Before calling Deputy Fitzgerald, I consider it important to remind Members that a matter which relates to the issue under discussion is currently the subject of proceedings for a judicial review in the High Court. It is imperative in view of the sub judice rule that we do not refer to that case. Comments must be confined to the general matter under discussion.
Adjournment Debate. - Defence Forces Personnel.
I thank the Minister for coming in to respond this issue. Keeping in mind what the Leas-Cheann Comhairle said that the details of this case cannot be mentioned, I raise the question of the general policy of the Department of Defence in relation to people with minor disability given the background of this case.
If a person was employed outside the Defence Forces, the questions that would be asked about an illness such as coeliac disease would be, how does this affect the person's work and could a reasonable accommodation not be made in relation to it? On the grounds of age and disability, the Defence Forces are outside the remit of the equal status legislation and can, in effect, make their own policy in these areas. Is it not reasonable, in relation to an illness like coeliac disease or minor disabilities, that these questions could be put to the Defence Forces and that, in these circumstances, it would be deemed possible for someone suffering from a minor disability such as coeliac disease to be accommodated within the Defence Forces?
This type of issue raises serious questions about people's rights. In the week in which A Matter of Rights, the National Disability Authority's report on the rights of people with disability and illness was launched, it raises serious questions about how we conduct our affairs in the Defence Forces, the rights we give to people who have illnesses, whether of a minor or serious nature, and the range of legislation that is there. It clearly illustrates the need for a strong disabilities Bill which would underscore and strengthen people's rights in employment, whether in the Defence Forces or outside.
It is clear that a number of medical experts have said that coeliac disease can be quite a minor disability and does not preclude people from pursuing a variety of careers. Will the Minister clarify the Department's policy on this issue? Does he believe there is a need for a review of the current approach within the Defence Forces to issues such as this? Perhaps he will clarify whether he intends to bring in any reforms in this area so that people who are rated very highly on a range of tests and aptitude tests for the Defence Forces will not be excluded because of a situation such as this.
As the Deputy will understand, I do not wish to comment on details of a current High Court judicial review case which has been adjourned for further hearing to 29 May and to which the Deputy's question presumably relates and refers. The matter is before the courts and it would be entirely inappropriate for me or for any Member of this House to make comments which might be misconstrued as an attempt to influence the decision while a case is still at hearing. I will, therefore, confine myself to setting out in broad terms the reasons coeliac disease as such is seen as essentially incompatible with satisfactory military service.
The professional advice of the expert medical military authority, the Director of Medical Corps, is that the special dietary requirements of a coeliac sufferer cannot be guaranteed throughout the range of possible operational circumstances which can be encountered in service. The Director of the Medical Corps issued an instruction in November 1997 with regard to the terms of application of the statutory medical classification system in so far as a wide range of specified medical conditions are concerned.
In regard to coeliac disease, the director has instructed that personnel who require gluten-free diets should not be graded higher than three in respect of physical constitution. The minimum grading required in respect of physical constitution, specifically for the final approval of a recruit, is grade one. Therefore, a recruit who is diagnosed as suffering from coeliac disease cannot be finally approved. Moreover, where the condition is already diagnosed on the initial presentation of a person for recruitment, that person could not be taken on as a recruit.
A grade one rating for physical constitution is required for initial enlistment on presentation of a new recruit. Confirmation of the grade one constitution is again required for final approval of the recruit at the end of the probationary period of induction. A person with grade one physical constitution is defined as having no significant impairment or disability and being considered healthy and at most requiring only routine medical surveillance and unscheduled medical care. I might add that grade one physical constitution is also required for any extension of service, beyond the initial five year period, of personnel who were recruited after 1 January 1994.
When military personnel are deployed in military units on operational duty which can last for quite a period of time, there can be no guarantee of the continual supply of any essential dietary requirements. Many events can overtake such supply operations resulting in cut-offs or interruptions to supplies and, in the case of coeliac disease sufferers, such an interference with supply could have very detrimental effects and very serious consequences. Medical advice is that, in the case of coeliac disease, future health is dependent on compliance with a gluten-free diet. Such a diet cannot be readily accommodated or guaranteed within the Defence Forces rations scales, particularly in circumstances such as sea-going duties, collective field training and overseas services which are the norm for young soldiers and sailors.
It is not the first time I have had to deal with circumstances which, in the normal run in most professional and working activity, one would find reasonably acceptable. The medical corps in the Defence Forces goes to enormous lengths to try to ensure that those serving in the Defence Forces, because of the constraints in their work, are not suffering from an illness or a problem which may not be able to be managed in given circumstances. Having said that, there is always room for new considerations in light of they way thinking has advanced. I am quite happy to undertake to have that review because it is something which I am anxious to do across the board. I am not saying it would make a difference in a particular case or in general given the nature of the work. The Deputy has been to the Glen Of Imaal and has seen the operations there and has been on the United Nations' mandated missions. In East Timor personnel are out all night and do not know when they will get back. A bridge may be down and there may be many different circumstances arising. Obviously, the medical corps is anxious to ensure that the health of personnel is guaranteed. The word "guaranteed" is being used advisedly to try to see if that can be done. It is a matter which I will take into consideration in the general review.