Engagement hub

We asked for views on a package of proposed changes to public sector housing policy, including:

• Updating income threshold eligibility to better reflect current economic conditions, including the introduction of annual CPI linked uplifts
   
• Amending the points schedule to place greater emphasis on housing need
   
• Introducing some discretion in relation to residential qualification (3 months immediately before allocation of any property, 3 years within a Local Authority area to qualify for that area) and reflecting within policy the existing legislative 10 years residential discretion

1. Income Threshold Eligibility

Overall sentiment

The majority of respondents (62%) agreed with the proposed income threshold increases as presented.

A significant number of respondents (37%) did not agree. However, views were split in direction, with respondents arguing both that thresholds remain too low and that they are already too high.

Thresholds viewed as too low

Many respondents, particularly single applicants and working households, felt the proposed increases do not adequately reflect:

• The cost of private sector rents
• Mortgage affordability challenges on single or moderate incomes
• Wider cost of living pressures, including utilities, food and transport

Some respondents indicated that the proposed increases would make little practical difference to their ability to access housing, particularly for single applicants whose threshold uplift was considered modest relative to housing costs.

Thresholds viewed as too high

Conversely, a substantial number of respondents considered the proposed thresholds—especially for joint applicants—to be overly generous. Concerns included:

• Extending eligibility to households who could reasonably access private rental accommodation or mortgage finance
   
• Diluting support for lower‑income or more vulnerable households; and
   
• Increasing pressure on already limited public housing stock

Equity between household types

A strong theme was perceived inequity between different household compositions. Respondents questioned the rationale for differing thresholds between single applicants, couples and families, with many arguing that single income households face proportionately higher housing costs and fewer opportunities to share financial risk.

Methodology concerns

Common concerns included:

• Use of gross income rather than net (take home) income
   
• Assumptions about the cost impact of children, additional adults and household size
   
• A lack of transparency regarding how the threshold figures were calculated and how they align with private rental and mortgage affordability

2. Annual CPI Linked Uplift of Income Thresholds

Support in principle

76% of respondents gave support for the principle of regularly updating income thresholds to prevent them from becoming outdated through inflation.

Concerns about an automatic mechanism

Many respondents expressed reservations about an entirely automatic uplift. Concerns included:

• Income growth not being uniform or consistently linked to inflation
   
• Risk of eligibility gradually widening without sufficient oversight
   
• A preference for periodic review rather than purely automatic adjustments

Some respondents suggested that CPI uplifts should be subject to committee oversight, scheduled review points, or additional safeguards to ensure ongoing proportionality and fairness.

3. Pointing Schedule and Housing Need

Housing need as the primary consideration

Most respondents (65%) supported housing need being the primary factor in allocations, particularly where households are experiencing overcrowding, unsafe or unsuitable accommodation, health or disability impacts, safeguarding concerns or risks to children's welfare. 123 comments were made.

Concerns about removing wider financial considerations

However, a significant proportion of respondents (33%) did not support housing need being the sole determinant. Concerns were raised that removing considerations such as income, private renting status and financial circumstances could disadvantage low income households struggling in high cost or poor quality private accommodation.

Assets and affordability

Financial assets and lifestyle choices were frequently referenced. Many respondents considered that applicants with significant savings or non essential high value assets should be expected to utilise those resources before accessing public housing. Others cautioned against penalising modest savings that may be needed for deposits, moving costs or financial security.

Overall theme

The prevailing view was that housing need should be central, but that financial capacity and affordability remain relevant to ensure fairness and effective targeting of scarce housing resources.

4. Residency Requirements and Discretion

Clarification on the 10 year residency requirement

Some respondents misunderstood the proposals, as introducing a new discretion to waive the 10‑year Island residency requirement. This discretion already exists in legislation; the proposed amendment seeks to reflect and classify this in policy to improve transparency, consistency and clarity in decision‑making.

Concerns framed around the introduction of a 'new' discretion therefore arose from an incorrect interpretation of the proposal.

Views on discretion in policy

235 comments were submitted; responses were strongly divided:

• Some respondents supported discretion where exceptional circumstances apply, most commonly referencing domestic abuse, safeguarding, serious health needs, hospital or care leavers, and Manx‑born individuals returning after time off‑Island
   
• Others strongly opposed any flexibility, citing risks of abuse, inconsistency, perceived queue‑jumping and erosion of public confidence

Many responses focused less on the existence of discretion and more on how it should be governed, with repeated calls for clear criteria, transparency, auditability and consistency.

Views on individual residency periods

• 10‑year Island residency: Widely supported as a core safeguard prioritising long‑term residents and contributors
   
• 3‑year local authority residency: Frequently viewed as outdated or impractical, with strong support for island‑wide allocations
   
• 3‑month immediate residency: Often considered too short and potentially open to misuse, though some support was expressed for flexibility in clearly defined exceptional cases

5. Wider Policy Considerations

Across all themes, respondents linked individual proposals to broader system issues, including:

• Protection of housing for Manx residents and long‑term contributors
   
• Fairness between household types and working patterns
   
• Ensuring public housing functions as a safety net rather than a default long‑term solution
   
• The importance of transparency, governance and public confidence

Local Authorities broadly support modernising thresholds and a need-led allocations framework, but they want the methodology and impacts to be transparent, and they emphasise that any widening of eligibility or increased discretion must be matched with strong prioritisation definitions, consistent governance, and operationally workable processes.

While respondents recognise and support the need for the policy to evolve in response to economic pressures and real‑world circumstances, there is strong caution regarding unintended consequences, fairness, and the overall integrity of the system.

Across all areas, respondents consistently emphasised the importance of:

• Clear communication of what is changing and what is not
• Strong governance and consistency in decision‑making
• Effective targeting of limited public housing resources

To address these themes, we will ensure that all changes are clearly communicated through:

• Press communications
• Publication of the revised policy

To support consistency in application, clear guidance will be issued to all Social Housing Providers operating the policy.

We will also publish annual statistics demonstrating the use of discretion and will monitor both the frequency and reasons for its application to ensure the policy is being applied evenly across housing providers. This will include information on the exceptional circumstances that led to the use of discretion, providing transparency and reassurance to our communities.

To ensure that financial hardship continues to be appropriately reflected within housing priority, a specific assessment will be developed to capture household circumstances more holistically, rather than relying solely on income. This will be introduced as part of the next phase of the policy review. The current priority will remain in place until this new assessment is implemented.

Finally, to ensure that the automatic uplift of income thresholds remains appropriate, the Department will review threshold levels annually and introduce safeguards to prevent unintended consequences, such as upper percentage increase limits.

This consultation sought views on the proposed Data Asset Register and Data Asset Registrar framework.

It asked for feedback on the information to be recorded, the classification model, safeguards and access arrangements, provisional registration, third party protection, fees, implementation challenges and supporting regulations.

A summary of responses can be found in the document below.

Respondents were broadly supportive of the proposed framework, but highlighted that further detail, practical guidance, clear classification criteria, transparency on costs and implementation planning will be needed before the Register becomes operational.

The Department has reviewed the responses received, including the separate response from the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The feedback will be used to inform the final regulations, supporting guidance, fee approach and implementation planning for the Data Asset Register and Data Asset Registrar.

The Cabinet Office sought views on legislation to a Bill provide a legal basis for Public Health on the Island. This Bill included provisions relating to the appointment and functions of a Chief Public Health Officer, a general public health duty for public bodies and amendments to the Public Health Act 1990.

The consultation ran from 22 January 2026 to 20 February 2026 and received 49 responses.

Overall:

There was qualified support for the appointment of a Chief Public Health Officer:

• A significant number of respondents were of the view that this position should be held by a medical professional or someone with medical experience

There was strong support for the proposed Public Health functions and duties:

• Some comments did express concerns as how the functions will be delivered, and if some proposed functions (e.g. commissioning) were suitable

There was strong support for the proposed general public health duty:

• A small number of comments expressed either support, or opposition, for assessments to support this duty
   
• Additional comments noted the duty supported integrated public services and suggested the duty should apply Island-wide.

There was strong support for Public Health to have the powers to establish advisory bodies:

• A small number of comments did express concerns as to the resource impact of such bodies, and whether or not this power was required

There was strong support for the proposed definition of public bodies in relation to the general public health duty:

• Some comments did suggest this term could be narrowed or unlinked from the definition in the Freedom of Information Act 2015

There was strong support for the proposed amendments to the Public Health Act 1990:

• A small number of comments did highlight concerns over the suitability of extending statutory nuisance provisions or controls on vermin
   
• One comment suggested a broader review of that Act is required

The Cabinet Office is grateful to all those who responded to the consultation. Public Health will now:

• Take into consideration the feedback from this consultation
   
• Engage with local authorities on the proposed public health duty
   
• Seek further feedback on the issues raised by this consultation
   
• Having regard to recent amendments to the National Health Service Act 2001, consult on provisions relating to consent requirements for public health activities

Once these actions have been undertaken the intention is to promote a revised Bill for consideration in 2027.