Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 12 Jul 1990

Vol. 401 No. 6

Adjournment Debate. - Defence Forces Recognition of Merit.

Mr. McCartan

I thank you for the opportunity to raise this issue, Sir, which I think, if nothing else, illustrates that life goes on within the Defence Forces at all levels irrespective of debates, proposals and procedures with regard to breaking new ground about representatives' associations and the like or in terms of awaiting the Gleeson Commission report on recommendations for improvements in pay and income levels within the Defence Forces. My opportunity to raise this issue helps to illustrate that life is as it is at the moment within the Defence Forces.

I thank you, Sir, for the opportunity to deal with this matter at the end of this session before the long vacation and I thank the Minister for Defence for giving his time to come into the House to listen to the issue I have to raise.

It was advised from the Adjutant General's Office, by letter dated 31 January 1990, that certain considerations were in being and under review by the command within the Defence Forces with regard to what is known as the good conduct medal. The correspondence that was issued to all members of the Defence Forces, dated, as I say, 31 January 1990, set out to lay down the basis for the withdrawal of the good conduct medal and its non-award for the current year of 1990. It is stated in this correspondence that the main problem areas were:

(a) The medal had created divisions among NCOs and Privates;

(b) Introduced as a morale support, the restricted issue was having adverse effects on morale and had been raised with the Gleeson Commission by various groups.

(c) The medal title was a misnomer and a better title would have been The Meritorious Service Medal.

The good conduct medal is a good idea in principle and it is a particularly apt award for the Defence Forces. However, it must comply with appropriate criteria. The problems that recently arose with regard to the medal did not arise due to any disagreement between the NCOs and privates, as the Adjutant General's letter suggests. It arises because of the incorrect basis on which the medal was awarded in recent times. The award of the medal does not now reflect the good performance of the soldier. It has become almost an emblem of patronage from those in command to those in favour, with nothing to do with merit and performance. For that reason it has become discredited. The system should be reviewed, but unless we admit why it needs to be reviewed we will not get things right in the future.

The Adjutant General's letter deals with a number of recommendations and suggests that qualifications should be laid down, such as the achievement of a certain number of years or a certain age or some other criteria to qualify for the award. That is not a good basis on which to proceed in terms of reinstituting the medal. The award should be based upon good performance and give impetus to morale. It should be an aid to further promotion as well. This should encourage the development of a smarter and more efficient Defence Force in the long-term. The Adjutant General's letter also suggests that all personnel who attain the required qualification should be issued with a medal. That too is an incorrect basis on which to base the award. I hope the Minister will look long and carefully at the basis for the re-introduction of the good conduct medal. What it is called is not all that important, although there is a suggestion that a meritorious conduct medal would be a better name for it. However, I think it should be a good conduct medal based on one's service as a soldier.

The circular also indicates:

While the points on the medal title are accepted, the costs involved in designing and striking a new medal, the problems involved in withdrawing medals already issued and the writing off of existing stocks make the changing of the medal title unlikely. I will however ask my staff to also examine this problem.

The Defence Forces are not being treated fairly in this regard. The cost issue, unless astronomical, should not be brought into it. It should be a good medal that will command the respect of all involved. The existing ones should be withdrawn and a proper medal struck.

In relation to the medal that has been issued to those officers and men who have served the UN peace keeping force, it does not refer to the fact that that body of men and women have been honoured by the supreme award, the Nobel Peace Prize. That is a pity. All of the men and women who serve in the UN peace keeping force are serving under the banner of having been the recipients of this high accolade. The medal that was struck should refer to that award and I would ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence to look at that. These issues are of genuine concern to members of the Defence Forces and they illustrate that life goes on despite what we may deal with here at other levels. I hope the Minister will find time to address this problem.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Lenihan)

I am grateful to Deputy McCartan for his suggestions with regard to the Good Conduct Medal and the UN Peace Keeping Medal and I will bring his suggestions to the notice of the Army authorities.

I would first emphasise that there has not been a decision to withdraw the good conduct medal. The good conduct medal will be issued during the current year.

The good conduct medal was first introduced in 1987 and may be awarded to non-commissioned officers and privates of the Permanent Defence Force who fulfil certain conditions and who are recommended for the award by the officer commanding their units. The medal is awarded in recognition of meritorious service characterised by exemplary conduct. In order to demonstrate the value placed on high standards of conduct and to provide an incentive to personnel to strive to attain these standards it was decided that a limited number of medals would be awarded — 60 per annum.

To be eligible for the award of the good conduct medal a non-commissioned officer or private must: (a) have been recommended for the award by the officer commanding his unit; (b) have completed a minimum of ten years' continuous service; (c) have an "exemplary" conduct rating; (d) not have a record of a conviction of any offence by a civil court or court-martial in the ten years prior to the assessment at (c) above.

Recommendations for the award of the medal must be submitted by the officers commanding units. They may include recommendations on behalf of personnel who are serving under their command or who, having been so serving, were discharged, transferred to the Reserve or died during the previous 12 months.

The recommendations of officers commanding units are processed by command boards and the recommendations of these boards are submitted for consideration by a board at Army Headquarters. This board submits its nominations to the Adjutant General who makes the final recommendation in each case to the Minister for Defence, the awarding authority.

The medal was awarded in 1987, 1988 and 1989. This year, however, the military authorities commenced a review of the criteria for the award of the medal in the light of experience gained since the medal was introduced and, pending the outcome of the review, suspended the processing of applications for the award of the medal. I have, however, directed that, pending the outcome of the review, the existing regulations should be implemented in full. The reason for the review is that because of the limit on the number of medals awarded annually many members of the Permanent Defence Force who ostensibly satisfy the basic criteria as to service requirements and conduct rating do not receive the award.

This is the nub of the problem, which is a difficult one. When one introduces an excellent idea like this into a close knit disciplined force certain members who do not receive the medal and are aware of others who have received it may get perhaps well founded ideas with regard to the award. A certain invidiousness develops and an excellent idea can turn sour. This is one of the human nature aspects that has arisen. This aspect has come to the notice of the Army authorities, who are concerned about it, and hence the reason for a review of the criteria.

Deputy McCartan has made some suggestions tonight but it is important, pending the outcome of the review, to proceed as heretofore with the award of the medals. In the current year 60 will be awarded and then we will have a look at the criteria and take on board other suggestions, including those put forward by Deputy McCartan, and I have some ideas myself. We will try to devise criteria that will be more firmly based for 1991 and future years.

However, there is the basic difficulty that there will be a cut-off point. No matter how many we select there will be people who may feel they should be selected but are not selected. That is part of the problem and one of the reasons why the review is being undertaken, The present system gives rise to a perception of invidious treatment. It is felt that because such personnel may feel they were treated in that fashion there should be further consideration of the inadequacy or otherwise of the criteria. That examination is proceeding and I will consider any recommendations which will emerge from the review. I will take an interest in the review, particularly since the matter has been raised in the Dáil. Any changes in the conditions governing the award of the medal which may result from this review will be introduced in 1991. The present criteria apply for 1990.

With regard to the new UN medal, introduced last year for personnel who have served overseas with the United Nations, I should like to tell the House that the award of that medal is not affected by the review of the arrangements for the award of the good conduct medal. The Deputy made the point that there was not an inscription on the medal to indicate that the UN peacekeeping force had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, a very important honour. I will have the suggestion investigated and, as the Deputy suggests, the fact that the award was given to the peacekeeping force by the most prestigious peace awarding body in the world makes it more important. I accept that to have an appropriate inscription on the medal would add to the prestige of the medal. I will have that matter investigated.