That is indeed a very interesting piece of information. There is already some legal action being pursued on the matter, so he respective forum member(s) might find this useful.
The CAA use the catch-all justification of "safety", however they have never provided any evidence to justify their ultra-conservative stance. There has only ever been one aviation accident in which CVD was cited as a possible issue, but pilot fatigue (a much more dangerous condition) and failure to follow SOPs were clearly far greater contributing factors. Some argue that the FAA system is too lax, but a tentative link to a statistic of 1 is hardly a solid grounding of evidence. Whether it is or isn't, its base in practical, relevant, appropriate testing is far more substantial in terms of the application of fairness and common sense. If there really was a valid safety concern, we wouldn't be in the position we are in today, with potentially hundreds of long-haul commercial pilots from other ICAO states (who could never pass our ludicrous CVD tests yet are declared safe by their own state) flying in and out of JAR-land on a daily basis.
The difficulty for the authorities is providing solid, scientific, peer-reviewed benchmarks in terms of practical colour vision standards required for flight crew to safely discharge their duties. I don't envy this task, but in order to ever construct an appropriate and relevant colour vision evaluation system it is something which must be done. In the absence of such research it is unfair, and almost certainly illegal, to deny CVD pilots the opportunity to prove in a practical, appropriate and relevant fashion that their disability does not prevent them from being a safe commercial pilot.