There are several points to raise first regarding the physical properties of this document:

1. Parliamentary correspondence takes the following usual form: the writer sends the letter on his or her office letterhead which shows in print the name of that person and their position, and the address of the office; the name of the recipient is typed at the bottom of the page; above the text of the letter the name of the recipient is handwritten by the sender, thus allowing the sender to be as formal or as informal as they wish; and it is signed by the sender.
2. This is a carbon copy. That raises the question of why it is not an original letter following the format outlined in point 1) above. Did this piece of paper originate with John Stonehouse or someone in the Ministry of Transport or, indeed, did it come via some other source?
3. It has no address of the recipient which indicates it was delivered by HOC internal mail.
4. In place of a signature it has a stamp: “(Sgd) ERNEST MARPLES”

It could be that the format of this document was so informal because it contained text intended for several people at the same time. It relates to questions answered in the HOC on the 9^th December by five MPs: oral questions by Mr Wall, Mr Popplewell, and Mr Benn (answered in the HOC by The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, Mr. John Hay); and written questions on the same subject by two MPs, Mr Awbery and Mr Stonehouse. The written questions clearly would have had to be submitted to the Minister on or prior to 9 December. If all these MPs received the same written reply, their letters would have had their name typed at the bottom of the page, and in that case while the text would be carbon copy, the name of the recipient would be in original type. But in this instance the name of the recipient is also in carbon copy, so it appears that this document is a carbon copy of an original letter that was sent to Mr Stonehouse. This is why the source of this document is in question.

For your information, these were the oral questions asked in the HOC on 9 December with their answers:

Mr. Wall asked the Minister of Transport his estimate of the period which will elapse before a nuclear-propelled merchant ship or warship could be commissioned, on the assumption that the order for a reactor was placed before the end of 1959. 

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay) This will, to some extent, depend on the type of reactor chosen, but I am advised that, for a merchant ship, it would be at least three or four years. Nuclear propulsion of warships is the responsibility of my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. 

Mr. Wall Is it not a fact that the United States, Japan and Soviet Russia are getting well ahead of us in this important matter, and will my hon. Friend undertake to go into the question so that we can get a nuclear-propelled ship commissioned at sea as soon as possible? 

Mr. Hay Yes, Sir. We are very concerned about this matter. The immediate object of getting a ship to sea is to gain experience. If we are to get full value from the experiment, it must be a ship economic to operate, compared with a conventionally-powered one. I think that it would be better to investigate carefully before taking a plunge in this matter and that is what we are trying to do. 

Mr. Wall Does the Minister expect the prototype to be economic? 

Mr. Hay The Question simply asked for a date. 

Mr. Popplewell Can the hon. Gentleman intimate when he hopes he will be able to give the order for a reactor, because it is important to our shipping interests at the present moment that they should have an "all clear" in this respect? 

Mr. Hay I cannot intimate a date at the moment, but it will certainly be as soon as we can make it. 

Mr. Benn Will the hon. Gentleman answer the supplementary question put to him by his hon. Friend? Does he intend that the prototype must be economic? 

Mr. Hay No, Sir. Our intention at the moment is to carry out the fullest investigation of the matter to ensure that the prototype, when built, will be economical and that it will lead to a better ship when the time comes to build a fully operative one. 

And these are the texts of the written questions published in Hansard recording the proceedings of 9 December 1959, with their answers:

Mr. Awbery asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the rapid progress being made by Western Germany in the field of nuclear marine propulsion, if he is satisfied that sufficient funds are being made available for the experiments which will be necessary to ensure that the United Kingdom is able to compete successfully in this field of development; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Stonehouse asked the Minister of Transport what is his estimate of the effect on the British shipbuilding industry of the development of nuclear powered ships by the German Federal Republic.

Mr. Marples There has been no lack of effort in this country on the part of all concerned with the development of this form of propulsion. What we now have to decide is how we can best make further progress, and I am considering this at the present time. I have read recent reports of German plans, but I have no reason to believe they are further ahead than we are.

Mr. Stonehouse asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a further statement on the provision of nuclear propulsion for British merchant ships.

Mr. Marples I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement, but I will do so as soon as possible.

Both oral and written questions shown above are taken from Hansard for 9 December. All parliamentary proceedings at the time, both in the HOC and House of Lords, including written answers in both houses shown at the end of each days’ proceedings, were printed overnight by Her Majesty’s Stationary Office and available the next morning at the HMSO stationary office in Holborn for a few shillings. No doubt this daily printing of parliamentary proceedings was a mine of information for spies from various foreign nations. Indeed, StB agent Kugler wrote to his masters in Prague this same month saying that he will have to “follow the activity of parliament more closely” – and he could do that in one of two ways: either sitting in the House of Commons and/or House of Lords all day (then usually 2:30pm to late evening), or taking the easier route of purchasing Hansard: “If cooperation with KOLON were to take place as agreed, a new problem will crop up for me not only to find enough facts, but also to process them, formulate them into documents, and translate them. This also requires following the activity of parliament more closely, so his questions will fit in with the spirit of the debate.” (StB Ref: 43075_43075_000_0137)

I turn now to the contents of the letter. It is dated 18 December, the day after the HOC rose for the Christmas recess. As you can see, it relates to the Minister having taken the decision to accept the recommendation of the Galbraith Committee to invite tenders for nuclear reactors with propelling machinery. This was for commercial shipping, not military. Hansard records that, even two years later, the tendering process was still not complete. Most importantly, as you can see in the last paragraph, Marples states that “I would, of course, have announced this is the House had it been possible. But the decision has only just been taken; I am therefore announcing it to the Press.” In other words, there is nothing secret or even remotely confidential about this matter as the Press are about to be informed. The Minister wrote this letter, to all five MPs who had asked questions I would think, as a matter of routine procedure and courtesy so they would be informed of the decision before they read it in the newspapers. That is all this piece of paper is about.

However, in the hands of the StB it becomes something else. The key StB document is number 43075_43075_000_0145, which is adjacent to the Marples letter, reference ending 0147, reproduced above. (Between these two is document 0146 which is the reverse of 0145, and it is blank.) In document 0145, the agent says he paid my father £50 and states “Beforehand at lunch he gave me the answer from Minister Marples about his question concerning the German atomic ship—he gave me a copy of the answer, which was attached to the cover letter (enclosed).” As you can see from the text of the Marples letter itself there is no need for any further “answer,” and there is no “answer” noted in the “cover letter” as having been attached. (And under parliamentary correspondence procedure, any attachment would be noted on the cover letter). In the StB file there are no further documents in English on the matter. In document 0145 the StB agent has fabricated the notion that there is an interesting “answer” attached, which of course he did not have and so could not include in the file.

What does Julian Hayes do with this StB report? On pages 24-25 of his book he says “It turned out to be the written response from Ernest Marples … to one of the questions the Czech had prepared for his protégé. On 9 December, Stonehouse had asked what would be the minister’s ‘estimate of the effect on the British shipbuilding industry of the development of nuclear powered ships by the German Federal Republic?’ The minister had answered that specific question but could not answer the supplementary question put by Stonehouse as to whether he would ‘make a further statement on the provision of nuclear propulsion for British merchant ships?’ He had promised to provide Stonehouse with a written response, which Stonehouse now handed to Kugler. As Kugler studied the papers …” But as you can see yourself from the answer given by Ernest Marples in reply on 9 December he did not say he “promised to provide Stonehouse with a written reponse” but that “I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement, but I will do so as soon as possible.” Julian has invented the notion that a personal written response is to be expected because it then opens the way for him to say that there were “papers”, plural, for Kugler to study. The salient points are:

• Julian knows from Hansard online that Marples had not “promised to provide Stonehouse with a written response” yet he writes that in his book. 
• Julian knows from the 18/12/59 Marples letter that there is no attachment of other papers. Yet he does not say in his book that the cover letter doesn’t indicate in any way that attachments were made to it. 

To summarise, Julian has disingenuously spun the StB yarn into a narrative that suits his purpose.

Julian emailed me on 23 July 2019 at 2:32pm saying the following about the StB file: