1 BDOHP Biographical details and index Sir John Stephen WALL, GCMG 2004 (KCMG 1996; CMG 1990); LVO 1983 (Born 10 January 1947) Career outline with, on right, relevant page numbers in the oral history to the career stage: Entry to Diplomatic Service, 1968 pp 4-5 Addis Ababa, 1969–72 - Private Secretary to HM Ambassador, Paris, 1972–74 pp 8-10 First Secretary, FCO, 1974–76 pp 10-12 Press Officer, No 10 Downing Street, 1976–77 - Assistant Private Secretary to Foreign Secretary, 1977–79 pp 13-18 First Secretary, Washington, 1979–83 pp 20-23 Asst Head, later Head, European Community Dept, FCO, 1983–88 pp 23-27 Private Secretary to Foreign Secretary, 1988–90 pp 27-29 Private Secretary to the Prime Minister, 1991–93 pp 29-30 Ambassador to Portugal, 1993–95 pp 32-33 Ambassador and UK Perm. Rep. to EU, Brussels, 1995–2000 pp 34-39 Head of European Secretariat, Cabinet Office, and EU Adviser pp 39-44 to the Prime Minister, 2000–04 2 Sir Stephen Wall, GCMG, interviewed by Thomas Raineau (Université de Paris-Sorbonne) Part 1. Tuesday 14 December 2010. 11.15am. London, The Wolseley Part 2. Tuesday 28 February 2012. 3.00 pm. London, The Wallace Restaurant Copyright: Sir Stephen Wall TR: First of all Sir Stephen, let me thank you one more time for accepting this interview. If you agree with this procedure, we will go through your career chronologically, and try to deal with some particular points and questions about the overall architecture of the European machinery that exist in Whitehall. Let’s start with your educational background and your studies if you do not mind talking about personal matters. If I am not wrong, you were an undergraduate student at Selwyn College, Cambridge. Which subjects were you reading? SW: I was reading French and Spanish. TR: And you were studying in Cambridge in the early Sixties? SW: In the mid-Sixties, from 1965 to 1968. TR: At that time, did you hear from the European Community? Was it debated within University circles (such as the Students’ Union or various Debating Societies)? Did you have an opinion about it? SW: Not much, no. I was at school still, when de Gaulle cast his first veto in 1963, and that was a very traumatic experience, for Britain generally. I think it is hard now to remember, but it was a big shock, because he [de Gaulle] was a World War Two ally, etc., and suddenly, the guy who - we thought - owed us something, was humiliating us. And it was a demonstration that Britain was not the country that it once was. We all knew that our economy was doing less well than the economies of the European Community countries. And I remember that very strongly, but it was more a feeling, because most people of my generation were rather idealistic about Europe. I was born just after the War. We bought into the Monnet ideal, really. But I remember that [the veto] being discussed a lot in school at that time. 3 TR: At school? SW: Yes, I was by then in the Sixth form, not quite my last year, but getting on that way. And I think in general, among certainly my friends from University – partly because we were doing languages, and that meant basically either French or German or possibly Spanish, so I think you would not have found anybody who did not think it was a good idea for Britain to be a member of the European Community. Among that community [students of languages] obviously more widely. The fact is that when Harold Wilson reapplied to join in 1967, he had a lot of popular support, and when de Gaulle vetoed the application for the second time, public opinion went down. And I think what you see now with Turkey is rather similar: you see public opinion in Turkey fluctuating. You know, if you don’t feel loved, well, public opinion reacts. TR: I notice that you have used the word “humiliation”, which is not so common to find in historical accounts or essays about Britain and Europe. And you used the word as well in the first pages of your first book1. According to you, the vetoes meant humiliation? SW: Yes. And when you watch the news clips of de Gaulle, of both his press conferences, you can see this wonderful magisterial style. It was politely done, but it was surely de haut en bas. TR: In the first pages of your book, you also explain that you had a family background and family ties that might explain you were sympathetic to continental events. Do you also think that religion matters in that respect? Did the fact of being Catholic play any role in that wider sympathy to continental Europe? SW: Probably. But I think it was more than that. My mother had lived for several months in France after she left school in the 1920s; my father had fought in World War One, and they both travelled, they used to travel to Germany a lot on holiday before World War Two. My mother spoke very good French, my father spoke French and German, which was normal for educated people of that generation. So I think it was more a feeling of familiarity with continental Europe. Yes, a cultural background, definitely. TR: Did you choose to read French and Spanish in Cambridge because you were interested in international affairs, or because your intention was already to join the Diplomatic Service? 1 A Stranger in Europe. Britain and the EU from Thatcher to Blair, Oxford University Press, 2008 4 SW: It really came to me at quite a young age. I was good at French, and I became good at Spanish, and I was better at those subjects than any other. So it came into my head that a career in the British Diplomatic Service could be interesting, but I knew nothing about it, I had no family connections with it. But the idea had lodged into my mind and sort of stuck there. But my father was an engineer, and had I been good at maths, there is a fair chance I would have become an engineer, but I was not good at maths, so I haven’t. So there is no great logic in it I’m afraid. TR: So when, one day, you decided to try to join the Diplomatic Service … SW: Which I decided when I was twelve. TR: A decision that was definitely early then. And you opted for the Diplomatic Service, and not for the Home Civil Service. SW: Yes, definitely. Why? Well, I knew nothing about it, but it just sounded attractive. TR: So when you took this decision, did you know how to proceed? Was there a great difference in the recruiting procedure between the Home Civil Service and the Diplomatic Service? SW: Yes. The basic routine was the same for all, for what was then known as the “Administrative class” of the Civil Service, and the Diplomatic Service used to take about 25 people a year in those years. You went through a series of exams and interviews, which were common to the whole of that level of the Civil Service until the final interview. And this final interview was more specialized in terms of the Department which you wanted to join. And for the Diplomatic Service – well nowadays we talk about the Foreign Office, nobody talks about the Diplomatic Service – in those days, it was not quite like a military career but it was a thing apart. It had its own esprit de corps, a kind of feeling that, when you signed up, you signed an undertaking that you were prepared to go wherever you were sent - there was no process of choosing where you went – you said where you wanted to go but ultimately you were sent. There was an overall feeling of being an elite: in those days, most of the intake at that level was from Oxford and Cambridge, it was just a fact, and it enhanced that sense of being part of an elite. TR: You joined the Diplomatic Service in 1968 and you were immediately sent to Ethiopia. 5 SW: Not immediately. I was sent off to New York. In those days, you had two weeks of training, and that was it. Two weeks of training were your training for life, and I learnt the basics: in the Foreign Office, you don’t knock on the door, you just go into the room, you never knock on the door because the assumption is nothing that you shouldn’t see is going on behind the door, and so you don’t waste people’s time; or how to write a submission to the Secretary of State, how to draft a telegram, etc. There were very basic things, but useful things to know. And I was sent off to New York to the General Assembly, because there were always two people in the new intake who were sent to New York, basically as “dogs’ bodies” really. But it was a great introduction. Then I came back after three months and I worked for 9 months – we had two United- Nations Departments – and I was in the United Nations Economic and Social Department, and then I was posted to Ethiopia. TR: 1968 is also the year when the Fulton Report on the Civil Service was published. Did you hear about it? Was it commented on within diplomatic circles? SW: Yes, but it did not impinge very much on the Diplomatic Service, for the two worlds were separated in the sense that in those days, the Cabinet Secretary and the Head of the Civil Service were two separate people, and now it is combined in one person [note: these two posts were once again split between two people on the retirement of Gus O’ Donnell].