Engagement Hub

The purpose of the final consultation by the Department of Education, Sport and Culture was to seek stakeholder and public views on nine key areas considered appropriate for update in the proposed Education (Amendment) Bill. The consultation ran for 6 weeks from 2 May 2025 to 15 June 2025.

There were 387 responses to the consultation.

The Department is grateful to all those who took time to respond to the consultation. The results will be considered and used to form the policy principles which will result in amendments to the existing Education legislation.

The purpose of the consultation by the Cabinet Office to gain views on amending jury eligibility criteria as set out in the Jury Act 1980.

There were 223 responses to the consultation via the consultation hub. The results are attached below, as a Consultation Response document.
 

The Cabinet Office is grateful to all those who took time to respond to the consultation. The results are being considered and used to inform the development of an amending Order to change the jury eligibility criteria, subject to Council of Ministers and Tynwald approval in due course. For further detail please see Consultation Response document below.

The purpose of the consultation by the Cabinet Office was to gain the public’s views on the introduction of fees and cost limits for Freedom of Information requests.

There were 434 responses to the consultation received with 20 organisations responding (a 21st was discounted as it claimed to be written on behalf of IOM Government). Out of the 20 organisation responses 5 of these were local authorities, 10 were from various government bodies (including departments, boards and the Information Commissioner). The remainder were private organisations and one charity.

The key pieces of information from responses were: 

• Over 65% of respondents disagreed with the proposal allowing public authorities to refuse requests that exceed 15 hours, fearing a public authority could restrict access to information
   
• The respondents were evenly divided on the proposal to aggregate similar requests from the same person or coordinated campaigns. 49.8% supported aggregation, while 50.2% opposed it, with significant concerns about fairness, transparency and enforceability
   
• Over 60% of respondents expressed concerns about introducing a lower cost limit for smaller authorities, with many highlighting the importance of maintaining consistency in the application of FOI across all government bodies
   
• The majority of responses strongly oppose the introduction of a fee for FOI requests, arguing that it would undermine transparency, restrict democratic accountability, and disproportionately impact those on lower incomes, effectively creating a barrier to accessing public information. Many view FOI as a fundamental right that should remain free, especially given concerns about government secrecy and public trust. In contrast, a smaller number of respondents support the idea, suggesting that a modest fee could deter frivolous or vexatious requests and help recover administrative costs. Some also proposed compromise solutions, such as allowing a limited number of free requests per year or applying fees only in specific circumstances. Overall, while there is some recognition of the burden FOI requests can place on public resources, it is widely felt that financial barriers ought not to restrict access to information
   
• Most respondents to the question of what constitutes a reasonable fee for FOI requests strongly favour no fee at all, reflecting a clear public preference for maintaining free access to government-held information. A smaller portion of respondents support a low fee (typically £1 to £5), suggesting it could deter misuse without creating a barrier. Fewer still advocate for moderate fees (£25 to £50), and only a very small number support high fees (£75 or more), with conditions such as repeated or complex requests

For further details please see Consultation Response document.

The Cabinet Office, on behalf of the Council of Ministers, is grateful to all those who took the time to share their views—both through the consultation portal and via other channels. Your input is greatly appreciated and will play a key role in shaping the next steps.