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.