20th October 2021

███████████

Editorial Legal Director

Hachette UK Limited

Carmelite House
50 Victoria Embankment
London EC4Y 0DZ

Dear ███████

Re: Julian Hayes – ‘Stonehouse Cabinet Minister, Fraudster, Spy’

“Cabinet Minister”?

Despite the title of Julian’s book, my father was never a cabinet minister – whether in government or shadow cabinet. This is common knowledge and I am surprised it was not picked up by Robinson’s editors. Here is the link so you can see this for yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_government,_1964%E2%80%931970#List_of_Ministers

Julian throws the word ‘cabinet’ into his text at every opportunity and I can understand why: it is hyperbole designed to try and dramatise his dubious narrative. The most egregious example of this is on page 28 where he writes: “In addition are a number of typed letters, reports and minutes of committee and cabinet meetings, for example, a detailed description of a Labour shadow cabinet meeting in 1963 concerning the issue of nuclear disarmament and another on the Monckton Commission.” There is so much that is incorrect about this statement that I shall have to deal with it in another letter. 

Also of particular concern is a quote, purportedly from my father, on page 322: “In the months leading up to my disappearance in November 1974, John Stonehouse, ex-cabinet minister, privy councillor and chairman of companies …” In a normal non-fiction book quotations from people are always referenced but in the case of Julian Hayes’ book there are no references and so I am now obliged to come to you to challenge the accuracy of this quote. I will need to have sight of the document from which it was sourced. 

I think that Julian Hayes is well aware that my father was never a member of either government or shadow cabinets because of the fluidity with which he writes about the cabinet position, interjecting into his book the notion that one can be a member of the cabinet one day but not the next and move up and down levels. Cabinet positions do not work in that way: one is either in the cabinet or not. This appears to be something neither Julian Hayes nor the StB agents were aware of or conveniently ignored. Here are examples of the word “cabinet” being used in Julian’s book:

Page 2:        “former cabinet minister”

Page 45:       “Wilson only calls us into cabinet meetings where there are questions raised specifically in respect of my department, otherwise I am not invited to them.”

Page 46:       “and tipped him off about his pending promotion to full cabinet”

Page 51:       “I anticipate that I will be promoted within the cabinet” 

Page 52:       “and again claimed he expected to be stepping into an elevated position within the cabinet”

Page 58:       “On 1 July, he was appointed postmaster general, and gained a full place in the Labour government cabinet.”

Page 59:       “With his elevation to postmaster general and position in the cabinet”

Page 59:       “As with most MPs, particularly cabinet ministers”

Page 71:       “progress from junior minister roles to member of the cabinet and privy council”

Page 71:       “As far as Stonehouse’s duties were concerned, while he was now a cabinet minister, he would only be required to attend if there was business directly relating to his department to discuss.”

Page 74:       “While Stonehouse remained a cabinet minister for the remaining period of Wilson’s tenure”

Page 75:       “drawing a cabinet minister’s salary”

Page 354:     “once he had achieved cabinet status”

As you can see, we have here notions that there is a “full cabinet” (and presumably an un-full cabinet), promotion “within the cabinet”, “an elevated position within the cabinet”, “a full place” in cabinet (as opposed to an un-full place), and “while he was now a cabinet minister, he would only be required to attend if there was business directly relating to his department”. Julian Hayes has tried to put a round peg (the notion that my father was in government and shadow government cabinets) into a square hole (he was never in a cabinet) and become utterly confused in the process. That is being generous. It is my belief that Julian Hayes likes to use the concept that my father was a government or shadow cabinet minister because it allows him to exaggerate the importance of paperwork to which he refers when accusing my father of being a spy.

Yours sincerely,

Julia Stonehouse