Project Condign (DEFE 24/2090)

my point of view as a historian it is important to record aspects of its production for posterity. While I am aware of the sensitivity of the work of the DIS, I would point out that I have traced an interviewed a number of other former DIS employees who have been involved in UFO work on the understanding that my questions do not touch upon areas related to national security. I have undertaken to protect their identity and my work is for research purposes only, and will not be published without permission. The author of the UAP report is clearly someone with a long-standing knowledge of this subject dating back to the 1950s, who has an RAF background and has acted as an advisor on aspects of the topic for MoD for some time. When the report is in the public domain, there is little doubt that he will be traced by the media. Therefore would it not be better to have him speak to a sympathetic academic rather than door-stepped by a journalist? As I understand he may no longer work for MoD would it be possible to forward a letter to him on my behalf?

2. Could we clear up the ambiguity surrounding the status of the 21 DI55 UFO files (see Attachment A). It is my understanding that a large proportion of these files (Pts 36-51, covering years 1987-1997) were utilised by the author of the report as a statistic sample in the UAP database. Your letter of 23 November 2005 suggests it is like these files "are amongst the DIS files which are now subject to asbestos contamination." However, as some of these files (those relating to policy) were later found to have escaped contamination, could DIS make another check so we can be certain as to the status of these outstanding files.

3. Could we also establish the status of the UAP database. In what form did it exist (i.e. as a computer programme?) and has it definitely been destroyed? If so, why? Was it destroyed for any particular reason?

4. A question I feel the Press will certainly ask (see Attachment B) is how much in the way of public funds were spent on the production of this report. If precise figures have not been kept (as the report was part of a larger contract) is it possible to estimate how has been spent, based upon similar projects undertaken by MoD?

5. Who has had sight of this report in terms of senior officials and/or ministers at the Ministry of Defence?

That's all and thanks for fielding these questions on my behalf. I hope the meeting goes well and there are no major obstacles remaining in the process of release. I look forward to hearing from you in due course,

Yours sincerely,

Dr David Clarke