2. Contacting Mrs. Thatcher : did I speak to her?
The first phase of my efforts to contact Mrs. Thatcher had produced some very interesting signals but had produced no direct response. There was therefore much uncertainty about the outcome. In July 1986 I decided to have another go. This time I did not involve Peter Lilley, our St. Albans M.P.
PLESSEY
My renewed effort was triggered by a case study on Plessey, one of the U.K.'s electronics manufacturing giants. John (JRA) Clark, a colleague at the Hatfield Polytechnic Management School, had chosen the case study and asked me to go through it with a Diploma in Management Studies course he was running. I was dismayed to find that case study made no mention of Plessey's 1968 bid to take over English Electric, which included Marconi. I was only too well aware of that key event, which led to GEC taking over English Electric. The 1970 'interview' with Plessey was also very revealing. (See Political Developments 1968 & 1970 A).
Now, in July 1986 GEC had bid for Plessey and was awaiting the outcome of its referral to the Monopolies Commission.
MI5
If Plessey was the trigger, a media battle involving MI5 provided additional motivation to make another attempt. This was a Government clampdown on the reporting of evidence on MI5 matters being given in open court in Sydney, Australia, in the case brought by the U.K. Government against the publication of Peter Wright's "Spycatcher". I had raised concerns about the possible misuse of the secret services in my first attempt to contact Mrs. Thatcher I had previously raised the issue in my 1971 Report to Home Secretary Reggie Maudling.
Tuesday 01 July 1986
The Plessey case study session took place. I filled in much of the background of Plessey and I gave my conjecture on the 1968 Plessey bid for English Electric.
I started preparing a letter to Mrs. Thatcher. I referred to documents I had previously sent to her and to encourage a direct response I put to her some points requiring only factual yes/no answers, such as the availability to her of my 1971 Report to the Home Secretary and whether or not it would be subject to a 30-year, 50-year or even longer embargo on public scrutiny. I also proposed a completely off the record meeting with her to discuss the more complex matters requiring investigation.
Friday 04 July 1986
|
Dear Mrs. Thatcher, I am very disappointed that I have had no letters from you in response to my letters of 6th October 1984 and 12th January 1985, other than an acknowledgement of the receipt of the first of these. The matters I raised with you varied in weight and complexity and I can well understand the difficulty in replying to some of them. Others, however, were quite capable of clear answer - for examples, the straight factual information requested in paragraph 2 and the first part of paragraph 3 of the 6th October letter. I would still like a direct reply to the straightforward points but as for the other matters, bearing in mind the further papers I have produced and notably S5/1, T1/1, T1/2 together with the updated version of E1, I feel a face to face meeting would be the best way of proceeding. So far as I am concerned this meeting would be strictly off the record. If you have not seen the further papers referred to above, which would lend point to the 4th paragraph of my letter of 6th October 1984, I would be glad to supply copies. I look forward to receiving your letter of reply. Yours sincerely, Harold Beck |
The letter completed, I took it to Downing Street. I could get no further than the recently erected barrier at the entrance to the street so I approached the policeman at the barrier. After I had said I was an ordinary citizen with a letter for the Prime Minister, he offered to deliver the letter so I left it in his safe hands.
Saturday 02 August 1986
I received a reply from No.10 to my letter of 4th July:-
.
.
Dear Mr Beck
The Prime Minister has asked me to thank you for your recent letter.
I regret that as Mrs Thatcher receives such a large amount of correspondence it is not possible to keep records for longer than a year.
If you would care to forward copies of your letters I will ensure that the points you raise receive prompt attention.
Yours sincerely
Hazel Clark
.
.
The content of the letter was both enraging and hope-inducing. I still did not know for certain whether or not any of my correspondence had actually been seen by Mrs T. There was no contact phone number so I could not actually speak to Ms Clark.
The second paragraph, saying that the papers I had sent to her direct in October 1984 and via Peter Lilley M.P. in January 1985 had not been kept was incredible. They were not about minor routine matters and that such papers would not be kept beyond any normal dumping period was well nigh unbelievable.
The third paragraph did hold out some hope for in effect Hazel Clark promised that on receipt of copies she would ensure there would be no delay in dealing with my representations.
Wednesday 06 Aug 1986
I posted a reply to the letter from Hazel Clark. I wrote the letter as to Mrs. Thatcher while also marking it for the initial attention of Hazel Clark.
As for the content of the letter, I stated what papers were available and brought out my previous points in the form of several direct questions, all of which were capable of very simple answers whether favourable or unfavourable to me. As requested in Hazel Clark's letter I enclosed copies of previous correspondence. To give wings to a prompt reply as promised I asked that a reply be sent by a deadline, 16th August.
|
Rt. Hon. Mrs. M.Thatcher Prime Minister For the initial attention of Hazel Clark (please see note overleaf) Dear Mrs. Thatcher, Thank you for the response, through Hazel Clark, to my letter of 4th July 1986. I am sorry to learn that the not exactly humdrum communications of 6th October 1984 and 12th January 1985 are not to hand. I attach copies of the original letters as requested, together with a revised version of The Coventry Miracle' and its 1985 update. The original version, you may remember, was sent to you with the letter of 12th January 1985 through Peter Lilley M.P. To facilitate replies I re-present below the questions asked in the first two communications, together with the points raised in the letter of 4th July 1986 to which responses will also be warmly welcomed. 1 With reference to the papers I sent to the then Home Secretary (Reginald Maudling) in January 1971 at the suggestion of the late Lord Butler (copy of Home Office acknowledgement of 18th January 1971 and of letter of Lord Butler of 17th October 1970, enclosed): (a) Will the papers sent to the Home Secretary be subject to the 30 year, 50 year or longer embargo on public scrutiny? (b) Are the papers available to you? 2 (a) Are you willing to authorise a thorough Inquiry into the matters referred to in the 1971 papers as well as in papers I have written describing subsequent and very recent events? (b) Have you seen copies of recent papers? These are: T1/1 The Total Training Scheme T1/2 TT Scheme Problems and Solutions S5/1 Hatfield Polytechnic - The First Dozen Years 3 Are you willing to see me for a face-to-face meeting which so far as I am concerned would be strictly off the record. Among several reasons for direct contact is that I want to know beyond any shadow of doubt that as Head of Security Services you have seen these letters and papers. I look forward to receiving a reply - and may I wish you a speedy recovery from your surgical treatment. Yours sincerely, Harold Beck |
Overleaf:-
|
Note to Hazel Clark Would you please show this letter and enclosures, together with the reply, to Mrs. Thatcher for her approval. There is a great urgency about this matter and a reply first-class by 16th August 1986 is desired. Harold Beck |
T1/1 & T1/2 Total Training Scheme
Monday 18 August 1986
No reply from Hazel Clark or Mrs. T.
Friday 19 September 1986
I wrote again to No.10. I addressed the letter to Ms Clark and asked her to let me know the position regarding my communication of 6th August, to which prompt attention had been promised. I sent the letter Recorded Delivery, aware by now that such a mode of transmission to a Government Department stood a better chance of receiving an early reply.
|
Miss Hazel Clark (Recorded Delivery) Dear Miss Clark, On 6th August 1986 I sent a letter and papers to Mrs. Thatcher, marked for your initial attention, in response to your letter of 31st July, which promised prompt attention. Would you please let me know what the position is? I would be glad to know if you received the letter and papers. If they did reach you, would you kindly tell me when I will receive a reply. Yours sincerely, Harold Beck |
Thursday 16 October 1986
I received a letter about my letter to Mrs. Thatcher of 19th September. It came not from No.10 but from the Home Office. It was short but not sweet.
.
.
Dear Mr Beck
I am writing in reply to your letter of the 19th September 1986 which has been passed to this department.
I regret that the matter about which you write, is not one in which the Home Office can assist or advise you.
Yours sincerely
A Eldridge
.
.
After the promise of prompt action by No.10, given way back in July, the matters I had raised had been passed to another department with a member of its staff, named A. Eldridge, stating that no advice or assistance could be given.
In view of what was to happen it is worth noting that no Direct line telephone number was given, only a general Switchboard number. There was a reference number, MSC 500/1, and I wondered if this had any connection with the Box 500 I first learned about from one of my MOD-sponsored management students - an Army Intelligence man - who had told me this was the postal reference inside the Cabinet Office for all security/intelligence matters.
At 1030 am, soon after the post had been delivered, I phoned the Switchboard number at the top of the letter and asked the operator to put me through to A. Eldridge. The operator asked me which Ministry I wanted and, somewhat surprised, I said it was the Home Office. I was promptly put through to A. Eldridge's office and found myself in conversation with a female secretary. The secretary said A. Eldridge was not in HER office but she would see if she was around. The secretary came back after a while and said she was not around. I said I would like to leave a message and the conversation then proceeded as follows:-
|
|
Secretary |
What is the message? |
|
|
|
Me |
What information has she had to which her letter is a reply? |
|
|
|
Secretary |
What is it about? |
|
|
|
Me |
A letter I sent to No.10 and which has been passed to the Home Office. |
|
|
|
Secretary |
What is it about? |
|
|
|
Me |
(after some hesitation) Organisational Behaviour. |
|
|
|
Secretary |
O.K. |
|
|
|
Me |
If she could ring me back in an hour I would be grateful. The number is - |
|
|
|
Secretary |
Yes, I'll do that. |
|
I waited 2 hours and there was no call. Apropos of nothing, I heard on the radio later that there had been a Cabinet meeting that morning.
Monday 20 October 1986
At 4 pm I tried again. I dialled the Switchboard number and this time, on asking the operator for Ms Eldridge, I was put through to her immediately.
My first priority was to establish what papers had been sent to her at the Home Office but getting this information was like getting blood out of a stone - or with the benefit of hindsight perhaps more appositely, like obtaining a tile from a rush roofer. My request for this information was met with a long silence but by dint of hard questioning I elicited the fact that she had received all the papers I had sent with my letter of 6th August 1986, which included copies of the letters of 6th October 1984 and 12th January 1985, together with The Coventry Miracle" and its Update.
When I asked A.E. for her views about the papers there was another pause and then she said it was simply that the chap in the play looked like Harold Beck - that was nothing in which the Home Office could be interested. I forbore from saying that was probably why the papers had been sent to that Department. When I asked where the 1971 Report might be, she emitted a laugh of scorn. A.E. then asked to which Department the Home Secretary sent the Report. "How do I know?", I responded.
I was finding A.E.'s attitude as a public servant highly unsatisfactory. Perhaps too I was unconsciously suspicious about A.E.'s identity.
I asked her what position she held. There was another pause then A.E. said it was enough that I knew her name and had got through to her on her private line (my emphasis). She seemed annoyed when she said this and I in like manner said "Thank you, that's all - for now". Thus ended the conversation.
I made a note of what transpired during the phone call just after it took place but I think it was as much as a day or two after that it occurred to me that I might have had the direct contact (though not face-to-face) I had requested. Requesting a named person through a primed Switchboard number in another Department would be a much more controllable way of giving access to a top person than giving an office or private telephone number. However, set against all this was the fact that the voice did not sound the same as M.T.'s.
So ended my second attempt to contact Mrs. Thatcher. It seems progress had been made but the result, particularly regarding an Inquiry, fell far short of what was needed.