This is an enlargement of the reference section on page 4:

As you can see, information in this leaflet is referenced as coming from periodicals available to the public - The Engineer, and Nature, as well as from a book by Rosato and Grove. 

There is nothing to indicate this leaflet was acquired from my father; and information of this nature was readily available to anyone who cared to go to trade shows, or purchase or peruse technical journals and books in reference libraries. If Hayes is asserting that “in return” for cash my father “provided them with technical information” based only on the existence of this leaflet in the file, I would consider that a most disgraceful misrepresentation. Or perhaps he thinks there is other “technical information” in the file that was given to the StB agents by my father and if so he needs to provide evidence for such an assertion. 

Having written the words “Stonehouse provided them with technical information …” Hayes immediately inserts a parenthesis as if to underscore and evidence that statement: “… (some documents are indisputably in his handwriting, as confirmed by a handwriting expert).” This juxtaposition is utterly disgraceful because in this StB file there are literally two documents in my father’s handwriting, reproduced below, and they have nothing whatever to do with “technical information”. (Indeed, even the forgeries – a subject I shall get to – have nothing whatever to do with “technical information”).

The document on the left is reproduced in my book, where the context is explained. This is dated fourteen months before my father was said to have been recruited, and the meeting with Koudelka was to start the process of twinning my father’s constituency of Wednesbury with the Czech town of Kladno. 

The document on the right is reproduced in Julian’s book with the rather overblown caption: “One of Stonehouse’s handwritten notes on members of the African National Congress (in this case Joshua Nkomo) provided to the Czech State Security Agency and found by the author in their files.” (I say ‘overblown’ not only because Julian is so fond of saying papers were “found by the author in their files” and on page 28 for example “File 43075, long buried in the StB archive …” when the files are not hidden or buried or bulging but have been available digitally since 2008 to anyone who asks to see them, or purchase them on CD at a cost of about £4). 

In my book I describe the document as follows (pages 279-8):“The second, and last, document written in my father’s handwriting is 450-words long, of which 130 words are brief notes on an interview given by a US diplomat, and the rest are biographical notes on two African politicians. There’s nothing secret in any of this information, yet the StB have taken the trouble to forge the cover note that accompanies it. It says on one line, ‘from Paul Barnes’ and on another, ‘Harold Poulter Esq.’. ‘Paul Barnes’ was the cover name the StB devised for my father and ‘Harold Poulter’ was the cover name for any StB agent concerned. By fabricating this five-word cover note, they’re making this inconsequential 450-word document seem very clandestine and important. It’s possible the document itself found its way into the file via Will Owen’s StB handler. Owen was a Labour and Co-operative Party MP who admitted in court to passing non-classified information to the Czechs for money. Although usually categorised under the ‘Labour Party,’ the Labour and Co-operative Party are a separate group within it, and as my father was also a Labour and Co-operative Party MP, Owen and he had reason to be in contact over co-operative party matters within the House of Commons. It’s possible that some of the other documents in this file came via Owen, especially as Owen was ‘handled’ by Robert Husak, and then by Josef Kalina, both of whom were StB agents in London who wrote reports that appear in my father’s file.”

There are literally two documents in my father’s handwriting but Julian says the following:

Page 25, para 3 – a statement already raised with you in page two of my letter of 8 October: “… the sending of the letter would mean that their meeting was to be postponed for a week. Several such envelopes bearing Stonehouse’s writing are contained in the StB files …” 

Page 28: “That Stonehouse supplied his handlers with information during this period is not in doubt. File 43075, long buried in the StB archives, contains an abundance of documents in Stonehouse’s verified handwriting, including letters, envelopes and a five-page report providing detailed information on members of the African National Congress.” Two documents do not constitute “an abundance”. 

Page 354 - As above: “(some documents are indisputably in his handwriting, as confirmed by a handwriting expert.)"

In his Acknowledgements Julian thanks “handwriting experts who were very helpful and prompt with the work they undertook on my behalf” As the accusations in Julian’s book are so extremely serious I really must insist that the handwriting reports, presumably plural as Julian says “experts”, are shown to both you as Editorial Legal Director of Hachette, and myself. Clearly, I am very familiar with my father’s handwriting and my mother, who spent over 25 years typing up my father’s notes is even more so, and we are adamant that no more than the two documents shown above are in my father’s handwriting. 



Please do not get the impression from Julian’s book that there is a great deal of material to contest. Aside from the two documents above, which are not in dispute, the forgeries consist of two envelopes to P Holan, one note with six words and four initials, one note with five words plus “Esq”, and a map written on a page of a notebook which the StB agents said my father wrote. On the reverse of that page pulled from a notebook is another map but the agents did not say it was written by my father, and it clearly is not. Both maps are reproduced in the last photo section of my book. There too you will find a Christmas card where the two words “deary KOLONA” have been added, and they too fall into the category of forgery, as explained in my book. These forgeries are minimal, and I can understand why the StB chose to make them so, but they were strategic – and that is why they are crucial to the discussion.  

Calling someone a communist “Spy” during the era of threatened nuclear war is an extremely serious matter and has repercussions in terms of British history. If Julian Hayes is going to make this accusation and have it published by a reputable company, thus giving it credence, then both that publisher and author need to defend their position. To this end, I insist on seeing the handwriting reports Julian says he has acquired. If they state that the forgeries outlined above were written by my father, then we shall have a contest on our hands. 

Yours sincerely,

Julia Stonehouse