asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs the reason why new telephone subscribers have to pay advance rental charges for service; if he will give details of these charges; the number of people notified to date of such charges; the number that have accepted; the number that have refused; and the total amount collected to date under advance rental charges.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Advance Telephone Rentals.
25.
The advance rental requirement was introduced in order to limit the very considerable measure of credit allowed to telephone subscribers. It is in harmony with the policy of requiring advance payment in connection with hiring agreements generally.
The amount payable is the standard rental for the initial term of the telephone agreement which varies according to circumstances. Some 90 per cent of all agreements are for a term of one year, 8 per cent for 3 years and the remaining 2 per cent for five or seven years.
About 6,200 applicants have been notified of these charges since their introduction in August last. Of these, 5,000 have accepted the offer of service and 1,200 have declined. Possibly half of the refusals were due to the advance rental requirement. The total amount collected was £106,000.
Could the Minister tell us what is the real reason for it? Is it due to the financial crisis and shortage of money at present that the Minister is mortgaging the future? That is what he is doing by asking people to pay from two to seven years rent in advance.
I have explained this several times already. I explained it fully in a reply to Deputy Corish not so long ago. Asking people to pay an advance rent is certainly not mortgaging the future. It is the direct opposite because it is paying for the future. The Deputy possibly does not know the cost of the installation of from 12,000 to 18,000 telephones a year. It is a fair amount of money. Some of the lines cost up to £1,000 to instal. It is only in keeping with a commonsense policy to have a deposit of a percentage of the cost at the time the installation is carried out. We were one of the few countries in the world not doing that. It is nothing new. I think the Coalition operated the same thing for a time.
If, as the Minister says, it costs so much to instal the line and for that reason payment in advance is required, does he not appreciate that payment is still being continued by people who had their lines installed since the inception of the telephone service in this country?
I cannot quite follow the Deputy.
They are still paying rent for their phones.
Of course they are. Do you think there are no maintenance charges?
The Minister gave a specific reason.
Yes, the capital cost involved.
It is a lot of cod.
No, it is just sound business.