Actions ON the MOSCOW invitation
Sunday 22 March 1970
I acted straight away on the Russian invitation by writing to my M.P., James Allason, as follows:-
Dear Mr. Allason,
A few hours after posting my letter to you of the 17th from Edinburgh, I met a Russian who, with two colleagues, was attending the Symposium on Management in the Electronics Industry at which I was also a delegate. He is a Departmental Head of the Soviet Ministry of Electronics, and has invited me to be his guest in Moscow.
The manner in which we met and in which he made the invitation, together with the circumstances in which I was inveigled to attend the Symposium at short notice, and two or three other factors, makes me very desirous of discussing the matter with a senior Government officer. I would be most grateful if you would advise me on whom to approach or to introduce me direct to an appropriate person.
On the lighter side, just before the Russians departed I was given two tins as a present for my wife which we hope will turn out to be caviar but might of course be only sardines. The best I could do in exchange at such short notice was to present two tins of boiled sweets!
Yours sincerely,
Harold Beck
Monday 23 March 1970
Meanwhile, since my return from Edinburgh, I had been
busy fulfilling the IPC commission to write two articles. I wrote to
Geoffrey Shorter of Iliffe/IPC enclosing the first, an 1800-word commentary
entitled Communications at the M.E.E.I. Symposium.
Wednesday 25 March 1970
By return of post I received a handwritten reply from James Allason M.P. saying that he had passed on my request for an interview with the Security Service, which was not exactly what I had requested.
Thursday 26 March 1970
I received a letter from Geoffrey Shorter of Iliffe/IPC in reply to mine of 23 March. He apologised for not getting back to me on the 16th due to illness and saying he did get clearance for payment of travelling expenses. He suggested payment of £30 for 2000 ‑2500 words and I was to let him know if my travelling expenses came to more than this! Payment would normally be made shortly after publication, which would be around July.
On the editorial side, he said he liked my article for
the communications journal and that although it was a little longer than
expected he found it so interesting that it would be O.K. However he would
like to cut out one paragraph.
It was unfortunate that his non‑editorial comments reminded me of my financial concerns.
Friday 03 April 1970
I wrote to Geoffrey Shorter of Iliffe/IPC agreeing to the editorial cut and then saying:-
I would much appreciate the earliest possible payment but quite what of I am not absolutely sure! I think it would be best if I recapped.
I set out the arrangement as I understood it and gave
details of the costs and reimbursement involved. Such was my desperate
position that I caved in over the expenses and writing fees indicating that if both
commentaries were
published I would be more than satisfied if only my expenses were reimbursed.
[I
thought this would ensure early payment - I would not have to wait for
publication - and I thought it was more important from the point of view of obtaining a job that
the articles appeared in print than being paid for writing them].
Friday 03 April 1970
1430 Abortive trip into St. Albans then phoned Miss Loynes (Lord Nelson's secretary) and said I would be calling in to see Lord Nelson to deliver to him a letter. She demurred.
Sunday 05 April 1970
I sent to Geoffrey Shorter of Iliffe/IPC the
4000-word article on Training.
I wanted to quiz him about the origins of the Iliffe/IPC request which got me to the Edinburgh Symposium so I enclosed a handwritten note saying I would like to meet him in London to talk about another matter.
Monday 06 April 1970
Considering that the invitation to travel to Moscow came from a USSR. Ministry corresponding in some respects to our own Ministry of Technology, I wrote to the Minister of Technology, who happened to be Anthony Wedgewood Benn:-
Dear Mr. Wedgewood Benn,
I wonder if I might come and talk to you about relationships between Government Departments in Britain and their opposite numbers in the Soviet Union. I have been invited by the Head of a Department in the Soviet Ministry of Electronics to be his guest, as a Visiting Professor, in Moscow.
There may be some security implications in the manner and circumstances in which the invitation was made and my Member of Parliament, Mr. James Allason, has made a request on my behalf for an interview with the Security Service. Meanwhile I would very much like to know what contact there is between Britain and the Soviet Union so far as Government Departments are concerned, what would be the view of your Ministry and what should be the response of a British subject to such an invitation.
The invitation, which was rather a pressing one, came completely out of the blue and I would be glad of any information you can let me have on how to handle it.
Yours sincerely,
My letter to Lord Nelson of Stafford, which I had decided to deliver personally, was as follows:-
Dear Lord Nelson
When I saw you last November, you made a comment which rather surprised me and which, in view of a recent event, I feel I must follow up. You said something to the effect that it was not your company's fault or responsibility if I had got mixed up with communists. You made this comment before you had read any of the documents I left with you and indeed before I had told you anything about my experiences on which you could base such a statement.
I would very much like to know who briefed you before our meeting. In spite of you referring to me as Mr. Peck, it is clear not just from the above but from other indications that you knew who I was and why I was approaching you.
The event that leads me to ask who suggested I had communist associations is that I have been approached by a Russian "Civil Servant" and invited to be his guest, as a visiting Professor, in Moscow. The manner in which the approach was made and the invitation issued has serious implications nationally and I am anxious to throw as much light on the matter as possible. I would be very glad to have comments on this aspect of our previous discussion.
As you know, I have been seeking another interview with you. I am sorry you did not respond to my constructive proposals in a responsible manner I think I am justified in saying this, since you would not even examine the evidence in a non recriminatory way but you will appreciate that I must continue to draw attention to what has been happening, including the leading part which your company has been playing in it. If at any time you would like to discuss the whole matter again, I would be most pleased to hear from you as long as it is directly, i.e. no grapevine hints or non verbal communications. Meanwhile I would be glad to hear from you on the specific question of communist associations.
Yours sincerely,
At 1500 hours, armed with the letter, I arrived at GEC H.Q. I told the commissionaire that I wished to see Lord Nelson or his secretary (Miss Loyne), to deliver a letter personally. The commissionaire asked if he could take it up. I said "No". At his request I went into the waiting room while he telephoned.
After a wait of about 10 minutes Miss Loyne arrived and apologised for the delay. She was rather off‑putting so I said something about serious matters being in hand and that Lord Nelson should face up to his responsibility. Miss Loyne said that Lord Nelson had made a thorough investigation previously. I replied that I knew and he knew it was nonsense ‑ he hadn't examined the evidence. I said it would be the Ministry of Technology tomorrow (my letter to the Minister of Technology was in the post) and then Downing Street. With that, I handed the letter to Miss Loyne and left.
[Regrettably I never received a reply from Lord Nelson].
Geoff Shorter wrote saying that the second report
looked very interesting. He said he was sorry that the payment situation
seemed complicated and that £64 for the articles was fine by him. He added
that he would be very glad to meet in London for lunch or a drink.
Tuesday 07 April 1970
I received a card from I.T. Manley, Private Secretary to the Minister of Technology, saying that a reply to my letter of 6th April would be sent to me as soon as possible.
Thursday 09 April 1970
James Allason M.P. wrote, referring to his letter of 20th March, saying he thought I would be interested to see an enclosed letter which he had received from the Under‑Secretary of State at the Home Office. He added:
As you will see, your paper will be given consideration by the Committee. Please keep the enclosed letter, as I have taken a copy for my file.
The enclosed letter was from Elystan Morgan of 8th April, thanking J.A. for sending him the paper:‑
... by your constituent Mr.H.V. Beck on new methods of invading privacy based on the behavioural sciences. It will be for the Committee of Inquiry into Intrusions into Privacy to decide whether activities of the kind described by Mr. Beck should be considered part of their remit, but the paper will be drawn to their attention.
14~ April 1970
I received a phone call from a Mr. Slater who asked me to go and see him at 11.30 one morning in Room 538 Millbank Tower (lift on left). He volunteered his individual phone number (834 2255 Ext108).
Wednesday 15 April 1970
James Allason M.P. wrote saying:-
Arrangements have been made for you to be seen by a Government officer, as you requested.
Thursday 16 April 1970
I received James Allason's letter of the 15th then at noon a Mr. McCauley telephoned and after announcing that he was with the Ministry of Defence referred to my request to Mr. Allason. He went on to make the thought-provoking statement that my letter had "reverberated around the corridors of power" and had been "fielded" to him "to deal with". He added intriguingly that I had been "kept waiting long enough" and said that he wanted to come and see both myself and my wife.
He suggested visiting my home the following day, Friday 17th. He seemed keen to meet my wife as well as me. I suggested the time of 2.30 to which Mr. McCauley, after a slight hesitation, agreed.
In the course of our conversation Mr. McCauley mentioned that he spent some of his time in the Cabinet Office and that he lived near Chequers. Mr. McCauley concluded by saying that I ought to take a note of his telephone number in case I wished to get hold of him. I took down the number 930 9400 Ext 393.
Mr. McCauley had seemed nervous and hesitant, which is what first made me wonder what level he was. It also occurred to me that his opening statement may have been yet another allusion to C.P. Snow and that his mentions of the Cabinet Office and Chequers may have been oblique references to No.10 or the Prime Minister, who was still Harold Wilson. Faced with these uncertainties, I decided to find out as much as I could about the person with whom I was dealing. I therefore went to the local library and looked Mr. McCauley up in the Civil Service list. I could not find his name. I should mention that I never saw Mr. McCauley's name spelt out but I kept an eye open for all the variations I could think of and still drew a blank. My search was not entirely fruitless, however, for I noticed his phone number was the one listed for the Management Services Unit of the Ministry of Defence. Moreover, with the phone number was an address in Northumberland Avenue, which was near Charing Cross Underground station on the Thames Embankment.
I thought I would do some more checking so at 5.30 pm the same day I dialled Mr. McCauley's number and a male voice answered to the effect that I was through to the War Office. I asked to be put through to Mr. McCauley and there was a long silence while somebody checked whether or not he was available. Eventually I was told Mr. McCauley had just left but could be contacted at any time (something gave me the impression it could be by radio) and that this would be done straight away if I would leave my phone number. I replied that Mr. McCauley had arranged to visit me the following afternoon; it was not worth troubling him as I only wanted to give him directions on how to get to my home and I would ring again to do this in the morning.
Just before I rang off I asked what Mr. McCauley's function was and was told quite firmly that this information could not be given.
That same evening, at 9.45 pm, Mr. McCauley phoned again. This time he was brisk and forceful (though my wife, who answered the phone, said that to her he was nervous and hesitant). He said he would not have a car the following day (Friday 17th) so he would have to make it Wednesday 22nd. After some discussion we settled for Tuesday 21st. He asked if he could come along in the evening as his home was in the same general area as mine. I said it would be difficult to talk at home and suggested we met in a pub. He proposed one in the Gaddesden area and mentioned Chequers Crest, Whipsnade. As it happened I myself would not have a car from Monday 20th and when I told him this he said he would pick me up at my house and, allowing for traffic, would arrive between 7.00 and 7.30 pm on the 21st. I did not mention that we were having to give up the car because of our dire financial position nor indeed that the real reason I did not want him to come to our home was because of the poor state of our furniture and furnishings from the same cause. I did not mention then or later that I had phoned his office, nor did he.
Thursday 16 April 1970
The membership of The Committee on Privacy was made known (see Report of the Committee on Privacy, July 1972 Cmnd. 5012, p1).. The Right Hon. Kenneth Younger was Chairman.
20~ April 1970
At 1130 I met Mr. Slater at his office in the Ministry of Technology as arranged and discovered that he was Head of the International Relations Section or had some such title, and the net result of our discussions was that I should feel honoured that the Russians had invited me, if I wished to go to Moscow nothing could be done to stop me but I was advised not to go.
There were two further features of that meeting I should record. First it was Mr. Slater's view that the Russians I had met might be embarrassed if I contacted them again. Secondly, throughout the half-hour to one hour of the meeting, people kept coming in and out of the office and saying to Mr. Slater "Tony said (this) ..." and "Tony said (that) ...". It was not difficult to guess to whom the name belonged.
[It appears from Tony Benn's published diary that he may have been in the U.S.A. when I met Mr. Slater. Also, whereas the Russians had been very warm towards me in our encounters, in his diary entries Tony Benn laments the very poor relationships between the U.K. and USSR. at that time].
Tuesday 21 April 1970
Mr. McCauley and I met but not as arranged over the phone. I decided that instead of waiting for him to call for me in the evening of Tuesday 21st; I would invoke the element of surprise by going to see him. He had intimated he would be in his office in London all day, I now had its address and so on the morning of the 21st I set out to call on him.
I found the rather dingy entrance to the Ministry of Defence building in Northumberland Avenue and asked at Reception to see Mr. McCauley. The officer on duty rang through and after a brief conversation informed me that Mr. McCauley was sending his secretary to take me to him straightaway. There then followed an embarrassing wait of an hour or so, with no sign of the secretary, and on asking the officer on duty to make enquiries I discovered there were two entrances to the MOD complex and that I was waiting at the wrong one. I was thereupon directed to the Whitehall entrance, which was in a War Office building. There, I was most graciously received by the secretary who conducted me down a short corridor just off the monumental Reception hall, to Mr. McCauley's office.
Mr. McCauley received me very civilly, with no sign of surprise or annoyance at the change in arrangements. As I was seating myself he made some reference to MI5. He sat with his back to a window looking out on Whitehall, through which I could see the Horseguards sentries almost opposite. I cannot remember too well now what Mr. McC. looked like. I can conjure up an impression of a person small of countenance, dark-haired, shortish and with a sort of controlled liveliness.
During our meeting we covered many matters. Early on, when we considered the Russians I had met in Edinburgh Mr. McCauley called for some files to look up when they had applied to attend the Symposium and expressed surprise when he discovered that it was as late as 4th March. He had very little information on the civil servant Russian and indeed asked me about him. The other two - Alexander and Victor - were well documented and he showed me their photographs as well as read out that they had both spent some time at Swansea on a previous visit or visits.
I for my part recounted some of my experiences and I am sure from his reaction that the Eastern European involvement in my affairs - for example the attendance of USSR people at one or two of my IEE meetings - came as a complete surprise. At this, he asked if I had ever been behind the Iron Curtain and I replied, as I thought accurately, that I had not. I told him of my other encounters with Security people and when I referred to the Ministry of Aviation man who had come over to EEV during my bizarre consultancy to plead on behalf of Ray Burnett, he was very keen indeed to know who he was. However, when I described him as a man with a large red nose who drove a Jaguar and lived on the South Coast, his interest subsided. He got very excited when I mentioned RAF connections and I guess there must have been a major security hunt on at that time.
There was one name I mentioned to which Mr. McCauley reacted with much scepticism. This was Grant, the name given to me of a Russian who had applied for a job at CCL and on whom I had been asked to give my views. Mr. McCauley doubted if a Russian would have the name Grant. There were one or two puzzling features of our conversation, such as his preoccupation at one point with a cricketer named Sir Compton Burnett.
Right at the end of our meeting Mr. McCauley said that he had known a former M.P. for Hemel Hempstead (a predecessor of James Allason) very well and that he had become Lord Davidson. He then asked me to keep quiet about our meeting.
-----------------------------
[I have given much thought to this meeting. What surprised me was the openness towards me in MOD/MI5. I had got in without prior appointment or even a pass simply by saying who I was and asking to see Mr. McC. who seemed ready to respond to almost all the topics I raised. The words he had used when he contacted me on 16th April may give some clue that something was going on of which the USSR invitation was only a part. Quite what Branch of MOD/MI5 I was in I do not know but from the fact that files on the Russians I had met were forthcoming when called for I would guess it was some sort of Central Records office or something which has been referred to as the Registry. However in Spycatcher by Peter Wight & Paul Greengrass, which I purchased from a bookshop in Canada in 1987, there was no mention of a War Office building.
I did wonder if the Dr. McCauley, Lecturer in Russian Institutions etc. in the University of London, who occasionally took part in programmes on security matters, was the person I met but when I wrote and asked he replied that unfortunately he was not! Then I found in Spycatcher many references to a person listed rather oddly in the index as McCaul, Michael (Macauley). After analysing the information in Spycatcher and other books on the Security Services I wondered if Mr. McCauley was an alias for Lord Clanmorris, who much later I discovered from his obituary had been a very senior Freemason.
In Spycatcher there is also a fascinating section on a Russian named Sokolov Grant! Many individuals and organisations I knew are also mentioned.