We Asked, You Said, We Did

Below are some of the issues we have recently consulted on and their outcomes.

We asked

You what you think about the concessionary fares system, and in particular, whether:

  • There are any other groups of people who you feel should be eligible for a disability (Go Gold, Go Gold Plus) travel concession;
  • Should someone be eligible for a disability travel concession after reaching the age of eligibility for a senior (Go Silver) travel concession, and;
  • Whether there are any other groups of students who you feel should be eligible for a Go College Travel concession?

You said

The consultation generated a significant level of interest, and received a total of 863 responses. Of those, 10.9% were received from people with a disability, 9.7% were from a friend or family member with a disability, 47% were from seniors, and 23.4% were from students or a parent with a child at school or UCM.

The majority of respondents (64%) felt that eligibility for a Go Gold travel concession should be available after reaching the age of eligibility for a senior travel concession, with 74% of the view that the Go Gold travel concession should be available if the disability arises after state pension age.   

A number of additional groups of people were suggested who should be eligible for a disability travel concession, including invisible disabilities; autism; anxiety; mental health issues and people suffering from epilepsy/seizures.

Suggestions for other groups of students who should be eligible for a Go College Travel concession included all full-time students at UCM, low income students of any age, part-time students at UCM, apprentices and anyone on JSA seeking to improve their skills. 

The “further comments” section of the consultation generated a wide ranging response, including free bus travel for all, means testing; charging a nominal amount for a concessionary fare, and reference to the importance of bus travel in reducing climate impact.

We did

The consultation responses received will require detailed analysis and discussions with the appropriate Departments of Government, including the Department of Health & Social Care, the Department of Education and the Treasury regarding the practical and financial implications. This process will take place over the summer period, and will be available for further consideration by the next political administration following the September 2021 national elections.

In the meantime, the Department will change its concessionary fares policy from August 2021 to allow Go Gold card disability concessions to continue past retirement. Applications will be welcomed from former Go Gold travel card holders, whose expired cards were replaced with a Go Silver travel concession card. New Go Gold cards will be issued to these applicants subject to meeting the disability concessionary travel criteria. 

We asked

We asked

The purpose of the consultation was to seek views about the draft Liquor Licensing and Public Entertainments Bill 2021.

The present alcohol licensing regime on the Island was recognised to be outdated, overly bureaucratic and inflexible.  The structure of a new piece of licensing legislation was finalised into a draft Bill, following an earlier consultation on the policy behind future legislation, and the opportunity to comment on the draft Bill was provided within the consultation document. 

Additional information about the regime that was likely to be put in places along with possible types of licence and other useful information was provided within the “talking points” section of the consultation document.  The general timelines for the possible enactment of the draft Bill, if it should be successfully progressed, were also included within the consultation document.

 

You said

You said

The Department received 321 responses, of which –

12 were on behalf of an organisation; and,

309 were from individuals.

We did

The Department was grateful to the many individuals and organisations who responded to the consultation either by submitting a formal response which was counted in the number of responses above, or by more informal engagement with officers of the Department.

All responses received during the consultation period have been carefully considered, and were valuable in both ensuring general satisfaction with the draft Bill as it was publicly consulted upon, and in identifying some modifications that were needed or might improve that Bill when it was finalised for introduction into the House of Keys.

The Department did received informal views from a number of key stakeholders and interested parties during the consultation period and these parties who either met with officers, or expressed an informal view in writing, were invited to make formal representation in response to the consultation if they wished to do so.  Any views shared informally have not formed part of the summary of consultation responses, but all responses were welcomed and have been carefully considered by the Department in finalising the Bill, and, in many cases, provided additional useful insight or suggested improvement to that Bill.

In the interests of comprehensively summarising the views which were formally provided, along with the main points which have been incorporated into the finalised Bill, a summary of responses document has been generated and made available via a link in the Files section below.

The Liquor Licensing and Public Entertainment Bill 2021 has now been finalised and was introduced into the House of Keys on Tuesday 11 May 2021 for first reading, and can be found on the Tynwald Website

We asked

We asked for views on a Bill to -

  • enable the application of UK animal welfare legislation to the Island;
     
  • the making of secondary legislation to support the implementation of the applied UK legislation; and
     
  • to provide for greater protections for mountain hares.

You said

We received 1,109 responses to the consultation, which were supportive of the Bill's purpose of applying UK animal welfare legislation.

However, the responses also indicated significant support for greater legal protections to be given to mountain hares than were provided for in the Bill.

A consultation summary, with respect to all responses submitted and actions taken by the Department as a consequence, has been published on the consultation page.

We did

In light of the feedback from the consultation a revised Animal Welfare Bill was submitted for first and second reading in the House of Keys on Tuesday 27 April 2021.

The Department will also give further consideration to the policy issues identified by this consultation that did not form part of this Bill.

We asked

We asked for views on how the Resolution Authority’s administrative expenses should be calculated and how this amount should thereafter be recovered by means of a levy allocated to banks.

You said

We received 8 separate responses to the Consultation Paper. Of these, none were against the proposed method of calculating the resolution administration expenses.

The Authority proposed that these expenses, for the year 2021-22, should be recovered through levies on an ‘equal share’ basis amongst the banks, early in the year 2022-23. Half of the respondents either had no comment or specifically agreed with this proposal. The remaining respondents had divergent views as to how the levy should be allocated. This included 3 banks, each with different business models, who believed their particular business model should pay a smaller share than banks operating different business models.
 

We did

The Authority believes that resolution administration expenses will be incurred in relation to all banks, certainly for an initial period. It is intended therefore to proceed with recovery of these expenses by means of a levy calculated on an ‘equal share’ basis for the year 2021-22.    

However, if over time it becomes clear that there is a significant divergence between the degrees of ongoing administrative work required for the different types of bank operating on the Island, the Authority would be pleased to discuss this with the banking industry and to consider adapting the levy allocation methodology accordingly.

We asked

For views on the proposed amendments to the Insurance (Long-Term Business Valuation and Solvency) Regulations 2018.

You said

Respondents found our proposed approach acceptable.

We did

We finalised the Insurance (Long-Term Business Valuation and Solvency) Regulations 2021 for implementation around 31 December 2021.

We asked

We asked for your views on Regulations that the Department of Infrastructure will be making which create an obligation to carry disabled passengers on designated wheelchairaccessible taxis and their assistance dogs on all taxis, subject to exemptions.

You said

A total of 59 responses to the consultation were received, including 18 from taxi drivers and taxi operators.

The responses received suggested that wheelchair and assistance dogs users would be generally supportive of the introduction of Regulations. The consultation also identified a very clear need to consult further with the taxi industry, in particular regarding obligations to carry assistance dogs and training requirements.

We did

All responses received during the consultation have been considered, and the Department will be engaging with the taxi trade further before drafting the Regulations, in order to ensure that the issues raised in the consultation are fully explored and considered.

We asked

The purpose of the recent consultation was to seek views on the ‘Food Hygiene Ratings Regulations 2021’. These Regulations, if approved by Tynwald, will enable the introduction of a food hygiene rating scheme in the Isle of Man. Such a scheme would use existing statutory criteria and inspections to allocate a rating from 0 – 5 which food businesses would need to display at their premises. Similar schemes have been in effect around the UK for many years and have proven effective in increasing customer confidence and driving up industry food hygiene standards. 

Prior to drafting these Regulations the Department ran two consultation on the principals of introducing a food hygiene rating scheme in the Island; one for those in the food industry and one for the general public. 244 members of the public and 82 individuals working within the food industry completed those consultations.  

Summary reports for all three consultations are available here:

You said

In general, respondents to the pre-drafting consultations supported the introduction of a food hygiene rating scheme:

  • 72% of the public stated that the hygiene rating of a business would definitely affect their decision on whether or not to purchase food from a business, this supports the Department’s view that a rating system will improve consumers’ ability to make informed choices and
  • 84% of the public and 67% of businesses thought that display of rating should be mandatory, which is reflected in the Regulations.

47 responses were received in response to the consultation on the regulations; 24 from food business operators and 23 from members of the public.  

When asked ‘Do you have any issues with…’ or ‘Do you agree with…’ in relation to the regulations:

  • Food business operators:
    • 60% of responses indicated that they had no issues/agreed with the provisions.
    • 22% disagreed or foresaw issues.
    • 18% did not know/did not answer.
  • Members of the public[1]:
    • 94% of responses indicated that they had no issues/agreed with the provisions.
    • 5% disagreed or foresaw issues.
    • 1% did not know/did not answer.
  • Over-all
    • 75% of all responses indicated that they had no issues/ agreed with the provisions.
    • 14.5% foresaw issues.
    • 10.5% did not know/did not answer.

[1] Note: Some questions only applied to food business operators.

We did

The issues raised by the consultation and that Department’s responses are set out below in the ‘Detailed breakdown of comments’ section.

Notably, changes were made to the provisions relating to the register of information. The relevant regulation was redrafted to address respondents’ concerns and is now entitled ‘9. Publication of rating by the Department’. 

Some concerns will be addressed by the Department outside of the Regulations, such as requests for guidance and the need for rating stickers which do not damage surfaces. 

The Regulations are to be laid before Tynwald at the May 2021 sitting. If they are approved, further information will be provided regarding the rollout of the scheme, intended to commence mid to late 2022, to assist businesses to prepare.

The Department is mindful that all businesses cannot be inspected and rated immediately. This will likely necessitate a phased rollout which the Department is committed to managing carefully and ensuring that ratings are published in a way which does not unfairly disadvantage any business.

Detailed breakdown of comments

  1. COST

No changes made – not considered appropriate / necessary / concerns can be addressed outside of regulations

9 responses indicated concern about increased costs for businesses.

7 of those responses were concerned about increased costs in general. Ratings will be based on achieving compliance with existing hygiene standards, using the same criteria assessed during the same routine inspections. It is therefore not clear what extra costs in general are expected to be incurred by businesses.

1 of those responses mentioned the cost of removing the sticker from premises. This was considered by the Department and stickers which do not damage surfaces will be sourced.

1 of those responses was concerned about the increase in costs relating to obtaining printed materials, currently purchased in bulk from the UK for use by multiple sites. The Regulations permit printed materials to be used for multiple sites as long as the rating for each site is clearly indicated and provide 3 months from receipt of a new rating for businesses to use up old stock of promotional materials.

1 response suggested 100% grants be provided by the Department for Enterprise to cover required works. This would not be appropriate as businesses are only required to attain legal compliance with existing legislation in order to achieve the top rating (5). It is the food business operators’ responsibility to ensure their business meets statutory hygiene requirements. A range of business development grants and schemes are currently available from DfE.

  1. PASS/FAIL

No changes made – not considered appropriate

10 responses from a single respondent requested a ‘pass/fail’ system rather than a 0 – 5 rating. This was considered by the Department but was not felt to be appropriate as it would be very difficult to determine, due to the range of criteria being assessed, at which point a business should pass or fail.

The 0 – 5 rating provides more clarity for customers about the levels of hygiene at which a business is operating. A rating of 4, for example, indicates that reasonably small changes are required to attain the top rating of 5, while a business rated 2 would need to make more significant changes.

A breakdown of the rating using the main criteria will be available on the website. This will enable consumers to determine why a business was given a particular rating and make an informed choice accordingly – for example, a business may have acceptable levels of on-site cleanliness but poor record keeping and hygiene training programme or vice-versa.  

  1. NOTICE OF INSPECTIONS

No changes made – not considered appropriate

4 responses indicated a preference for pre-booked/pre-notified inspections. While unexpected inspections may be inconvenient it is essential that businesses are not pre-notified to ensure that inspections accurately reflect the hygiene standards routinely upheld by the business.  

  1. GUIDANCE

No changes made – not considered necessary / concerns can be addressed outside regulations

7 responses requested that the Department provide guidance, advice or information:

  • Currently food businesses that register with the Department under the requirements of the Food Hygiene Regulations 2007 are provided with guidance relating to the requirements of the legislation and best practice with regards to operating a food business. The criteria assessed to produce the rating are the same as those assessed under the Food Hygiene Regulations 2007.
  • Regulation 18 creates a duty for the Department to provide new food businesses with information relating to the requirements of the regulations.
  • The Department intends to –
      • provide specific guidance in relation to the rating criteria for the scheme and information about re-rating, appeals and the right to reply.
      • meet with food business operators, industry bodies and other Government Departments in order to ensure that businesses have the necessary guidance and support, ahead of the scheme rollout.
      • provide support and guidance to businesses with specific concerns on request.
  1. DISPLAY OF RATINGS ON FOOD STANDARDS AGENCY (FSA) WEBSITE

No changes made – not considered necessary

11 responses indicated that they do not support Isle of Man ratings being displayed on the UK FSA’s website. The majority of responses felt this was not appropriate as the Isle of Man is not part of the UK.

The Department’s website showing the ratings will be accessible worldwide; however, a large proportion of the Island’s tourism comes from the UK where food hygiene rating schemes have been in place for many years and consumers are accustomed to using the FSA website. The Department believes that making access to ratings as easy as possible will maximise the benefit of the scheme to businesses and consumers.

Discussions regarding whether or not information will be displayed on the FSA website are ongoing and no decision has been made with regards to this issue.  The Department has also met with other jurisdictions who operate schemes outside the FSA, via their own websites and this may still be an option for the Isle of Man scheme.

  1. EXEMPTIONS

No changes made – not considered appropriate / necessary

6 responses requested that businesses such as pubs, home caterers, food manufacturers and cinemas should be subject to rating. These types of food business are subject to rating under the regulations – with the exception of cinemas that only sell shelf stable, prewrapped foods but cinemas selling any foods prepared on the premises would be subject to rating.

1 response indicated that school canteens should be excluded. The Department believes that school canteens should be rated to ensure that students and parents can make informed choices.

  1. PUBLICATION OF RATING AND ASSOCIATED INFORMATION

Changes made

At the time of consultation the regulations included provision for a register. Based on the responses from the consultation and advice from the Attorney General’s Chambers this provision was re-drafted and is now entitled ‘Publication of rating by the Department’.

2 responses indicated concern about the scope of information the Department could collect, in particular the regulations initially included “Other such information as the Department considers appropriate”. This wording has been removed from the final regulations.

1 response indicated concern around the business address for those operating from private dwellings being available to the public. The regulations were amended to permit such businesses to either agree a partial address for publication or for their address not to be published.

3 responses indicated concern about a provision which allowed the public to request sight of the full inspection report. 1 response said that the report should be available in all cases. This provision was removed; however, the report would be accessible to the public via a Freedom of Information request.

  1. RE-RATING CHARGES

No changes made – not considered appropriate

5 responses did not agree that the Department should charge a fee for re-ratings. 3 of those responses suggested that at least 1 re-visit should be provided free of charge.

Businesses are made aware of the required standards upon registration with the Department and can therefore avoid the need for a re-rating by maintaining compliance those standards – as is required by law. Re-ratings will require officer time to complete and it is seen as appropriate for the cost to be covered by the business.  Applying a fee is also likely to encourage businesses to ensure they are very confident that all of the issues leading to their rating have been resolved before applying for re-rating. This will save the Department time which otherwise may be spent undertaking re-rating inspections that do not result in higher ratings and will minimise disruption to providing routine inspections in a timely manner.

We asked

The Health and Care Transformation Programme Primary Care project sought views from the public about primary care services to help shape the future health and care services on the island.  

You said

The consultation attracted a total of 722 public responses, and the project welcomed all feedback and considered each comment made in response to the survey.  

We did

The project team have incorporated the public responses into the developing vision and model of care for future at scale primary care.   Responders who provided contact details were invited to interviews and events to participate in the development of the vision and model of care. 26 people attended two follow-up online focus group events in February.

A detailed summary of the consultation responses has been published below.   

We asked

The purpose of this consultation was to gather views regarding the Manx Care (Duty of Candour Procedure) Regulations 2021 which will require organisations providing people with health and care services to follow a set procedure where a person's safety has been, or is likely to be, affected as a result of using a health or social care service, including what information must be provided and when.

You said

52 responses were received: six from organisations and 46 from individuals.

  • 11 gave permission to publish their response in full
  • 34 gave permission to publish anonymously
  • seven did not give consent to publishing their responses on the consultation hub

We did

All responses received during the consultation have been considered and have helped to make improvements to the Regulations, including:

  • Clarification that the definition of 'incident' includes omissions;
  • Definition of 'relevant person' changed to provide more flexibility on who can act on someone else's behalf in receiving the information to be provided under the procedure;
  • Clarification added to confirm that any questions asked by the service user should be answered by the service provider;
  • Timescales added for publishing the annual report in relation to the duty of candour; and
  • Additional requirements added to cover publicity of the duty of candour requirements and operational policy.

The responses have also led to further detail being included in the draft operational policy for the duty of candour, which is being worked on alongside the Regulations.

It is intended that these Regulations will be introduced to Tynwald in March (subject to the Manx Care Bill 2020 receiving Royal Assent) with the aim that they should take effect at the same time as the establishment of Manx Care.

We asked

We asked for views on proposals for greater industry funding of financial regulation and Designated Business oversight.

You said

We received 48 separate responses to the Discussion Paper. The majority of respondents agreed with the concept of a blended funding model, such as a predominantly industry-funded model (‘PIFM’), where industry funds a greater proportion of the cost of regulation and oversight but that there should still be some level of taxpayer subsidy. A range of views were expressed by respondents on the various questions asked, covering areas such as: the four main elements suggested as a basis for a PIFM; the financial impact of fee changes; cross-sector subsidisation; the attractiveness of the Isle of Man as a place to do business; fee calculation methodology; fee types; accountability; transparency measures; and the preferred timeframe in which to achieve a PIFM.

We did

The Feedback Statement provides a summary of responses received, highlights the key themes raised, other comments made and questions posed. Responses are being considered and will be addressed as part of the next steps of the engagement process. The Feedback Statement also sets out the next phase for the PIFM development and the future plans for further engagement with stakeholders to help shape the PIFM and determine the most appropriate course for implementation.

We asked

The purpose of the consultation was to seek views about the policy principles which were to underpin forthcoming licensing legislation.

The present alcohol licensing regime on the Island was recognised to be outdated, overly bureaucratic and inflexible and possible alternatives were set out within the consultation document as discussion points.

You said

The Department received 95 responses, of which –

  • 30 were on behalf of an organisation; and
  • 65 were from individuals

We did

All responses received during the consultation have been considered and have helped to make shape the Bill.

In the interests of fully and comprehensively summarising the views which were provided and the points which have been incorporated into the draft Bill a summary of responses document has been generated and made available via a link in the Files section below.

To coincide with the publication of this summary of responses, there is now also a separate brief consultation on the draft Bill itself that can  be found on the Consultation Hub, presently under open consultations (as at April 2021).

As was noted in the previous policy consultation, it was the intention of the Department that in bringing forward this Bill, following detailed consultation on the policy behind it, that the timelines for the subsequent draft Bill consultation be abbreviated to two weeks.

This is because the Department is keen to ensure that the finalised Bill is given every chance to pass through the legislative process before the House of Keys elections in 2021, and time for this to take place grows short.

We asked

For views on the proposed amendments to the Insurance (Conduct of Business)(Long Term Business) Code 2018.

You said

Respondents found our proposed approach acceptable.

We did

We finalised the Insurance (Conduct of Business)(Long Term Business) Code 2021 for implementation on 1 July 2021.

We asked

For stakeholder views with a view to updating the school curriculum in light of representations from the minorities community and others. We were keen to hear the views of the wider IOM public with regards to how matters of race are addressed within the School curricula. The responses would help to shape our work in this area with schools and wider agencies, as directed by COMIN in July 2020.

You said

No of Responses: 609

Of those responses 43.8% were parents/carers, 39.6% were pupils, and 16.6% were other interested parties

  • 71% of respondents said the correct age that should children begin to learn about racial awareness/discrimination, and the lives of ethnic minority peoples was either between 4 – 7 years old or that they should learn about these issues at all ages.
  • 65% of respondents said they had personally witnessed or experienced racism on the Isle of Man sometimes, fairly regularly or regularly.
  • When asked whether they believed the Island's population welcomes racial diversity and acceptance of other beliefs/cultures, 33% of respondents agreed and 43% disagreed.
  • In response to the question ‘In your opinion, should the Island adapt its school curriculum guidance with regards to ethnic minority people, their history, culture and customs?’ 63.5% respondents said we should. Only 10.6% said no.
  • When asked to respond to the statement - My learning experience of ethnic minority people and their history/culture in school is limited. 59% of respondents agreed and only 10% disagreed
  • When asked how important is to see minorities speakers/visitors come into schools and contribute to wider learning experiences, 62% of respondents felt this was very important or extremely important.
  • There were many detailed suggestions submitted to the question How could the Island's Education Service go about enhancing understanding of ethnic minorities people and their history, culture and customs?

We did

‘Enhancing education in respect of race, culture and ethnicity on the Isle of Man’ is an agreed DESC priority, with a terms of reference and project charter.

The Ethnic Minority Peoples Curriculum working group meets formally once a month, with the following workstreams

  • Consideration of the responses and suggestions for enhancing the curriculum in respect of race culture and ethnicity on the Island
  • Promoting and supporting the work of POC IOM with schools and the community
  • Collecting and co-constructing curriculum ideas for different key phases of education
  • Creating and sharing opportunities for school engagement in these areas with Manx National Heritage, the One World Centre and Culture Vannin.

The EMPC group now have a draft set of curriculum resources for all phases of education. This has been created in partnership with Manx based agencies and with the collaboration of Hackney Borough Council.

The group includes representation from the Education Service (DESC and School teachers), People of Colour (POC) IOM, the Hardy Commission, Manx National Heritage, the One World Centre and Culture Vannin.

We asked

For views on the proposed Insurance Regulations 2021.

You said

Subject to some requests for changes, respondents found the Insurance Regulations 2021 were generally acceptable. Respondent’s requests have led to some changes being made, and have contributed to a further exercise in respect of updating class 12 which is currently being carried out with industry.

We did

We are in the process of finalising the Insurance Regulations 2021 for implementation on 31 December 2021. A copy of the updated regulations will be made available by 30 June 2021.

We asked

We asked for views on proposed increases to fees payable to the Authority from 1 April 2021 and 1 April 2022.

You said

We received 20 separate responses to the Consultation Paper. Three confirmed that they either had no comment on the proposed fee increases or that the proposals would not have a material impact on their businesses. Comments from the remaining 17 respondents covered the following themes: timing; amount; allocation of additional Authority resources; and impact on business competitiveness.

We did

The draft fees legislation that was consulted upon, together with an updated version of the Insurance (Fees) Regulations 2021, will be finalised for laying before Tynwald at the next available sitting, for commencement on 1 April 2021.


The fees payable from 1 April 2022 will be reviewed in the summer of 2021 to determine if the rate of those fee increases should be changed in light of data available at that time on the financial impact of the pandemic on the financial position of Regulated Entities and Designated Businesses, and the state of the business environment.

We asked

The purpose of the consultation was to gather views regarding the Department’s existing Mid Rent Housing pilot scheme and its current eligibility criteria and pointing system.

You said

62 responses were received to our survey, 60 of which were submitted on the Consultation Hub, the remaining responses were submitted via email. We received a wide range of comments in the responses, in particular we received many different views about the financial and Island Residency thresholds that should be applied to Mid Rent Housing applicants. All responses received during the consultation have been considered and are assisting the Department to further develop a Mid Rent Housing Policy.

We did

The Department has prepared a response report which has received Ministerial approval. We are now working with members of the Housing Operations Team to review the feedback received during the consultation and carryout of further research into similar projects to evaluate how this project should proceed in the future.

We asked

The Treasury sought views on the draft Administration of Justice and Other Amendments Bill 2021.

You said

In total 17 responses to the consultation were received.

Nine respondents provided comments on the draft Bill through the consultation hub.  Eight of these respondents gave permission for their comments to be published.

Eight respondents provided written responses to the consultation (outside of the consultation hub).  Five of these respondents gave permission for their comments to be published.

We did

All responses to the consultation were considered by the Treasury, in light of which, a number of amendments to the draft Bill were made.  The Bill has subsequently been finalised for consideration by the Council of Ministers and introduction to the branches of Tynwald.

We asked

The Cabinet Office sought feedback from interested parties regarding new provisions that would protect public authorities in the Isle of Man against claims for costs, damages or consequential losses when acting in matters of international assistance at the request of foreign jurisdictions, provided they were acting in good faith.

You said

The consultation attracted a total of three public responses, two from individuals and one from a local firm of advocates. Four responses were also received from Isle of Man Government Departments concerning the legislation captured by the Bill. The Cabinet Office welcomed all responses and considered each comment made in the final drafting of the Bill.

We did

The Bill was amended to ensure all relevant enactments are now captured. A detailed summary of the consultation responses has been published below. The revised Bill is due to be introduced into the Branches for its first reading in the House of Keys on Tuesday 26 January 2021.

We asked

The purpose of this Consultation was to seek feedback from interested parties on the details of the proposed Regulatory Framework (“Framework”) for Cannabis-derived Products for Export.

The Consultation set out the details of the proposed Framework and sought feedback from industry, inward investors and other interested stakeholders on the proposals, with a particular focus on:

  1. The proposed regulations for cultivation of industrial hemp, cannabis (including importation of biomass) and the manufacture of related cannabis-derived products for export including prescribed fees; and
  2. The proposed licensing framework, minimum standards and guidelines for applicants.

You said

We received 28 responses through the Government’s consultation portal, many welcoming and supporting the majority of the proposals set out in the Consultation Paper. These came from interested parties, members of the public, representative bodies and Government Departments. A number of respondents sought clarification on specific areas of the Framework and the manner in which licence conditions would be applied and monitored by the intended Regulator.  The most consistent theme in responses was in respect of the proposed licence fee structure.

We did

All responses received during the Consultation have been carefully considered. We will be making some amendments to the licensing Framework and the supporting Regulations to reflect feedback.

During the Consultation process, DfE identified the Gambling Supervision Commission as the proposed regulator for this new sector, with responsibility over the licensing and ongoing supervisory processes.  December’s Tynwald were therefore asked to approve a Transfer of Functions Order, which establishes the Gambling Supervision Commission (GSC) as the launch regulator for licensing and supervising adherence by the regulated entities to the Framework.

The GSC intend to issue the final Regulations and publish the Guidance Notes, needed to support the enactment of the Regulations and to prepare to consider licence applications.

It is anticipated that the GSC will begin considering initial applications in February 2021 and issue the first approvals before April 2021. Given the outdoor harvest cycles and the interest amongst some local farmers to test crops, the GSC will initially prioritise applications for low-THC outdoor cultivation in order to meet the critical timeframe.

The GSC will then prioritise the applications related to the higher-value, High-THC market and anticipate approving applicants in this sector during Q2 2021.

We asked

The Commission sought views on:

Future Use of Spectrum for Award

  • the amount of spectrum to be released in the 700 MHz and 3.6 GHz bands
  • release spectrum on a service and technology neutral basis

Lots – number and sizes

Award Caps – on number of lots any party can hold in either band

Fees

You said

In total 3 responses were received from Licensed Operators – the Commission will publish non confidential responses in due course.

We did

The next stage of the process will now involve reviewing all responses received and includes a further Consultation on the Award process including;

  • detail on the approach to licence fee setting and
  • on the further principles for Transition arrangements following the Award.