asked the Minister for Defence the up-to-date position regarding the Timoney APC vehicles, the number purchased by the Army, if they have proved satisfactory and if it is intended to make further purchases.

A contract for five Timoney armoured personnel carriers, to be manufactured in Ireland, was placed by my Department. Four of these have been delivered and the fifth is expected to be delivered soon. The vehicles are not yet ready for operational use as certain matters need to be adjusted by the contractor under warranty.

The question of making further purchases will fall to be determined in accordance with requirements generally of armoured fighting vehicles and other items of defensive equipment in the light of operational needs. It is not possible to indicate at this stage when further purchases of Timoney armoured personnel carriers will be made.

Has the Timoney armoured car proved satisfactory?

The testing of these vehicles has not yet been completed.

When is it expected to have this completed?

They are still being tested and after they are tested they will be issued to units for operational use.

Each Fianna Fáil TD will get one.

Can the Minister tell us the number of Timoney vehicles which are out of order at the moment? Further, why are they not in use with our forces in the Lebanon?

These are separate questions.

For the simple reason that the vehicles have not yet been fully tested.

My information would be that some of them are out of order.

When they are fully tested they will be handed over to the various units for operational use.

How long are these tests going on?

They are going on for quite some time.

How long?

As the Deputy knows, there have been problems in respect of these vehicles. The company have been endeavouring to overcome the problems and to quite an extent they have been overcome, but the vehicles are still being tested.

At this moment are there any Timoney APC vehicles out of order?

No, they are not out of order. As I said before, they are being tested.

Is the Minister happy with the financial arrangements entered into by his Department——

That is a separate question.

——in respect of this vehicle in the research and construction of the vehicle?

Yes.

Were these vehicles purchased from this company prior to their being tested? If not, what new tests are being done now after purchase?

The vehicles were ordered by the Army. They are being tested. Problems arose and the vehicles were taken back by the company. The problems which had been there originally were overcome to some extent but the vehicles are now being tested again and when these tests are completed they will be handed over to operational units of the Army.

At what stage will the Minister be in a position to say whether the Timoney car is a success or whether it is giving satisfactory service?

As I said, it is not possible to say that until the testing is completed.

Could the Minister give an indication of the time factor involved? Will it be a year, five years, ten years?

I am afraid I cannot. That is really a matter for the military authorities.

Could the Minister tell the House the cost of the Timoney cars to date to the State?

I have not got that.

He should have that cost. This matter has been crying out from the word go.

That is a separate question.

10.

asked the Minister for Defence if any studies have been carried out by his Department on the production of armoured vehicles based on the Timoney APC; if his attention has been drawn to the outline designs which have been prepared for an armoured reconnaissance vehicle; if the the rights to such designs are available; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

No studies of the specific nature mentioned have been carried out by my Department. However, research and study of developments in the design and performance of new types of armoured vehicles is a continuous process in the military branches of my Department. In this connection, the availability and suitability of any new designs of armoured vehicles will be considered, including the question of the rights to such designs.

In relation to the rights of the designs of the Timoney car, are they owned exclusively by the Irish Army or the Irish people? Have we any licences or any issue to any individuals or peoples?

We have rights to tender to have the Timoney cars made in Ireland.

Do I take it that we have sole rights of the production of the Timoney car?

We have a right to go to tender to have the Timoney APC in this country.

The Minister has pulled a fast one.

If, for example, a third party were interested in purchasing the Timoney armoured car or any vehicle of that sort, who would have the right to sell the patent rights to the third person concerned?

It would depend. I understand that the Deputy refers in another question to the fact that certain vehicles are being made under licence in Belgium. The designer holds that this is a different vehicle from the APCs which the Army have got.

That one is working.

In those circumstances he is the one who has the right to give it.

If somebody else has acquired the right to produce the Timoney car, are we being paid or what is the position in relation to it? I can present to the Minister a Swiss magazine which advertises the Timoney car with Irish officers or Irish Army personnel on it and described as the BDX designed Timoney armoured car. This is a Swiss magazine which is in the possession of many European army personnel. Have we sold the right of the Timoney armoured car? If we have, have we got an income from it?

The vehicle the Deputy is referring to is the one made in Belgium and we have not any rights to that because it is not the same vehicle as the one being manufactured here.

Is it based on the same design?

Would the Minister accept that it is described as the Timoney car?

If a designer gave that right to the company who are producing it in Belgium they have the right to use that name.

Question No. 11.

We cannot have an inordinate number of questions.

This is a serious question.

It does not matter how serious it is. We cannot be interminably asking supplementary questions. The Chair may decide that 14 supplementaries are about as much as were ever permitted to any person.

Have we given, sold or leased in any way the patent or the rights of producing the Timoney armoured car to any person outside the State?

We had not the right to give the one that the Deputy is referring to to anybody. The designer claimed that it was not the same vehicle as the one manufactured for our Army and the designer gave permission to a company in Belgium to construct vehicles under licence. He may have given them the right to use the word "Timoney". That is his business.

How much State money went into the development of the prototype?

This was a different vehicle.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Arising out of the Minister's last answer, could I ask him what is the difference between the two vehicles, the Irish and the Belgian?

The Belgian one is used more for police operations than military operations.

(Cavan-Monaghan): What is the difference in the design?

I cannot go into details.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I notice that the Minister is very careful to say that Timoney alleges that they are different vehicles. Are they different?

Order, please.

Yes, I understand they are.

(Cavan-Monaghan): That is what I want to know. Is the Minister not too clear about this?

I am aware that they are different.

I am calling Question No. 11. I am not trying to curtail this, but these are all separate questions which can be put down.

I think that we have penetrated the Ceann Comhairle's armour.

11.

asked the Minister for Defence if his attention has been drawn to the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General for 1976 regarding patent rights in relation to the Timoney APC; if the Government hold patent rights as indicated by the report in view of the fact that these vehicles are to be produced in Belgium; if any licences have been issued or production rights granted; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I am aware of the report mentioned.

As this matter is still the subject of examination by the Committee of Public Accounts, it would be improper for me to comment on it at this stage.

Could I ask if the Minister is satisfied that the financial arrangements entered into at the time turned out to be satisfactory and if those arrangements did not include the curtailment of the designer to ensure that as public moneys had been provided to him by the State he would not sell the patent of this vehicle abroad?

The Deputy, as chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, knows what report that committee have made available in relation to this matter.

I do, indeed. It is a public document.

He is also aware that the Public Accounts Committee are awaiting the response of the Minister for Finance. The matter is now a question between the Minister for Finance and the Committee.

Is the Minister for Defence happy with the financial arrangements that I have described?

As already stated, I am awaiting the response of the Minister for Finance.

Has the Minister not got the minutes of the Minister for Finance on that particular issue?

As far as I know, the Minister for Finance has not yet replied to the Committee of Public Accounts.

Why not?