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.