We asked, you said, we did

We asked for views on proposals to require passengers travelling with the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company to carry identification, and to introduce proportionate ID verification during the check-in process. The consultation sought views on whether the proposals were justified, what forms of ID should be accepted, whether exemptions or special arrangements were needed, what practical challenges might arise, and how implementation could be handled in a proportionate and workable way.

The proposed measures received broad support. More than three-quarters of respondents considered that the proposals could help reduce organised crime by strengthening security and reducing opportunities for anonymous travel. However, respondents also emphasised that any arrangements must be practical, fair and proportionate. Particular consideration should be given to children, vulnerable people, those travelling for medical or emergency reasons, and individuals who may face difficulties accessing or presenting standard photographic ID. An analysis of the responses to the consultation is available for download on this webpage.

The Department will use the consultation responses to inform further work with the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company on the practical next steps for implementation. This will include considering an appropriate timeline, clear public communication, guidance on how checks will operate, the forms of ID that should be accepted, and whether exemptions or alternative arrangements are needed for particular groups or circumstances.

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.

We asked for your views about how you experience pharmaceutical care across the Isle of Man as patients, carers, and the public including community pharmacies, the pharmacy at Noble’s Hospital (Manx Care) and medical centres etc.

In addition to understanding current experiences, we wanted to identify your needs and expectations for pharmacy services in the future, ensuring that provision is accessible, effective, and aligned with the health needs of our population.

The consultation closed on 13 March, with 425 online responses, and 5 paper copies with most people identifying the area they live. This shows us that responses were from across a wide spread of geographical areas on the island, and with a couple of exceptions, largely reflecting population spread.

The findings demonstrate that community pharmacy services are highly valued and generally well regarded, particularly for prescription dispensing, accessibility, staff knowledge and customer service. However, respondents identified opportunities to improve medicine availability, service accessibility, opening hours, prescribing capabilities and integration with wider health services.

The Department will now engage directly with pharmacy providers and staff who are involved in the delivery of pharmaceutical care across the health and social care system to consider these points along with their own experiences. Views from both surveys will be collated and combined to draft the pharmacy needs assessment. The pharmacy needs assessment will be presented for public consultation by the new year, with a final document published in late spring. 

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.

The Central Registry sought views on changes to laws on registration of companies, limited partnerships and other legal entities in order bring the Island into line with the requirements of the Financial Action Task Force’s international standards.

The Registry ran a 7 week consultation on the proposals, from 27 November 2025 to 16 January 2026.

There were a total of 16 responses.

Overall there was broad support for the changes, though there were concerns in relation to the detail of some of the proposals. The main themes of the feedback included:

• The possibility of overreach in relation to the Registrar’s powers and potential regulatory overlap with the FSA
   
• Proposals regarding the timescales for provision of some of the information from companies and other legal entities
   
• Proposals relating to personal information (e.g. dates of birth); how the information is held, what extent it is public or private, and who has access to it
   
• Disclosure of nominee shareholder arrangements
   
• Requirements to declare principal business activities and locations

The Registry is grateful to all those who responded to the consultation. The Registry will take on board the feedback from this consultation in preparing the Verification of Entity Registration Bill for introduction to the Legislative Branches in April 2026 and implementation of the resultant Act in the coming months. 

This will include engagement with industry and others as the Registry seeks to bring in these changes.

The Department will also bring forward to Tynwald in May an Order which amends the definition of 'registrable beneficial owner' to ensure that the Island’s definition aligns with the FATF standard.

The Cabinet Office asked for the public’s views on the development of updated regulations for both local and national elections.

132 people responded, 120 of whom responded as individuals while 12 responded on behalf of an organisation or as part of a professional group.

The responses to our proposals for the amendment regulations were broadly supportive.

• A large majority of people (94%) were in favour of candidates’ declarations of relevant interest being published online – 84% of people said they thought it was acceptable to publish these declarations as soon as practicable after the close of nominations
   
• A large majority of people (82%) were in favour of the Cabinet Office arranging one pre-election meeting per constituency. People gave a variety of suggestions about what should be considered in arranging these meetings, including accessibility and making recordings available
   
• A large majority of people (86%) said that allowing deputy returning officers to pre-verify postal ballots was a sensible way of making the vote count quicker on election day – 80% of people said that 48 hours’ notice to candidates in advance of pre-verification would be sufficient

We are grateful to everyone who took the time to respond to this consultation. All responses were considered in full, and an anonymised summary of responses has been provided in the Consultation Response document now available online.

The responses to this consultation are being used to help inform the final drafting of the Elections (Keys and Local Authorities) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. Once finalised, it is hoped that these regulations will be put before Tynwald for approval in April or May 2026.  

The Department of Home Affairs invited feedback on the draft National Infrastructure Security Bill.

The public consultation opened on the 1 December 2025 and closed on the 9 January 2026. The Department received 13 responses to the consultation,8 of which were received via the consultation hub. The 13 responses comprised:

• 5 Members of the public
• 4 Private Companies
• 1 Government Departments, Offices or Boards
• 3 Local Authorities

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

Amongst the feedback, there was agreement on the definition of the National and Critical National Infrastructure and the need for a competent and technical authority. Furthermore, it is apparent that further detail on how the legislation would work in practice, some amendments to the definitions of the national and critical infrastructure, together with engagement with stakeholders when drafting regulations was requested.

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 amending some of the definitions of the national and critical infrastructure and continuing to work with stakeholders to ensure that any legislation introduced is proportionate.

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 continue to be involved in the detailed proposals. 

The Treasury sought views on the way to implement in the most appropriate and proportionate manner some of the technical recommendations made by the Tynwald Auditor General ('TAG') in his report 'Public Audit Isle of Man'.

The areas of interest were:

• The expansion of the TAG’s remit over private entities receiving significant public funding
   
• The expansion of the TAG’s access to information and documents
   
• The principle of giving the TAG powers to issue guidance to ensure regulatory compliance both in terms of preparation and inspection of accounts
   
• The transfer of post-audit enforcement powers to the TAG

22 responses were received.

Overall, most respondents were supportive of expanding the TAG’s remit over private entities receiving significant public funding and widening his access to information but warned about putting safeguards in place to ensure proportionality and clarity of scope in the use of new powers. The possible adverse impacts identified were:

• Deterioration of commercial relationships with contractors and suppliers due to perception of extended inspection exposure, leading to fewer choice and increased prices
   
• Access to sensitive information in instances where it may not strictly be warranted to assess whether public resources are used economically, effectively and efficiently
   
• Increase in administrative costs for the entities within the TAG’s remit to ensure compliance (in addition to the necessary increase of the TAG’s administrative costs to support this expansion)
   
• Double regulation for charities

A few respondents felt quite strongly against the recommendations, stating that the TAG should focus on the public sector above all else.

The vast majority of respondents also supported the principle of giving the TAG the power to issue guidance in to ensure regulatory compliance.

The Treasury would like to thank everyone who has taken the time to contribute to this consultation, online and offline.

A Consultation Response document has been prepared which provides a summary of responses.

Treasury Minister will be making a statement before Tynwald in March 2026 setting out the next steps the Treasury intends to take following this engagement.

The Treasury asked for the public’s views on the proposed amendments to the Legal Aid Act 1986. The consultation took place between 10 November to 22 December 2025.

A number of key stakeholders were contacted directly and invited to take part in giving their views. These included:

• Political Members
• All advocates currently registered to provide Legal Aid in the Isle of Man
• The Isle of Man Law Society
• The Police Chief Constable
• The Attorney General
• The Solicitor General
• The Deemsters & High Bailiffs
• Senior Officers of the Department of Home Affairs including the Prison Governor
• Senior Officers of the General Registry
• The Appointments Commission
• The Legal Aid Appeals Tribunal

The Treasury also sent paper copies of the consultation to the Isle of Man Prison in order to enable inmates to take part in the consultation.

A total of 17 responses to the consultation were received by the Consultation Hub and a further 7 responses were received in written form.

The responses expressed a range of concerns around the proposed changes to the Legal Aid Act and the impact in particular that they will have on services that are not currently operated by the Treasury.

Concerns included:

• That the proposed changes for the issuing of criminal legal aid certificates, moving it to the responsibility of the Legal Aid Certifying Officer, would cause significant delays to the criminal courts processes
   
• Some views thought that the proposed Legal Aid may be excessive cost and unnecessary bureaucracy over legal aid advocates
   
• The proposals in the draft Act to enable fixed fee legal aid work raised concerns, indicating that there would be considerable objection to this from advocates that currently provide legal aid

The Department has analysed the responses in detail and the Treasury thanks all those 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.

Further work with all relevant stakeholders must take place to ensure that before those or any other amendments are made, their potential impact is properly understood and that any changes made to legal aid are operationally workable and in line with policy objectives. 

The Treasury Minister, Chris Thomas MHK, has determined that the proposed amendments be put on hold for at least the duration of the current Tynwald administration period and that the progression of the changes should no longer be the responsibility of Treasury and instead should be taken forward by another Government body that is better equipped to do so.
 

The Isle of Man Financial Services Authority (‘the Authority’) ran a public consultation from 6 November to 18 December 2025. The consultation sought views on proposed changes to fees payable to the Authority from 1 April 2026 and the consolidation of the 2023 Fees Orders and Regulations into one Isle of Man Financial Services Authority (Fees) Order 2026.

A Feedback Statement accessible via the link below highlights the comments received from a mix of Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions (‘DNFBPs’), regulated entities and industry bodies, together with the Authority’s responses.

The Authority is grateful to everyone who submitted their views. The Authority will continue to assess the matters highlighted by respondents, with a view introducing any future changes that would further enhance fairness, proportionality and transparency.

The key themes to emerge from the consultation responses included the following:

• Proposals to increase fees in line with inflation – Some concern was expressed about the use of the consumer price index (‘CPI’) as the basis for future inflation-linked adjustments
   
• Proposed changes to annual fees for Designated Businesses – This included comments in relation to fee reductions for other DNFBP categories, together with comments in relation to the measures used to calculate fees (e.g. use of full-time equivalent versus number of employees)
   
• Alignment of fees – Some queries over differences in fees applied to smaller regulated financial services firms compared with those for DNFBPs

Following consideration of consultation feedback, the Authority has made some refinements to the draft Order. Please see Appendix B to the Feedback Statement.

Following publication of the Feedback Statement, the consolidated Isle of Man Financial Services Authority (Fees) Order 2026 will be made before being laid before the next available sitting of Tynwald for implementation from 1 April.

The Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA) is reviewing and updating specific legislation to align with UK best practice. This consultation continues the process of updating IOM Health and Safety legislation and refers directly to the following draft legislation:

• Health and Safety (General Duties of Self-Employed Persons) (Prescribed Undertakings) Regulations 2026

Following this public consultation and incorporation of any necessary amendments, the Department aims to submit the proposed legislation to Tynwald in early 2026, with the intention of introducing this legislation as soon as possible after Tynwald has passed the legislation. DEFA welcomes stakeholder and public feedback on the updated and proposed health and safety legislation, and where appropriate any associated guidance documentation, through this public consultation process.

There were zero responses via the consultation Hub.

DEFA HSWI are grateful to everyone who took the time to consider this consultation, however there were zero responses to the consultation.

The consultation was clear in explaining that adopting the new Regulations would be a positive approach which would provide clarity by now defining 'prescribed undertakings', a requirement that has been outstanding, thereby ensuring that health and safety duties apply only where risks to others exist. 

The introduction of the legislation reduces unnecessary burdens on low-risk self-employed persons, aligns the IOM with UK standards, and supports a proportionate, risk-based approach. It also strengthens public safety by clearly identifying high-risk activities such as construction and asbestos work, enabling consistent enforcement and better regulatory certainty for businesses. DEFA have therefore decided to approve the legislation for submission to the CoMin.

The Isle of Man (IOM) holds jurisdiction over its territorial waters but currently lacks a comprehensive offshore health, safety, and environmental framework. To address this, the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA) is reviewing and updating legislation to align with UK offshore Health and Safety Executive (HSE) legislation and standards, ensuring internationally recognised safety regulations for future offshore energy developments are in place.

DEFA welcomed stakeholder and public feedback on updated and proposed health and safety legislation through a series of public consultations to support future offshore renewable energy operations and provide clarity on the health and safety standards for onshore work.

The Diving at Work Regulations 2025 consultation ran from 29 September to 24 November 2025, seeking views on introducing formal diving safety regulations aligned with UK standards, attracting 4 responses from IOM Government departments and the Irish Sea Diving and Marine Services.

Whilst there were only 4 responses received, this was not unduly surprising considering the limited number of affected organisations that the updated regulations will affect. Importantly key individuals involved in diving activities on the island responded.

All respondents agreed that the IOM should adopt UK standards, reflecting strong support for alignment with established best practices. While only one respondent indicated that parts of the legislation require greater clarity, several comments highlighted the importance of clearly identifying Approved Codes of Practice (ACOPs) and associated guidance.

Three respondents requested specific support mechanisms, including training, gap analysis, and access to HSE diving medical provision. Additional feedback emphasized the need to consider exemptions for IOM Government diving teams and to ensure volunteer scientific diving projects are not inadvertently affected by the new regulations.

DEFA HSWI are grateful to everyone who took the time to respond to this consultation. 

The public consultation for the Diving at Work Regulations 2026 indicated industry would require a 3-year delay to their introduction to enable industry to prepare post any approval. Therefore, DEFA have approved submission to the CoMin, but following approval, the enactment date for the Diving at Work Regulations 2026 would be planned to be Jul 2029.

The purpose of the consultation by the Isle of Man Civil Aviation Administration (IOM CAA), was to seek views on new proposed Aircraft Mortgage Legislation.

There was 1 response to the consultation which was a statement of concurrence.

The Isle of Man Civil Aviation Administration will now take steps to progress the proposed new legislation.

The Isle of Man (IOM) holds jurisdiction over its territorial waters but currently lacks a comprehensive offshore health, safety, and environmental framework. To address this, the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA) is reviewing and updating legislation to align with UK offshore Health and Safety Executive (HSE) legislation and standards, ensuring internationally recognised safety regulations for future offshore energy developments are in place.

DEFA welcomed stakeholder and public feedback on updated and proposed health and safety legislation through a series of public consultations to support future offshore renewable energy operations and provide clarity on the health and safety standards for onshore work.

The Health and Safety at Work Orders consultation ran from 5 September to 31 October 2025, seeking views on amendments to health and safety legislation, including offshore application and alignment with UK standards.

Seven responses were received, with respondents generally supportive of the proposed Health and Safety at Work (Amendment) Order 2025 and the application of the 1974 Act to the Isle of Man’s territorial sea, viewing these changes as positive steps toward strengthening health and safety standards.

There is broad agreement that aligning with UK standards will enhance consistency and worker protection, though several stakeholders emphasized the need for flexibility to accommodate local circumstances. A recurring theme is the importance of clear, accessible guidance and sufficient time for businesses to adapt, including training, development of Safety Management Systems, and budget planning.

DEFA HSWI are grateful to everyone who took the time to respond to this consultation. 

DEFA have approved the submission of the Health and Safety at Work (Amendment) Order 2026 and the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (Application to the Territorial Sea) Order 2026; for submission to CoMin for immediate enactment.

The Treasury sought views on four discrete proposals related to the payment of rates, as follows:

1. A proposal allowing the removal of rates exemptions for dangerous or ruinous buildings to discourage long-term empty/problem properties by amending section 75A of the Rating and Valuation Act 1953
    
2. A proposal removing the requirement that rebate schemes be funded by the Treasury in all cases to facilitate greater local flexibility by amending section 63A of the Rating and Valuation Act 1953
    
3. A proposal introducing a discount and potentially a cap on the rateable value of quarries by amending Schedule 4 to the Rating and Valuation Act 1953 and inserting a new section 13A in this Act
    
4. A proposal clarifying whether or not to charge rates on property owned by charitable organisations by amending section 74 of the Rating and Valuation Act 1953

341 responses were received.

The majority of respondents agreed that the proposed legislative amendments for proposals 1 (dangerous or ruinous buildings), 2 (rebate schemes) and 4 (charities) would achieve the associated policy objectives.

Policy proposal 3 (quarries) did not receive majority support.

Regarding proposal 4, most respondents supported option a, which exempts charities from paying rates on properties they hold.

The Treasury is grateful to all who responded to the consultation.

There was a high level of engagement from consultees to the consultation, with many providing additional comments to explain their support, concerns or suggestions to each of the proposed amendments.

A Consultation Response document has been prepared which provides a summary of responses and proposed next steps. Issues raised by respondents are presented in further detail in the Consultation Response document.

Treasury will further consider any issues raised as appropriate before proceeding to prepare draft legislation incorporating the amendments for proposals 1 (dangerous or ruinous buildings), 2 (rebate schemes) and 4 (charities) and producing guidance as required.

Policy proposal 3 relating to quarries received far from universal support and so the Treasury does not propose progressing this proposal at this time.

The Department of Home Affairs (DHA) conducted a five-week public consultation between 22 September and 27 October 2025 on two proposed Bills: the draft Justice Reform (Amendment) Bill 2025 (JRAB) and the draft Contempt of Court Bill 2025.

Both Bills are included within the legislative programme of the Island Plan (opens in a new tab) and are central to the Department’s 2025–2026 Department Plan (PDF opens in a new tab). Responses were invited via the online Consultation Hub survey or in writing.

The Department received a total of 32 responses:

• 23 via the online Consultation Hub survey
• 9 written responses

Of these:

• 21 were from individuals
• 11 were submitted on behalf of an organisation or business

Feedback on the JRAB reflected a range of views. Most respondents welcomed the proposed enhancements and modifications to the Justice Reform Act 2021. There was broad support for measures aimed at improving protections for individuals and enhancing responses to serious offences, particularly those of a sensitive nature.

Some respondents raised concerns about specific proposals, noting that certain changes could have unintended consequences. Others emphasised the need for robust safeguarding provisions and protections for victims. A number of responses also highlighted the importance of clarity in the application of new provisions and consistency with existing legislation.

Overall, the Consultation demonstrated support for the proposed changes, or constructive feedback that, where possible, has been taken on board in finalising the JRAB. All views submitted were carefully considere

The JRAB had its first reading in the House of Keys on the 16 December 2025, under its 'as introduced' title: the Justice and Home Affairs (Reform and Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2025 (PDF opens in a new tab). The Explanatory Notes to the [JHA (RMA)] Bill (PDF opens in a new tab) contain additional summarising of the provisions of the Bill and the impact of these.

The Department is grateful for all contributions received to the Consultation. While individual comments cannot be reproduced in full, this summary reflects the breadth of views shared and ensures anonymity of contributors.

Finally, it is noted that a separate Summary of Responses will be prepared in connection with the Contempt of Court Bill 2025 and published in the near future.

In August 2025 the Department of Health and Social Care published the consultation for the Regulation of Health and Social Care Bill. The aim with the new Bill was to extend the existing Regulation of Care Act and expand the regulatory function of the DHSC Registration and Inspection Team, to all health and social care service providers across the system. 

The purpose of this consultation was to invite feedback on the draft legal framework, its scope, and how it will work in practice. Your input will help shape the final version of the Bill before it is submitted to Tynwald.

The Regulation of Health and Social Care consultation ran between 22 August and 3 October 2025 and received 152 responses. The majority of responses were received online via the Consultation Hub with several also being received via email to the dedicated inbox.

Consultation responses show broad support for the Regulation of Health and Social Care Bill to improve safety, accountability, and service quality. 

However, the consultation has surfaced several important issues and considerations that were not initially anticipated. Feedback indicates that certain aspects of the proposed Bill require further review. Respondents expressed concerns regarding its scope, potential financial implications, and overall viability and practicality.

Respondents called for proportionate, risk-based regulation that avoids duplication, supports small and volunteer-led providers, and reflects the diversity of services. Key recommendations included scaled fees, flexible inspections, clear rating systems, and sector-specific guidance.

The consultation also highlighted some misunderstandings regarding the fee structure, with some respondents interpreting it as though the Department were proposing specific fees. To clarify, the development of fee structures is a separate piece of work, which will be subject to its own consultation process involving the public and stakeholders.

To address the concerns highlighted in the feedback the Department has published updates on its website and is continuing to develop further guidance to ensure stakeholders and the public are fully informed.

The Department have made the decision not to progress the Bill during this administration. The Department intend to introduce the Bill into the branches in February 2027.

The Department are analysing the feedback to inform the policies that underpin the Regulation of Health and Social Care Bill.

Next steps

The Department’s priority is to strengthen regulatory standards, enhance accountability, and ensure safe, high-quality care that meets public expectations while remaining fair and proportionate for providers.

We consulted on the Financial Services (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which proposed a package of amendments to modernise and strengthen the Isle of Man’s financial services legislation. The Bill covered a wide range of matters, including enforcement and civil penalties, warning notices, appeal rights, inspection and investigation powers, guidance provisions, fees, public statements, and broader alignment and consistency across regulatory Acts.

Respondents broadly supported the aim of modernising the regulatory framework and aligning with international standards. However, many raised concerns about scope, proportionality, clarity and safeguards across a number of proposals. In particular, respondents asked for clearer limits and stronger protections where new or enhanced powers were proposed, greater transparency in primary legislation, and assurance that changes would be fair, targeted and workable in practice. Practical impacts on businesses, individuals, and the Island’s competitiveness were also highlighted.

We carefully considered all consultation feedback and revised the Bill accordingly. As a result:

• Several proposals were refined, narrowed or withdrawn where concerns about breadth, proportionality or clarity were identified
   
• Key powers, including civil penalty provisions, have been restructured to include clearer scope and safeguards in primary legislation
   
• Appeal rights and procedural protections have been retained or strengthened where appropriate
   
• Drafting changes have been made to improve clarity, consistency and alignment across Acts; and
   
• Matters requiring further policy development have been deferred for future consideration, with commitments to further consultation where secondary legislation or guidance is required

The revised Bill reflects stakeholder feedback while ensuring the Isle of Man’s regulatory framework remains robust, proportionate and internationally aligned.

The purpose of the Feedback Statement is that it sets out the response of the Isle of Man Financial Services Authority (‘the Authority’) to consultation feedback on the Retirement Benefits Schemes (Amendment) Bill.

The consultation focused on proposed amendments to the Retirement Benefits Schemes Act 2000 (‘RBSA00’) and related changes to the Financial Services Act 2008 (‘FSA08’) and Insurance Act 2008 (‘IA08’).

The proposals aim to modernise the pensions regulatory framework, strengthen consumer protection, and align with international standards.

The consultation ran from 4 July to 1 September 2025, following an extension from the original closing date. It generated 11 responses from pension service providers, insurers, law firms, and industry associations.

Respondents provided detailed feedback on the proposed legislative changes. The Authority thanks all contributors and remains committed to ensuring the revised framework is proportionate, effective, and workable in practice. Future secondary legislation and guidance will be subject to public consultation.

The key themes from responses were the following:

• Support for Modernisation and Risk-Based Regulation – Broad agreement on the need to update the framework and introduce licensing for pension providers
   
• Requests for Detail and Clarity – Stakeholders sought more information on exemptions, transitional arrangements, and practical application of new requirements
   
• Proportionality and Competitiveness – Concerns about compliance burdens particularly for smaller schemes and international arrangements
   
• Defined Benefit Funding – Recognition of the importance of a statutory funding regime, coupled with calls for flexibility and proportionality

Following review of consultation feedback, the Authority has made some refinements to the Bill and provided some clarifications, including:

• Licensing Framework – Confirmed phased implementation and enabling powers for exemptions
   
• Definition of Administrator – Amended to allow for potential exemptions to be specified, e.g. in respect of outsourced service providers, where appropriate
   
• Guidance Status – Revised to remove the last subsection and ensure continued judicial discretion to take guidance into account, rather than mandatory consideration
   
• DB Funding Regime – Timeframes moved to regulations to allow some flexibility; winding-up deadlines aligned with UK standards. Exemption and modification regulation powers will allow for flexibility and proportionality in application
   
• Regulatory Safeguards – Added explicit protection for legal professional privilege and appeal rights for warning notices and directions etc.
   
• Civil Penalties – Clause 51 has been removed from the Bill, with the intention of updating the civil penalty provisions in the RBSA00 through the Financial Services (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill once that Bill is finalised. This will allow issues to be addressed, including narrowing the scope of persons that may be subject to civil penalties, where appropriate

The revised Bill seeks to enhance the Authority’s ability to regulate pension service providers and pension schemes effectively while maintaining proportionality and competitiveness. It seeks to modernise the existing regulatory framework, allowing for a more risk-based approach that supports member protection and maintains alignment with international standards.

The Authority will progress the Revised Bill through Tynwald. Detailed provisions, including licensing exemptions, DB funding regulations, and governance requirements, will be developed in secondary legislation and guidance, subject to consultation and parliamentary approval.