Why I abstained on the Section 140 motion on Wicklow's rent review

Many tenants have been in touch with me over the past couple of weeks. They are anxious about their new rent assessments, especially with cost of living pressures. That's real. Anyone who is worried should appeal and have their circumstances properly reviewed, and I will support you through that.

At this week's meeting a Section 140 motion was put to the Council. I abstained, and I want to explain why.

Executive vs reserved functions

Local government in Ireland is split between two types of decision-making.

Reserved functions belong to the elected councillors. These are the big, policy-level decisions set out in law, such as adopting the annual budget, adopting the County Development Plan, and making bye-laws. Only the elected members can make these decisions.

Executive functions are everything else, the day-to-day running of the Council. These belong to the Chief Executive and the Executive team, who carry them out and are accountable for them. Setting and administering the differential rent scheme is an executive function.

A Section 140 motion is a tool that lets councillors direct the Chief Executive to do, or not do, a particular act. It is not a way of overriding the law on who is responsible for what. Because rent-setting is an executive function, this motion could not change what lands in tenants' letterboxes. Passing it would have created the impression that something had been done, when it hadn't. I don't think tenants should be offered that.

What the motion actually asked for

The motion asked the Council to go back to the old rent schemes. There are two of them in the county, and neither is fit for purpose. Carer's Allowance and child maintenance payments were not disregarded under either.

A further motion was also presented. It asked to pause the cases under review and look at the formula. I was happy to support that one, because it captured all of our concerns. It also allowed the reductions to go ahead for households whose rent had decreased, so they weren't penalised.

The fundamental flaw in the Section 140 motion

The wording seeks to have the Council keep operating the two schemes that existed before this one. But those schemes have exactly the same problem as the current one: they use a formula where only income up to €188 is disregarded. This is the issue the Social Democrats raised the week before. The only real difference is the minimum rent going from €24 or €27 up to €30.

So even if the motion had passed and could legally be implemented, the difference in the letters issued a couple of weeks ago would be only €3 to €6. The Social Democrats asked the councillors who brought the motion, if they could explain otherwise. We haven't heard an explanation.

There is a second problem. The new scheme disregards Carer's Allowance and child maintenance completely. For the roughly 600 carer and lone-parent households, the reduction down to the minimum rent of €30 would be wiped out if we went back to the old scheme. Families affected and Family Carers Ireland have contacted me about this, and they are right to be worried.

The real problem is the formula

The formula has not changed since the basic rate of social welfare was €188 back in 2016. Every increase the Government has given in welfare over the past ten years means the Council takes an unfair 20% share of it. Personal tax credits and the point at which you pay the higher rate of tax go up over time, and the income disregard in this formula should too.

An example shows what this means in practice:

• Contributory State Pension: in 2019 (minimum rent €27), a pensioner paid €34 a week. In 2026 they pay €48.
• Disability Allowance: in 2019 a person paid €31 a week. In 2026 they pay €44.50.

If the income disregard were raised to match the current baseline welfare rate of €254:

• A pensioner on the Contributory State Pension would pay €33, not €48.
• Someone on Disability Allowance would pay just the minimum €30, not €44.50.

Raising the disregard would also reduce rent for everyone who earns above these levels. It should then be indexed to the baseline social welfare rate every year.

What the Social Democrats are calling for

The Social Democrats asked the Executive to further delay the new scheme and change the formula so that the income disregard rises in line with basic social welfare payments, whilst implementing the payments of those that have seen reductions from the review, so they are not penalised in the process. This is the best way to get these rent increases reduced, especially for the most vulnerable groups such as pensioners and people on disability allowance. We are also calling on the Council to:

• Give tenants adequate notice and phase in larger increases.
• Monitor the impact and address hardship cases.
• Look at tenant purchase options for eligible long-term tenants with higher incomes.

Leaving the review for seven years, since 2019, is how we ended up with big adjustments landing all at once, and giving so little notice before the first payment made it worse. Tenants were right to be upset about that.

Why I abstained

The Section 140 motion could not change the rent letters, and it would have taken us back to schemes with the same flawed formula. It would also have wiped out the reductions for carers and lone parents. It didn't deliver for tenants.

Our tenants deserve fairness, clarity and support, not a political stand-off. If you have received a letter and are worried, please get in touch.