asked the Minister for Defence the number of (a) officers and (b) other ranks who participated in training courses in other countries during (1) 1988 and (2) to date in 1989; if he will outline the policy of the Defence Forces in relation to overseas training courses; the steps which are taken to ensure that our neutral status is not damaged by participation in such courses; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Details of the number of personnel of the Permanent Defence Force who attended training courses abroad in the period from 1 January 1988 to 31 October 1989 are as follows:

Training courses abroad are attended for purely professional military reasons and in no way affect our neutral status.

Will the Minister indicate in what countries these training courses took place and if any of them — or their armed forces — are members of a military alliance?

Most of the training courses which our personnel attended were held in the United Kingdom and France. However, personnel attend courses in the United States, Italy and the Federal Republic of Germany.

I note that all those countries are members of NATO. Does the Minister agree that our attendance on courses in virtually exclusively member states of NATO constitutes a compromise of our neutrality? Can he clarify the nature of the training courses? He indicated that they were of a professional nature. Is the training confined solely to technical matters or does it involve manoeuvres, lectures or seminars of a political nature which would discuss the military situation in Western Europe or elsewhere?

The Deputy is drawing a long bow. This is purely a professional military exchange between professionals and I notice, from a casual observation of the media, that the Russians appear to have a great penchant for attending such courses in Britain. Maybe it has something to do with the relationship between Mr. Gorbachev and Mrs. Thatcher, I do not know.

They are not attending many courses here.

How much further apart can you be than NATO and the Warsaw Pact?

To what extent is attendance at any of these courses part of a condition of the sale of arms, weapons or ammunition to this country?

We do not deal substantially in that respect with any of the five countries I mentioned.

Not directly.

For instance, the Steyr infantry gun, which is the primary weapon now being used, is an Austrian weapon but we do not attend courses there. We used Swedish weaponry before but they are not included. It is a separate matter altogether. This is just a matter of professional convenience so far as the Army are concerned. They make their choices and if there is any particularly interesting professional aspect they want to see they can make a request to go and have a look at it and talk about it. They are not confined to these five countries; if they make a case they can go to any other country and vice versa. In fact, the Swedes are talking about coming here next year to look at us as an excellent fellow-neutral country with Defence Forces who are engaged in the service of a neutral state with a neutral policy.

The Swedish army have a representative association——

Perhaps a final question from Deputy Gilmore.

Wait until they see the outmoded means of representation in this country.

They will see that something is being done.

Can the Minister say on what basis these countries are selected for training courses? Do we ask them to accept our forces into their training courses or do they invite us to participate in training courses?

All national military forces have their own ways of communication. They exchange basic information without going into secret or classified information. If courses arise which are of mutual interest they hear about it on their own internal grapevine and if it is considered useful for officer A, B or C of the artillery to go and see a development in a particular army they make a request and he goes to see it. If it is a valid request they are allowed go or else they come here. As I said, some Swedish people will be coming here early in the new year.