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.