asked the Minister for Defence when the testing programme on the Timoney APC will be completed, and when the vehicles will be handed over to operational units, when he will be in a position to say that the vehicles have been successfully tested, if he will give details of the types of tests carried out by the Army to date, and the difficulties encountered with vehicles which delayed the programme to date.

It is not possible to indicate at this stage when these tests will be completed. The vehicles will be issued for operational use after testing has been concluded. The types of tests carried out include the following:

Fording, floating and water sealing

Road driving

Cross country driving

Machine Gun and Turret operation

Radio and inter-communication systems

As the contract has not yet been completed, it would be contrary to established practice to give details of the problems encountered.

At the end of the testing, will more vehicles be ordered?

There is an order for five vehicles. A number of them have been tested and accepted by the Army. I told the Deputy previously that there were problems in relation to these carriers and until these have been ironed out the contract will not be completed.

26.

asked the Minister for Defence if he will outline the agreement made between his Department and the Timoney design team, if a formal contract was signed, and if not why, if the agreement covered such matters as production rights and design derivatives, and if he has satisfied himself with the arrangement made.

27.

asked the Minister for Defence the precise design rights his Department hold in relation to the Timoney APC or its derivatives and the steps taken to protect the design from illegal production.

28.

asked the Minister for Defence the differences in design between the Irish built Timoney APC and the Belgian built BDX Timoney APC; if they are basically similar vehicles from a common prototype; if he is aware that a company (details supplied) and Belgian manufacturers in their publicity material show a vehicle described as the Prototype BDX, which is an Irish produced vehicle, paid for out of public funds, and if he will make a statement on the matter.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 26, 27 and 28 together.

Arrangements were made in 1972 between my Department and Industrial Engineering Designers Ltd., Dublin, for the production of three prototype armoured personnel carriers for the Defence Forces.

A formal agreement was not signed with the company but my Department were advised by the Chief State Solicitor that a contractual relationship existed on the basis of correspondence with the company and part performance. In accordance with these arrangements, the drawings, jigs, materials and constructions forming part of the project are held by my Department who retain the right to have vehicles based on the designs manufactured here.

My Department have no detailed information regarding the Belgian built vehicle. The Irish company which produced the prototype vehicles for the Defence Forces maintain that the Belgain built vehicle is an entirely distinct vehicle, being larger and lower, having a different transmission, a different engine and cooling system and a refrigerated air conditioning system, and that none of the drawings, jigs and so on for the Irish vehicle was used in the manufacture of the Belgian vehicle.

I understand that the Belgian vehicle was built for police work rather than use for military purposes and that it was not fitted with a machine-gun turret as is the Irish vehicle.

I am disappointed the Minister took these three questions together. Is the Minister satisfied about what has taken place in regard to the Timoney armoured car? The Minister has said there is a vast difference between the vehicle mentioned in my question and the Timoney. That view has not been accepted because it is said there are only minor differences. Public money was spent on this design and how is the design of the Timoney tied down in such a way that we no longer have control of the manufacture?

In relation to the Timoney car, the drawings, jigs and so on are held in the Department. We retain the right to the design here. The claim in respect of the Belgian vehicle is that it is not similar to the Irish manufactured vehicle, and the trade journals have accepted that there is a difference.

Is the Minister aware of the concern expressed by the Committee of Public Accounts? If differences exist between the two vehicles would we be in a position to produce the Belgian vehicle?

I am aware that the Committee of Public Accounts have discussed this. I would remind the Deputy that the prototype of the Timoney was exported to Belgium in 1976, and this was authorised by the then Government. If there have been problems in this respect they are not of my making.

We must move from this question. We have spent most of Question Time on a couple of questions.

Three questions have been lumped together.

Other Deputies are entitled to have their questions answered.

The Minister has said it is claimed the Belgian design is similar to ours. By whom has this been claimed and on whose authority did the Minister make that statement? Is the Minister happy that the initial financial arrangements with this company to produce this type of armoured vehicle were satisfactory, and with hindsight would he repeat the same arrangements if confronted tomorrow with the same problem?

Timoney themselves have made the claim that there are differences. The two vehicles have all the appearances of being different. Trade journals have accepted there is a difference. With regard to the money having been made available, the Deputy will be aware this was a research and development project, that the money was made available to an Irish company to produce an Irish designed car by Irish workers. In the event of, say, an industry coming in from abroad——

The money was made available to an Irish company to produce an Irish car but we do not have control of the design and it is now open to any country in the world to avail of it.

Deputy Creed seems to be concerned about tying down the design. Why was it not tied down on 11 March 1977 when the then Minister for Industry and Commerce in the Coalition Government gave permission to Timoney to enter into an agreement with the Belgians?

I am concerned about the future. I have no option but to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

It is too late to do that now.

The Minister has said there is a difference in appearance between the Belgian and the Irish cars. I understand the only difference is in the gun turret. Can the Minister tell us exactly what the difference is?

I have told the Deputies that the Belgian built vehicle is larger, lower, has a different transmission, a different engine, a different cooling system and a refrigerated air system. There are a number of differences.

The Minister did not answer my second question.

I am not responsible for the answers.

There were three questions here.

We have spent ten minutes on this and I am calling the next question.

If in the morning the Minister were faced with the same request would he repeat the financial arrangements entered into with the Timoney company? I asked the Minister on whose authority was it stated that there were substantial differences between the Timoney armoured car and the one produced in Belgium and he said by the Timoney company. Surely it is in their interests to claim a difference. Has the Minister taken the trouble to ask his Department to investigate if there have been substantial differences?

I assume that, if the Department or the Minister were concerned about that, the time to investigate it was when permission was given to send the prototype from this country to Belgium.

Why were the same modifications——

We are not debating this subject any more.

Would the Minister repeat the same financial arrangements? He has refused to answer the question.

It is not one of buy Irish.

Buy Irish is right and I am glad the Deputy has come in on my side on that.

Would the Minister repeat the same arrangements in the morning?

The arrangements were made for an Irish company and designer to produce an Irish-made vehicle and the money was used for the purpose of research and development. We are getting a reasonably good return for it.

The Chair has called the next question.

Would the Minister make the same financial arrangements?

Is it not more important——

This is Question Time and I have already called the next question.

29.

asked the Minister for Defence if he considers the decision to scrap two new Timoney vehicles for spare parts for a third prototype was in order in view of the fact that this type is in production and if he has satisfied himself that this course of action was necessary.

30.

asked the Minister for Defence if he will confirm that the third prototype Timoney vehicle will be handed over to operational units of the Defence Forces, or if it is intended to continue the use of the vehicle as a test bed, and if he will make a statement on the matter.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 29 and 30 together.

There was no decision to scrap two new Timoney vehicles. Arrangements were made by my Department in 1972 for the production by an Irish company of three prototype armoured personnel carriers. This was essentially a research and development project. Proving tests on No. 1 prototype vehicle commenced in October 1973 and during these tests various problems were encountered, the main one being overheating of the engine which could not be rectified without re-designing of the hull. The stage was reached when further development work was regarded as uneconomic and it was decided to utilise the vehicle as a source of spares for the Nos. 2 and 3 prototypes. The No. 2 prototype was fitted with an improved engine cooling system, but other problems were encountered with it during extensive testing, principally leaking oil hub seals. It was decided to withdraw it from further testing and to utilise it as a source of spares for No. 3 prototype.

It was never the intention that a prototype vehicle would be issued for military operational use. The objective of the project was to establish whether this type of vehicle could be produced in Ireland and that objective was achieved.

The No. 3 prototype is satisfactory and has been and will continue to be used for training drivers and infantry crews at the Cavalry School, Curragh Camp.

Is it the practice to scrap vehicles for the purpose of getting parts for others? I understand there is a factory which makes such parts. In an earlier reply the Minister gave the cost of the three vehicles involved as £180,000. Two of the vehicles have been scrapped to get parts for the third which has not yet entered into service. Have we spent £180,000 for a test vehicle?

I do not think the Deputy understands the position. He asked did we scrap two new Timoney vehicles and the answer is "no". The project was essentially a research and development one.

What project?

The project to produce this vehicle. In relation to the production of prototypes it was obvious that some problems would be faced. A number of problems arose which, as I pointed out in relation to the first prototype, made it uneconomic to continue with it. It was broken down and parts were used for the production of the others. We are not talking about the five vehicles ordered for the Army, four of which have been delivered. I am talking about the prototypes.

And two have been scrapped.

What is wrong with that?

At what cost?

Does the Deputy understand what prototypes mean?

Of course, I do.

We must move on. We are only getting into argument.

Is it a fact that some vehicles were scrapped?

I will answer when the Deputy is finished asking questions.

The Minister said we had bought four new vehicles and we are still testing vehicles——

Five.

That is correct.

We scrapped two in order to improve on the test vehicle, is that correct?

No. It seems to be impossible to get across to the Opposition what is involved.

Whose problem is that?

This was an Irish company with an Irish designer who believed he could produce armoured vehicles, personnel carriers, in this country. He succeeded in doing that. In producing new vehicles of this kind it is obvious that at an early stage problems would arise in respect of the prototypes being produced. It is not a question of having scrapped new vehicles, as the Deputy originally asked. The new vehicles are there but the prototypes in one or two instances were scrapped when particular problems arose. A variety of parts in these prototypes were utilised to continue the research and development of the project.

I am calling the next question. We have already spent 20 minutes discussing the one problem. We are going on to the next question and the Chair must be obeyed.

Who paid for these two scrapped vehicles? Is it the Department of Defence?

It is quite obvious the Deputy does not understand the position.

It is the Minister who does not understand.

I called the next question and the Minister should answer.

When the Minister says that these were produced in this country was it north or south of the Border? When he said "this country" was is the State——

The Chair must be obeyed. The Minister to answer the next question.

31.

asked the Minister for Defence if tenders were requested from more than one manufacturer or contractor prior to the order for five Timoney APC's by his Department; if so, if he will give details of each, and if not, why, as there was more than one contractor available.

Tenders were not invited in this case.

After full consideration, it was decided that the five APCs should be procured from the Timoney companies which had developed the three prototype vehicles and had produced the vehicle which was regarded as suitable for use by the Defence Forces.

Is it a regulation or rule within the Department in seeking tenders that there must be more than one? Is there any EEC directive to insist on it being open for tender in other member states?

In this case it was reasonable where an individual designs and produces the prototype vehicle, that the contract for production models be given to him.

I am not talking about it being reasonable. Are we compelled in any way to seek more than one tender for an article of that kind? Is there any EEC directive to compel us?

I could not be certain but presumably there is not.

Was it advertised? Were tenders invited?

Research and development.

They are the underlying words and I am glad that the Deputy has raised this principle.

Who paid for it?

I suggest to the Deputy that he visit some of the industries in his own constituency——

They are closing down by the hour.

——and ask them what money was spent on research and development and how many times they had to change course in the course of the development.

I am calling the next question.

The Deputy would begin to understand what is involved.

The Minister is to answer Question No. 32. This is Question Time.

The whole thing is unsatisfactory.

The Chair is trying to muzzle Deputies.

The Chair is not trying to muzzle anyone. We have got through only 31 questions in one hour and forty five minutes and there are more than 100 questions on the Order Paper.

I asked the Minister if advertisements were issued. I understand that is standard procedure.

I would assume so but as I am not absolutely sure I cannot answer the question.

Surely the Minister should have that information.

They were not advertised.

At any rate, I am satisfied the correct thing was done.

The Chair has called Question No. 32.