The Independent today runs the story of deaf diplomat Jane Cordell’s claim that the FCO unlawfully discriminated against her in refusing to post her to Astana (Kazakhstan) as the cost of the ‘reasonable adjustments’ needed to allow her to work there would not (said the FCO) have been reasonable. 

And here is a short comment from me on the case:

This case opens a painful question: are some disabilities just too expensive to be supported at the workplace?

People with disabilities are necessarily super-realistic about fairness and what works and what doesn’t. Any organisation grappling with these tough issues should bring in the disabled colleagues concerned to help sort policies and procedures – and the way decisions are communicated.

Talk about irony: if the FCO does lose this case, it may well be because it did not listen.

Here is Jane in the Guardian back in happier times when the FCO funded reasonable adjustments which allowed her to work in Poland:

She says she has never had problems obtaining support, and that it was clear in her interview that the unpredictability of the job was such that full-time support would be required. However, she is open to trying different things. "I would like to experiment with alternative support, such as, for example, training for colleagues to develop their communication skills … I would like to get away from the idea that there has to be a support worker there all the time."

Wish granted – as long as she stays in London?

And here is Jane with the late Madame Kaczynska receiving a top Polish award for her work:  

The competition aims to award disabled persons resident in Poland whose professional and social achievements can become a paragon for others.

The FCO found all this work by Jane wonderful in itself and a fine advertisement for HMG’s energetic diversity policies as propelled by New Labour.

Until they didn’t.

The change of heart occurred well before William Hague took over the FCO, ie when David Miliband was still Foreign Secretary.

Yet what do we see now? Labour leadership candidates and the TUC and others clamouring about the ruthless, heartless iniquities of the cuts in public spending proposed by the Conservative-led coalition.

One odd thing about the hearing at the Tribunal the other day was the way the FCO case was presented. The head of HR was there as the senior official. She did not really explain how the FCO Board and Ministers themselves had looked at this case, which they must have known would be awkward and potentially controversial.

The sense conveyed was that the question had been looked at mainly in narrow immediate ‘HR’ budget terms and not as part of a wider policy framework. The opinions of Ministers and the very top FCO officials were conspicuous by their absence.

Curious.

So, for all journalists and Labour activists wanting to test the commitment to Diversity of the various candidates for the Labour leadership, here are some ready-made questions for David Miliband, not of course on the merits of the case as now being agreed by the Tribunal but on the general questions of principle it raises:

  • was he briefed on this case? Did Jane write to him, and what was his reply?
  • does he agree that some disabilities are too expensive for the FCO to support overseas?
  • what level of expense per diplomat does he think is ‘reasonable’ (eg something like three times the officer’s salary? More? Less?)
  • did he endorse the way the FCO decided to handle this particular case? If not, why not?
  • if in this case it was right to cut support to a disabled officer as was done when he was Foreign Secretary, surely plenty of other people too should have benefits and allowances cut when public spending is running at unaffordable levels?

As Peter Simple used to say, "I ask only because I want to know".