like to have our politicians realise this and engage with it – and us in the process. Is that too much to ask?
At UAP Media UK, we would welcome the chance to hear from military personnel who have experienced UAPs in the UK, contact from politicians who are sympathetic to the issue without resorting to the current MOD line, and even former service or intelligence personnel who have stories to tell. Such people are out there, it’s just a question of them wishing to speak about UAP and finding us.
You can reach us securely at [email protected].
