19th 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’

“Cash for Questions”

I wrote to you on 11 October 2021 regarding Julian Hayes’ accusation that my father was paid ‘cash for questions’ in the House of Commons by the StB – in that case about the Marples letter and commercial ship propulsion. I am now writing further on the subject of ‘cash for questions’ as I said I would do at the end of that 11 October letter.

On pages 353-4 of Julian Hayes’ book he states “The Czechs invested considerable time and money nurturing their ‘agent’, supplying him with ‘cash for questions’ to assist the Czech cause as well as …”

And on page 27: “… Kugler confirmed that they would continue to assist the MP with his parliamentary questions.”

Aside from general unspecific accusations, as on pages 353-4 and 27, shown above, there are two subjects additional to the Marples letter on which Julian Hayes has made specific accusations – regarding 1) the Monckton Commission and 2) German penetration of the colonies, and they are the subject of this letter. 

There is no evidence either in Julian’s book or in Hansard that my father asked any questions at the direction of the Czechs or to their benefit. This is easy to establish because every word my father ever said in the House of Commons is available to read at Hansard online, including his oral and written questions.

On pages 22-23 Julian Hayes writes about a meeting the StB agent said he had with my father at the Vine Restaurant on 8 December 1959. This was before the StB said they recruited him. I reproduce later in this letter the entire StB document so you can compare what it says with what Julian says it says. This is some of what Julian writes:

“Having become adept at massaging the young politician’s ego he [Kugler] commenced by bringing out a draft of the speech that Stonehouse had made regarding the make-up of the Monckton Commission. This had been formed to consider the constitution of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (which would subsequently become Zimbabwe and Malawi). The Hansard reports record Stonehouse asking a question on this topic on 3 December and Kugler praised the MP on how his arguments had shifted the views of Labour’s Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan, who in turn supported Stonehouse’s stand in discussion with Gaitskell.” 

As you can see from the StB document below, it does not say that Kugler “commenced by bringing out a draft of the speech that Stonehouse had made regarding the make-up of the Monckton Commission.”

And Hayes says that my father asked a question about the Monckton Commission on 3 December but doesn’t say what that question was. This is that question:

CENTRAL AFRICA (ADVISORY COMMISSION)

HC Deb 03 December 1959 vol 614 cc1374-8

Mr. Stonehouse Will the Home Secretary confirm that the ambiguity and intransigence of the Prime Minister is because of the pressure brought upon him by Sir Roy Welensky? 

Given that my father had worked in Uganda with the co-operative movement for two years at this point in time and travelled extensively in East Africa, it is hardly surprising that he would ask a question on this subject. But look at the question itself – what has this got to do with what Julian says?: “The Hansard reports record Stonehouse asking a question on this topic on 3 December and Kugler praised the MP on how his arguments had shifted the views of Labour’s Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan, who in turn supported Stonehouse’s stand in discussion with Gaitskell.”  

The StB agent had an agenda of creating the illusion to his masters in Prague that he was in the process of recruiting a potential agent. That point aside, Julian Hayes knows what “The Hansard reports” and also what the StB document says but he chooses to turn the StB document into something completely different, by inventing the notion that “[Kugler] commenced by bringing out a draft of the speech that Stonehouse had made regarding the make-up of the Monckton Commission” and that his question on 3 December influenced the Labour Party leadership. Look at the HOC question again. Does that, to you, bear any relation to what a) the StB agent says and b) what Julian Hayes says? To both questions, the answer is obviously ‘no’. I have highlighted the relevant section in the translation below:

StB Reference 43075_43075_000_0141: KOLON Lunch on 8 Dec. at The Vine Restaurant, check for being followed for nearly 3 hours—nothing determined, next time on 21 Dec. 

Purpose: Determine whether K. performed the assigned agency measures and find out whether he would accept a financial award for such performance. 

With KOLON, I monitored immediately after his arrival how the result of the last conversation would show itself on him. I was a bit worried that the last conversation would make him wary of possible involvement with me. Something of a change could be seen in KOLON. He concentrated much more, and I had the feeling that he was studying me and whether he felt morally degraded after the last meeting with me. I turned the conversation towards the House, where KOLON again achieved an increase of personal prestige because he managed to convince the leadership of the L[abour] P[arty] about the wrongfulness of LP participation in Monkton’s mission to Africa. Gaitskell had previously halfway verbally promised to Macmillan that they accept participation, and a considerable number of LP MPs knew that and therefore watched with interest how successful KOLON would be. KOLON won over Callaghan, and he ultimately convinced Gaitskell. The result of the political debate in parliament on this question showed the success of the LP tactics, and as a consequence KOLON has strengthened his position. He again thanked me for my advice, which I gave him for tactics, and for a long time he again went over tactics and the position for building his career. I advised him as follows, which he accepted and will carry out: a) He will speak in the House only in matters that will improve his position, and I will help him prepare questions and will give him topics that I regard as being of interest both for myself and for him. He is satisfied with the form of input used for the last questions. b) His political approach to problems will be left of the centre—from now on he will avoid supporting Zilliacus, and he will distance himself from him personally as well, so no one will be able to accuse him of being a fellow traveller. c) At this time he will focus on gaining the trust and friendship of Callaghan and Wilson, and if he succeeds, he will unobtrusively inform his colleagues in the House about those friendships and will begin laying groundwork so that in 1-2 years he might begin candidacy both to the National Executive Committee and the Shadow Cabinet. He is convinced he will get into both by the end of the term, but he must run 2-3 times. d) Develop his social activities—he has financial barriers, so we will look for ways to deal with this problem. e) In 1960 he will run for president of the Cooperative Society since the present president must step down in 1961 because of his age. Unlike the trade unions, the president in the Cooperative has considerable influence over the appointing of new MPs, so KOLON will get support and influence of cooperative MPs in the House, and he will also get moral support for his demand that he be elected to leadership. 

StB Reference 43075_43075_000_0141: KOLON -2 

In the second part of the interview we concentrated on the performance of agency measures. KOLON reported on their assignment and said he was satisfied with the form of assigning and documentation and that he wanted to continue in this manner. I apologised to him for the form and the perhaps imperfect English text of the formulated questions. He said that did not matter because he has to reformulate them anyway. I explained that I could have the questions linguistically corrected by a translator and written up by a typist, but we agreed that since this is a very confidential business just between the two of us, I will do all the work on that myself. He approved that gratefully, and we agreed that we would not speak even with our wives about our deeper acquaintances. While talking about wives, I complained that his wife was causing me troubles. He asked why in surprise, and I answered that Christmas was coming, and that I would like to give her something nice, but I could not think of anything reasonable. He said that if I sent them something to drink, that would be fine. I commented that if our friendship were like it was in the past, that I certainly would do that. Since we agreed that we would be helping each other, I feel the need to express our friendship in the form of a better gift as well. Of course, he refused that “modestly”, and he claimed he doesn’t care about what he gets etc. I said I felt it my duty to express gratitude through a gift for the asking of questions, but that I’m in a rather difficult situation, because I don’t have anything in store that is valuable at the moment. I asked whether it would be acceptable or would suit his wife if, instead of a gift, I were to give her money to buy whatever she would like (and I told him a made-up story about how I bought my wife a watch and she didn’t like it etc.). He said it was up to me but that even a bottle of slivovitz would be a symbol of friendship from his point of view. I wrapped things up saying I would resolve it somehow and would pass it on to him at the next meeting. To conclude things I turned the conversation back towards political discussion about events in parliament. 

Conclusion: If KOLON accepts money at the next meeting /(by telegram I proposed 50 pounds sterling, after consulting with comrade Resident and Comrade JURAN), identification is practically finished in this case and the recruitment process has begun. It is possible to expect that if at the next meeting I manage to deepen the conspiracy or agree on a system of substitute meetings and agree on continuing cooperation for a fee, the first phase of recruitment will be finished. Of course, it’s still a long way from full recruitment as an agent of Czechoslovak intelligence, but the decisive step in that direction has already begun. 

Vetting 1.08 Lunch 4.17 kugler 

[Handwritten in left margin] So that S.K. does not switch it 

[Handwritten at the bottom] The case is developing in a favourable way in terms of operations and Comrade Kugler is paying greater attention to preparing and editing records. H. Well thought-out approach and statement! 

In this report Kugler is exaggerating the influence of Stonehouse because he is selling his masters in Prague the notion that this individual has the potential to be a valuable agent, and you notice that he is asking for £50 to seal the deal. The first thing Julian should have done is research the veracity of what Kugler writes in the highlighted section above. But he doesn’t do that. Instead he takes the basic subject – the Monckton Commission – and spins it into his invention that “[Kugler] commenced by bringing out a draft of the speech that Stonehouse had made regarding the make-up of the Monckton Commission”. Because Hayes uses the word ‘draft’ it implies that my father had given Kugler a ‘draft’ otherwise where would he have got it? This implies an exchange of written information between my father and Kugler when no such exchange had taken place. Then Julian Hayes weaves phoney ‘evidence’ into the narrative by saying “The Hansard reports record Stonehouse asking a question on this topic on 3 December and Kugler praised the MP on how his arguments had shifted the views of Labour’s Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan, who in turn supported Stonehouse’s stand in discussion with Gaitskell.” 

From what I have said above you can see that I am accusing Julian of having misrepresented what is in StB documents 43075_43075_000_0141 and 43075_43075_000_0143 (0142 is the reverse of 0141 and is blank– the StB archivists routinely photograph both the front and back of each piece of paper etc. and the reverse sides are invariably blank which explains why the alternate document numbers are not relevant). If Hayes believes I am mistaken in this he will need to provide me with the 3 December HOC question to which he is referring. Also, he needs to show me where in the StB document it talks about a draft speech. 

I turn now to the issue of a supposed question on German penetration of the colonies. In the StB file this subject immediately precedes that above.

On page 21 of his book, Julian Hayes writes: “In a subsequent memo to the bureau in Prague, Kugler updated them on his progress. The Czech agent had researched and formulated questions for Stonehouse to ask in the Commons relating to German trade in the colonies and its increasing influence.” There follows eleven lines of history, unrelated to the contents of the document and written by Hayes himself, which ends on page 22 with “less forceful states needed policies to be challenged and changed to afford them the same opportunities, and material relating to this was anonymously provided to Stonehouse.” There is no evidence that any question relating to German trade in the colonies was made by my father and I shall return to that essential point. First though, here is a translation of part of that “subsequent memo” – it is two pages in the StB file: documents 0137 and 0139 (0138 is the reverse side of 0137 and is blank) I am reproducing here document 0137 so you can compare the StB text with what Hayes has written about it. I have highlighted certain sections, the first of which says “the texts of which are enclosed” – there are no enclosures so we cannot see what questions Kugler (Koudelka) said he had given my father. This document also relates to December 1959, before the StB said they had recruited my father. StB Reference 43075_43075_000_0137: 

KOLON

On 2 December, as agreed, I gave KOLON a suggestion for two parliamentary questions, the texts of which are enclosed. I had difficulty formulating something solid about the problem of German penetration into Africa. I spent one day studying various materials so that if necessary, at the upcoming meeting I would be able to explain even the details to KOLON, and whilst studying the official British statistics, I came upon surprising facts: West Germany’s share of exports to Africa is ca. 6% and 5 percent of imports. In several British colonies, German imports are higher than exports. With the exception of Liberia, there was never a greater export of German capital. The Bonn government does not provide any guaranties or incentives for exports to British colonies, and this is for political reasons. It is routine for German firms operating in British colonies to borrow capital (especially business capital) from British banks, so they are under their financial control. Amongst the other countries where the Federal Republic of Germany is making more headway are Ethiopia and Guinea, but not with capital, but in the form of technical aid.

For your information, below are the political principles prepared at the conference of German diplomats in Addis Ababa on West German policy towards African countries:

• economic cooperation between the FRG and African countries must lead to economic development and may not lead to crises and economic tension like happens in the cases of Communist aid.

- Industrialization must not exceed the country’s labour resources.

- The social-political structure must be built so as to strengthen the middle class (petit bourgeoisie).

- Wherever possible, provide aid in the form of mixed companies.

• The main interest is concentrating on technical aid and trade.

As far as providing aid to Guinea etc. is concerned, there is consultation between the British and French governments. At present, German businesses are more interested in the market of the French colonies because, among other things, they provide them with an extra 8% profit (sterling barrier), and prospects will be improved further by the introduction of the Common Market. 

I am stating these facts to explain why I cannot push KOLON to ask questions that will get him smacked on the nose. I have so far found a single document on overall capital investments where a definite trend is reflected. I am, however, aware of the weakness of the argument because it reflects only absolute figures—in concrete relations, it does not look anything like that—but it still can be used.

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. Comrade JURAN is preparing a report for you on our experiences with agency measures, and next week we will be meeting to discuss how to use our experience so far with agency measures. In the first phase, KOLON must be convinced that cooperation with me will not turn him into a mere tradesman, but that it will improve his standing in the House. That is the only way I will get him to be active himself—otherwise it will turn into a mere business deal.

H

Kugler

What this document shows is that Kugler is telling Prague that he was educating himself about “German penetration”, but he was deluding himself if he thought that a day’s research on the subject would provide my father with information he didn’t already know and “improve his standing in the House”. That aside, what Hayes has done is added the notion that “material relating to this was anonymously provided to Stonehouse” when the document doesn’t actually say that. The document shows that Kugler is trying to impress his masters in Prague with his homework so his questions are not ignorant and don’t get Stonehouse “smacked on the nose.” Hayes does not say what this “material” was, and has chosen not to detail the contents of the StB document and has instead given his readers a rather elementary history lesson. So my question is, what is this “material” of which Hayes speaks? Is it supposed to relate to Hayes’ little history lesson, to which it is directly attached, or does it relate to the contents of the StB document, and in either case where has that “material” been expressed in the HOC or elsewhere? It is one thing for Czech spies to have fantasies about ‘agents’ who will, in Hayes’ words, “assist the Czech cause” but it is quite another for an author to swallow those fantasies for whatever purpose without providing a word of evidence that any such assistance was given.

No question relating to German penetration of the colonies was asked by my father and, moreover, no questions were asked about the subjects written about by Kugler in StB document 0137. That rather indicates that no “material” – whether written or oral – was “provided to Stonehouse.” If Hayes knows otherwise he needs to tell me the Hansard reference/s so his assertion can be verified.

If Julian Hayes is going to accuse my father of having been paid “'cash for questions’ to assist the Czech cause” he needs to provide evidence for that. He has not done so. In his email to me of 23 July 2019 Julian wrote “… 

Redacted for copyright reasons. Hayes says he has checked the Hansard record of questions asked in the House of Commons – which includes both oral and written questions – and had not found there evidence of pertinent questions which could confirm the Czech claims.