We Asked, You Said, We Did

The Isle of Man Financial Services Authority invited feedback on proposals to amend certain aspects of the insurance valuation and solvency framework, including amendments to the regulatory capital calculation.

The Authority received 10 responses to the consultation paper. The responses were supportive of the changes being proposed.

The Authority prepared a consultation response document, which provides a summary of the feedback submitted and responds to all questions raised. The Authority will now prepare the final Insurance (Fees and Solvency)(Amendment) Regulations 2024 to be laid before Tynwald.

The purpose of the consultation by the Department of Education, Sport and Culture was to seek stakeholder and public views on areas considered appropriate for update in the proposed Education (Amendment) Bill. The consultation ran for 6 weeks from 27 March to 10 May 2024

There were 509 responses to the consultation. The results can be found attached below.

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 Isle of Man Education legislation.

The Department of Home Affairs invited feedback on the policy principles for the proposed National Infrastructure Security Bill.

The public consultation opened on the 5 February 2024 and closed on the 25 March 2024. The Department received 53 responses to the consultation, 48 of which were received via the consultation hub. The 53 responses comprised:

• 36 Members of the public
• 7 Private Companies
• 6 Government Departments, Offices or Boards
• 1 Industry Body
• 1 Local Authority
• 2 not identified

There was a consensus from the responses received on the need for legislation.

Amongst the feedback, there was agreement on the need for a competent and technical authority, as well a general agreement on the key sectors that would constitute the national infrastructure. Furthermore, it is apparent that some sectors on the Isle of Man already comply with compliance regimes similar to those set out in the policy principles and that this must be accounted for when drafting legislation.

The Department is grateful to the individuals and organisations who responded to the consultation. All responses received have now been analysed and used to create a consultation summary report, which has been published on this page.  This report also includes commentary in places where relevant and where respondents indicated that their response could be published or published anonymously.

The report summarises the responses received and sets out the next steps the Department intends to take following this engagement. These will include further research into the options for establishing a Competent Authority (ies) and a Technical Authority as well as finalising which sectors should be included in the definition of the National Infrastructure.

The work in this area will help make our Island safer and we are committed to ensuring that those who may be affected have, through this consultation, and will continues to be involved in the detailed proposals. 

The Department for Enterprise sought views on adding new persons and bodies to the list of 'prescribed persons' workers may whistleblow to. The consultation specifically asked for feedback on adding a number of UK medical regulators and Members of the House of Keys/Members of Tynwald to the list.

The consultation opened on 5 January 2024 and closed on 1 March 2024. There were 55 responses to the consultation.

There was overwhelming support for the proposal that a number of UK medical regulators should be added to the list of prescribed persons, with 89% of the responses in agreement.

On the issue of whether MHKs or Members of Tynwald should be prescribed persons, 56% of the respondents agreed with the proposal that MHKs should be added to the list, while 49% agreed that Members of Tynwald should be added.

Respondents also suggested a number of other persons or bodies to take on the role of prescribed person.

The Department is grateful for the responses received from the consultation. The Department’s next steps are as follows.

Question 1 - Adding medical regulatory bodies to the list of prescribed persons

There was wide support for adding the UK medical regulatory bodies to the list of prescribed persons, and adding them to the list will reinforce the whistleblowing framework in the Isle of Man. The Department has been liaising with those regulators and with Manx Care to ensure that practical arrangements are put in place to support the regulators operating as prescribed persons for the Isle of Man.

Some of the responses questioned why the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) was not on the list of the bodies to be added. The Department is currently working with the NMC and Manx Care to have NMC operate as a prescribed person in the Isle of Man.

Questions 2 and 3 – Adding MHKs/Tynwald members to the list of prescribed persons

Questions 2 and 3 sought views on adding either MHKs to the list of prescribed persons or adding all Tynwald members. Though a majority of the respondents supported adding MHKs and similarly adding Tynwald members, a number of issues were raised by Tynwald members themselves.

It is of particular importance to note that in response to the consultation the Tynwald Standards and Members Interests’ Committee published, in February 2024, a short report which considered the issues around MHKs or Tynwald members being prescribed persons. The report made no recommendation but it raised a number of issues in relation to MHKs/Tynwald members being specified as prescribed persons.

On the one hand, whistleblowing to Tynwald members may already qualify as a protected disclosure in some circumstances under section 55 and 56 of the Employment Act 2006. Individuals may be more likely to make a disclosure to a Tynwald member given their public status.

On the other hand the Department accepts that there are good reasons why MHKs/Tynwald members should not be prescribed persons. The feedback to the consultation, and the Tynwald report, set out some of those reasons. For instance, the Department considers that persons are normally prescribed as those to whom a whistleblowing disclosure should be made because those persons (or bodies) have existing powers to deal with a disclosure, and those persons are prescribed for those issues alone. For example, the Department for Enterprise is a prescribed person for the purposes of any disclosures about payment of the minimum wage because the Department has powers to investigate breaches of the minimum wage under the Minimum Wage Act 2001. In contrast there is no statutory framework which sets out how Tynwald members would deal with a whistleblowing disclosure, and Tynwald members have no statutory powers to deal with such disclosures. Practically speaking, it is likely that the only thing a Tynwald Member would be able to do would be to pass such a disclosure to another prescribed person that had specific powers to deal with the issue.

In addition, Tynwald members do not have the same office resources that MPs in the UK benefit from, and, given that many Tynwald members have roles within the Government, e.g. Ministers, Political Members or Board Members, Tynwald members may find themselves conflicted in dealing with protected disclosures.

For the reasons above the Department does not intend to add either MHKs or all Tynwald members to the list of prescribed persons, but will engage with the Clerk of Tynwald’s office to ensure that adequate guidance is made available to Tynwald Members in respect of Whistleblowing procedures.

Question 4 – Adding any other bodies to the list of prescribed persons

As previously stated, the Department will consider further the suggestions for bodies to be added to the current list and will bring forward an updated Order for approval by Tynwald in autumn 2024.

More information can be found in the review of responses document below.

We Asked - As part of the Built Environment Reform Programme ('BERP') and to facilitate the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture's (DEFA) core functions changes are proposed to the following secondary legislation which is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 ('the Planning Act'):

• the Town and County Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 ('the DPO'), and
   
• the Town and Country Planning (Application and Appeal Fees) Order 2021 (as amended in 2023) ('the Fees Order')

Public Consultation ran from 17.11.23 to 26.01.24. The consultation was via the consultation hub and Publicity included: E-mails to MHKs/MLCs, Government Departments, Local Authorities and the Planning User Group Distribution.

There were 49 responses to the survey (given Data Protection respondents were not required to provide details).

The available report is a summary of the responses and the issues they raise (appendix 1 gives overall results and appendix 2 gives detailed comments). The consultations results will inform the final iteration of the Order, which will be laid before Tynwald.

The Isle of Man Financial Services Authority invited feedback on proposals to update the Depositors’ Compensation Scheme framework and to introduce a Single Customer View mechanism.

The Authority received 10 responses to the consultation paper, including views on the level of coverage for individual eligible depositors.

We prepared a consultation response document, which provides a summary of the feedback submitted. The Authority will now prepare the Financial Services (Deposit Data) (Amendment) Rule Book 2024 for Tynwald approval. A draft Financial Services (Deposit Data) (Fees) Order will be subject to a separate consultation.

The Department consulted between the 10 November 2023 and the 08 December 2023 around a potential change to the 'general attendance' requirements for Licensees and Responsible People.

The Department received 53 responses to the consultation. 34 responses were from businesses or organisations, 15 responses were from individuals and within the remaining 4 responses, the respondent did not indicate which group they belonged to.

A full summary of responses received, and actions proposed to be taken because of these responses is available.

The overarching trend that can be seen from aggregate responses to this consultation is the view of an extensive number of those respondents that the approach to general attendance should be one of greater flexibility.  These views would, in essence, see licensees able to make a considered choice about how to determine when they can be absent and risk assess those circumstances themselves using their own experience and good judgement to make such a decision. A proposed package of measures has been prepared to bring forward such changes, and support good practices associated with them.

However, this enhanced flexibility does of course come with its own potential risks, and therefore the proposed approach set out below also refers to a 6 month 'pilot period' in which any changes brought will be monitored.

The Department has proposed a package of measures that would, if approved by Tynwald, see enhanced flexibility and an associated risk managed approach to absence come into effect on 22 July 2024.

The documents contained within this package of measures can be found on the Tynwald Register of Business and are titled (and numbered) as follows:

• The Liquor Licensing and Public Entertainments (Amendment) Regulations 2024 [SD 2024/0176]
   
• The Liquor Licensing and Public Entertainments (Approval of Code and Guidance) Order 2024 [SD 2024/0177]
   
• The Isle of Man Licensing Forum Code of Practice and Guidance on Liquor Licensing [GC 2024/0006]

To ensure that this approach works and continues to maintain the Island's high standards with respect to the licensed hospitality industry and in accordance with the Licensing Objectives found at section 57 of the Liquor Licensing and Public Entertainments Act 202, the following further next steps are proposed.

If the Liquor Licensing and Public Entertainments (Amendment) Regulations 2024 and the associated Liquor Licensing and Public Entertainments (Approval of Code and Guidance) Order should be approved by Tynwald at the July sitting, a “pilot period” will follow between these measures becoming operational, and the end of the year (December 2024). This 'pilot period' will allow oversight of issues within the proposed approach and information about any incidents (whether requiring formal enforcement or not) that might take place in that period will be actively gathered by the Department and reviewed.

Additionally, feedback from members of the licensed hospitality industry, or the wider population of the Island, will be welcomed during this period and can be provided to the Department via the Isle of Man Licensing Forum or directly.

The findings of the review of the 'pilot period' will be published on this page following its conclusion, along with any additional next steps arising from that review.

Results updated 18 June 2024

The purpose of the consultation by the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA) was to seek views on whether the Isle of Man Government should ban or regulate the use of electronic collars for dogs and cats. Any ban or regulation would involve introducing secondary legislation made under the Animal Welfare Act 2023.

There were 715 responses to the consultation. 28 responses were removed as they appeared to be duplicates based on names, email addresses and in some cases IP addresses being identical. This left 687 unique responses. When asked, 670 respondents said they were individuals and 10 said they represented an organisation. 7 did not answer this question.

Do you think it should be an offence to attach to a cat or dog an e-collar that only emits distracting puffs of air or non-aversive behaviour changing pheromones/chemicals?

The majority of respondents did not think this should be an offence (72.93%).

Do you think it should be an offence to attach to a cat or dog an e-collar that only emits a noxious spray?

A small majority of respondents did not think this should be an offence (52.98%), as compared to the 46.58% who felt it should be.

Do you think it should be an offence to attach to a cat or dog an e-collar that delivers a noise or vibration (but no electric shock)?

The majority of respondents did not think this should be an offence (86.75%).

Do you think it should be an offence to attach to a cat or dog and e-collar that delivers an electric shock?
The majority of respondents did not think this should be an offence (78.60%).

Do you think it should be an offence to attach to a cat or dog an e-collar capable of delivering an automatically triggered electric shock as part of a containment system?

The majority of respondents did not think this should be an offence (71.03%).

If attaching an e-collar is made an offence, do you think it should also be an offence to be responsible for a cat or dog which has an e-collar attached?

The majority of respondents did not think this should be an offence (75.98%).

The Department is grateful to those individuals and organisations who took time to respond to the consultation and tell us their views.  There were a significant number of responses that appear to be from outside of the Isle of Man borders. The Department is aware that there are significant concerns about the use of electronic collars in dogs and cats and will do further work to explore this area further.

The new Animal Welfare Act 2023 has its Appointed Day Order due to be laid before Tynwald at the May 2024 sitting, meaning the Animal Welfare Act will come into operation on the 1 June 2024. This Act introduces a duty of care to ensure owners and keepers meet the needs of their animals as to the extent required by good practice. These needs include those necessary for an animal to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns, and its need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease. Animal Welfare codes of practice for dogs and cats will soon be published by the Department for the purpose of providing practical guidance in respect of achieving, maintaining, and demonstrating good practice in the care of kept animals.

The paper set out the Department of Infrastructure's proposals to change the existing harbour dues and charges for vessels, passengers and goods with effect from the day after they are approved by Tynwald. The proposals in the consultation will revoke and replace the existing fees.

The public consultation opened on the 20 October 2023 and closed on the 17 November 2023. The Department received eight responses to the consultation. All of the responses were received via the Consultation Hub. The eight responses comprised:

• 6 members of the public
• 1 private company
• 1 Local Authority

The Department has analysed and considered all responses received and where respondents indicated that their response could be published or published anonymously, these responses have been uploaded to the Consultation Hub.
The Department is currently undertaking a full and detailed review of next year's harbour dues and charges in respect of facilities and services provided by the Department for vessels, passengers and goods using a harbour and the responses received to last year's consultation will be considered as part of this review.

The purpose of the consultation by the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA) was to seek views on the draft Animal Welfare Code of Practice for Dogs.

The Department for Environment, Food and Agriculture received 128 responses to the consultation. Of these, 124 responses were from individuals and 4 Responses were representatives of society/ company/ charity.

• 56.8% of respondents said that the code covered everything required
   
• 19.7% of respondents said there were things in the code they disagreed with
   
• 76.5% of respondents said there was enough detail in the code
   
• 97% said the code was understandable

The Department is grateful to those individuals and organisations who took time to respond to the consultation and tell us their views on the proposed Animal Welfare Code of Practice for Dogs. As stated above a number of changes will be made to the code to reflect some of the responses received to the consultation. Whilst some of the responses to the consultation are outside of the scope of the code, the Department will look at addressing some of the other concerns in future policy development.

The purpose of the consultation by the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA) was to seek views on the draft Animal Welfare Code of Practice for Cats.

The Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture received 100 responses to the consultation. Of these, 98 responses were from individuals and 2 responses were representatives of society/ company/ charity.

• 55% of responses said that the code covered everything required
   
• 20% of the responses said there were things in the code that they disagreed with
   
• 80% said that the code had enough detail
   
• 94% said the code was understandable

The Department is grateful to those individuals and organisations who took time to respond to the consultation and tell us their views on the proposed Animal Welfare Code of Practice for Cats. As stated above some minor changes have been made to the code to address some of the concerns. Whilst some of the responses to the consultation are outside of the scope of the code, the Department will look at addressing some of the other concerns in future policy development, e.g. micro chipping of cats.

The purpose of the consultation by the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA) was to seek views on the draft Animal Welfare Code of Practice for Rabbits.

The Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture received 20 responses to the consultation. Of these, 18 responses were from individuals and 2 Responses were representatives of a society/ company/ charity.

• 55% said the code covered everything required
   
• 30% said there were things in the code that they disagreed with
   
• 65% said there was enough detail in the code
   
• 100% said the code was understandable

The Department is grateful to those individuals and organisations who took time to respond to the consultation and tell us their views on the proposed Animal Welfare Code of Practice for Rabbits. As stated above some minor changes have been made to the code.

The purpose of the consultation by the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA) was to seek views on the draft Animal Welfare Code of Practice for Horses, ponies, donkeys and their hybrids.

The Department for Environment, Food and Agriculture received 45 responses to the consultation. Of these, 41 responses were from individuals and 4 Responses were representatives of society/ company/ charity.

• 61.7% said the code covered everything required
   
• 14.9% said there something in the code they disagreed with
   
• 19.2% said there was not enough detail in the code
   
• 93.6% said the code was understandable

The Department is grateful to those individuals and organisations who took time to respond to the consultation and tell us their views on the proposed Animal Welfare Code of Practice for Horses, Ponies, Donkeys and their Hybrids. Following the consultation, as described above, changes have been made to the code. Most people felt the code was understandable, covered what was required and contained enough detail.

As part of the Built Environment Reform Programme and to facilitate the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture’s (DEFA) core functions (Registered Buildings) changes are proposed to the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 (‘The Planning Act’). The changes will:

• Provide clarity around the definition of development which will mean better understanding for building owners on what can and can’t be done without planning approval (these changes, together with planned secondary legislation, will provide an opportunity to ensure very minor works can be excluded from needing approval)
   
• Remove the requirement for concurrent planning and registered building applications for the demolition of unregistered buildings in Conservation Areas which will streamline the administration of the planning process both for applicants and the Department
   
• Ensure routine maintenance works to roads and watercourses do not require planning approval
   
• Introduce enabling powers for the potential introduction of fees (through secondary legislation) in relation to discretionary services, such as the provision of pre-application advice
   
• Clarify the scope of Registrations for historic buildings to allow these to be amended and to allow for exclusions (having clearer and more targeted controls will remove unnecessary restrictions for owners of such buildings on making some types of changes) and make changes to the appeals process to simplify and streamline it and
   
• Improve and future proof the provisions for Permitted Development Orders

Public Consultation ran from 04.08.23 to 27.10.23.  The consultation was via the consultation hub and Publicity included: E-mails to MHKs/MLCs, Government Departments, Local Authorities and the Planning User Group Distribution List and circulation within Construction IOM; and a press release. 

There were 36 responses to the survey (given Data Protection respondents were not required to provide details). 

The available report is a summary of the responses and the issues they raise (responses to each question and general points raised are set out in appendix 1 and appendix 2 contains some of the more detailed/technical comments and responses to these).  The consultations results will inform the final iteration of the Bill, which will be introduced to branches. 

The Central Registry sought views on a number of proposals relating to reforming the legislative framework for Land Registration. The consultation set out proposals for amendments to the law on adverse possession, triggers for Land Registration, dispute resolution and updates to the Land Registration Act.

47 responses were received.

There is strong support for amendment to the adverse possession law to protect the interests of registered owners.

Many respondents also expressed support for widening the triggers for first registration. However, support for those proposals was more mixed. It is likely that the practicalities of the increased triggers will require further consideration as to whether they are all appropriate to the Isle of Man’s circumstances.

There is support for considering how disputes are resolved in the Land Registry. It is likely that legislation to formalise resolution processes will be required.

Further information on the feedback received can be found in the consultation review report below.

The General Registry intends to bring forward the following changes in a Land Registry (Amendment) Bill.

Therefore, the Central Registry intends to bring forward the following changes in a Land Registration Amendment Bill:

• Amendment to the Law relating to Adverse Possession of registered land to reflect the law in England and Wales but retaining a 21 year qualification period. In addition, further consideration may be given to amendment to the Law in relation to all property
   
• The Land Registry proposes widening the triggers for first registration of property to add new triggers for deeds of gift, assents, new mortgages and remortgages. The Land Registry does not propose adding triggers in relation to agricultural subsidies and in relation to the freeholds of apartment buildings at this stage. In addition, the Land Registry proposes that a power to allow further triggers to be added via future secondary legislation is to be included
   
• Amending the dispute resolution procedure in the Land Registration Act and the Land Registry Rules with the intention to provide clarity and increased resolution options. This will be achieved by an update to the Land Registration Rules. It not our intention to introduce the power to provide a preliminary opinion but rather to allow dispute resolution solutions which avoid the need for costly hearings. It is our intention to provide legislation that costs in disputed Land Registry matters would generally be paid by each party unless there were exceptional circumstances and also limited
   
• Legislating for changes in co-ownership status will be introduced
   
• Introducing a requirement for deeds relating to registered land to be submitted promptly
   
• Amending the legislation relating to rectifications pursuant to the Land Registration Act.

In July 2023 Cabinet Office published the Preliminary Publicity for the Strategic Plan review. The Strategic Plan sets the high-level planning policy framework for the sustainable development of the Island, and the Preliminary Publicity stage represents the first statutory step in a comprehensive review of this important statutory planning document.  

Aside from a focused review in 2016, the Strategic Plan remains largely unchanged since its original adoption in 2007. The Strategic Plan review provides the opportunity to review the Island’s Spatial Strategy and embed climate change policies in the Plan, as well as to reflect some of the core strategic objectives set out in ‘Our Island Plan’ to build a secure, vibrant and sustainable future for our Island and specifically deliver one of the key elements identified in the ‘Building Great Communities’ Programmes. 

Because of the wide-reaching implications of the Strategic Plan review for all members of the Island community, Cabinet Office invited comment from interested parties and stakeholders on the published Preliminary Publicity documents. These documents comprised a Main Consultation Document as well as a series of Evidence Papers which looked at specific topic areas in greater detail. All published evidence papers were available on the Consultation Hub and via the Cabinet Office website.

The Strategic Plan Preliminary Publicity consultation ran between 21 July and 29 September 2023 and attracted 209 responses. The vast majority of responses were received either via email or online via the Consultation Hub. A small number of physical response forms and letters were also received.

The 209 respondents comprised:

• 153 members of the public
• 5 private companies (excluding developers and built environment professionals)
• 11 developers or built environment professionals
• 14 Local Authorities or politicians
• 6 Government Departments or Statutory Bodies/Boards
• 8 special interest or community groups
• 7 who identified as ‘other’

Cabinet Office has analysed all responses received and is in the process of producing a consultation summary report which will look at the themes which emerged as part of the consultation responses.

Schedule 1, Paragraph 3, of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) requires Cabinet Office to publish a Draft Plan no more than 12 months after the completion of the Preliminary Publicity. This means a draft plan shall be published by 28 September 2024.

The responses received as part of the Preliminary Publicity consultation will directly inform the Draft Strategic Plan which will, in turn, be subject to a further round of consultation ahead of public inquiry.

The Electoral Commission for the Isle of Man consulted between 23 May 2023 and 28 July 2023 around a series of electoral matters that they had been tasked to report back to Tynwald on by March 2024.

The Commission received 191 responses to the consultation. The responses gave the Commission respondent’s views around the range of areas that they had been tasked to consider. The areas consulted on, included:

• The number and boundaries of constituencies
• The number of seats per constituency
• The accessibility of elections to voters
• The postal and proxy voting procedures
• The ability to vote in any polling station in a constituency
• The feasibility of one or more ‘all island’ polling station
• The candidate campaign materials
• The organisation of pre-election meetings

A consultation response document, which provides a summary of the feedback submitted. The responses received were analysed, considered, and used to inform the work of the Electoral Commission. The Isle of Man Electoral Commission’s 2024 final report is available for viewing on the Electoral Commission page.

The Department of Infrastructure received two petitions from local residents in 2020, identifying problems and seeking the implementation of traffic calming and pedestrian safety measures in the area, including 20mph restrictions. A feasibility study was carried out with a number of options suggested. Feedback was sought from key stakeholders, the general public particularly residents and businesses in the scheme area about the proposals and any other issues that are affecting the area regarding making our streets suitable for all residents, pedestrians and road users.

592 responses were received by the Consultation Hub. Responses were also received by email, paper copies and from the drop in sessions.  These are reported on in a separate section in the consultation response document which is available as a downloadable document on this page.

To what extent do you support the introduction of a 20mph speed limit within the area?

77% of respondents said they supported the introduction of a 20mph speed limit within the area in some form.

The scheme proposes traffic calming measures on Alexander Drive and Mount Bradda. To what extent do you support the use of traffic calming in these areas?

• 33% supported the idea of traffic calming on Alexander Drive and Mount Bradda
• 15% said they supported the idea but would suggest other areas in addition
• 10% said no but would like to suggest alternative areas
• 41% did not support traffic calming in these areas

To what extent do you support the addition of new road crossings, including zebra-like side road crossings, in the area?

• 57% were supportive
• 30% said no
• 11% unsure to the addition of new road crossings including zebra-like side road crossings in the area

Please indicate below the extent to which you support the improvements to popular walking and cycling routes in the area:

• Improvements to the existing walking route from Ballakermeen Drive to Ballakermeen High School:
  • 55% yes
  • 24% no
  • 17% not sure
• Walking route improvements on entry to Ballakermeen High School:
  • 58% yes
  • 19% no
  • 19% not sure
• Footway improvements on Hawarden Avenue:
  • 58% yes
  • 20% no
  • 18% not sure
• Traffic-free zone linking into residential and school area from Peel Road:
  • 29% yes
  • 50% no
  • 18% not sure

Please indicate below the extent to which you support the one-way road and no entry treatments:

• No entry treatments on residential streets (two-way traffic on street itself):
  • 27% yes
  • 49% no
  • 17% not sure
• One-way restriction on the access road next to Woodbourne Square:
  • 33% yes
  • 43% no
  • 13% not sure

The Department would like to thank the public, particularly the residents in the scheme area, for their engagement and welcomes all the free form comments giving their reasons for supporting or not supporting any of the suggested options.

The Department has considered the responses to the engagement carefully and has published a consultation response which is available as a downloadable document on this page. This consultation report summarises the responses received and sets out the next steps the Department intends to take following the engagement.

We will use the feedback given by all stakeholders to help us develop a Living Streets Scheme for the area. It is hoped that the detail design stage will start this year, but this will be dependent on funding.

The Department for Enterprise asked for views on specific proposals to temporarily remove the requirement for Work Permits across all roles, occupations and economic sectors given the ongoing skills shortages and low levels of unemployment.  Feedback was also sought on a replacement registration process, the level of fee to be charged for such registration and maintaining the current position on persons with certain criminal convictions being required to still follow the full Work Permit process.

253 responses were received (250 via the consultation Hub and 3 separate written responses).  The majority of respondents supported the proposals as set out in the consultation.

• 170 respondents (67%) expressed their views that there were no specific sectors or occupations where the requirement for a work permit needs to be retained
• 205 respondents (81%) supported the principle of requiring an employer to register non-Isle of Man Workers in replacement of a work permit application
• 233 respondents (92%) supported the principle of maintaining the existing provisions in respect of persons with certain criminal convictions
• 163 respondents (64%) supported the retention of a fee, to be paid at the time of registering a non-Isle of Man worker
• 151 respondents (60%) supported, on balance, the overall proposed approach.  Of those respondents who did not support the proposed approach, a further 26 (10%) expressed views that the proposals did not go far enough and the whole process should be removed / revoked.

Therefore, overall, there was a significant majority of respondents in support of further reform to the Work Permit system, with the specific proposals of the Department also receiving majority support.

The Department has considered the responses to the consultation carefully and has published a consultation response which is available as a downloadable document on this page.  This consultation report summarises the responses received and sets out the next steps the Department intends to take following the consultation which concluded with a significant majority of respondents expressing the view that further reforms to the work permit system were required, with the specific proposals set out by the Department also receiving majority support.

The required legislative amendments will now be prepared and the Department intends to bring these forward at the October 2023 sitting of Tynwald.

Subject to the will of Tynwald, the Department intends to implement the revised process as soon as practicable following approval and clear guidance will be made available for both employers and employees, with the changes widely publicised ahead of implementation, if ultimately approved.

We asked for your opinions on the principles of secondary schools uniforms in Isle of Man schools to inform a review of the current uniform policies that are in place.

School uniform is a key element in promoting the ethos of a school, providing a sense of belonging and identity and setting an appropriate tone for an education setting. It is acknowledged to deliver important benefits to students, schools, families and the wider community.

By creating a common identity amongst all pupils, regardless of background, a uniform can offer many benefits, some of which include:

• Improved concentration and orderliness in the school environment
• Acting as a social leveller
• Promoting equality and a sense of togetherness
• Helping to identify students outside of the school site
• Highlighting people on school sites who should not be there
• Promoting pride and belonging for students in their school and local community

Schools work hard to maintain high standards in compliance with their published uniform requirements, helping all stakeholders understand what is expected from students and as a result encouraging and supporting the benefits a uniform offers.

A public consultation was open for four weeks in January and February 2023. A total of 1,162 responses were received, with 1,044 identified as key stakeholders. Included in the respondents were teachers, students, parents and uniform providers.

50% of respondents stated that uniform ‘could be made more cost effective’.

50% of respondents stated that uniforms ensure students are not singled out because of what they are wearing.

In answering the question ‘what role does school uniform have in the ethos and culture of schools’:

• 62% of respondents stated it shows students as representatives of the school in the community
• 50% of respondents stated it fosters a sense of belonging
• 50% of respondents stated it allows a predictable selection of clothing for students who may find this stressful

When considering costs, 60% of respondents stated that the number of branded items in a school PE kit should be minimised. The full consultation results have been uploaded and can be viewed on the 'files' section below.

Following review of the consultation results, no change to the existing Department’s School Uniform Policy Guidance from July 2021 are considered necessary.

Individual schools set their own Uniform Policy, in line with the guidance issued by the Department.

The consultation results have been reviewed and considered by all Secondary School Headteachers. Please find in the 'files' section below a summary of planned changes to the school uniform, to be implemented in the academic year commencing in September 2024 (subject to approval by the schools’ Governing Body).

Opinions on school uniform and the appropriateness of the questions to be asked as part of the consultation were sought from school leaders and student focus groups. The points below came out as part of this research and may be of benefit to interested parties:

• Schools would like parents/carers to know that they are happy to be approached if concerns arise about the acquisition of uniform. In the past, schools have been able to donate new and/or pre-worn uniform/footwear to families in their communities who are unable to acquire items for whatever reason
   
• Families can apply to the Department for uniform assistance from the available educational endowment provided by a benefactor – more information and an application form is available from the DESC's homepage under downloadable documents
   
• Schools referenced parents/carers raising concerns about the cost involved in replacing items of lost uniform. Schools seldom experience items going missing permanently, but each school is left with a considerable volume of unnamed lost property each academic year. When lost items are clearly labelled with the student’s name, they are often quickly returned to the owner
   
• Lost items that cannot be returned to their owner are kept for an appropriate length of time by schools and may be donated to other families if not claimed
   
• PE departments have a stock of items that they lend, or sometimes donate, to students who may not have access to the required items for lessons