Chris Thomas

Social housing operations are DoI and local authorities. Some crucial policy questions are in last bullet point. Your proposal was made in debate. See Hansard item 7 t220517.pdf (tynwald.org.im). I answered in my summing up as follows: " Moving on to the idea raised by Mrs Christian and Ms Faragher, that we certainly need more new social houses, I just want to respond in two ways. The first one is: is that not a conclusion rather than an analysis? My first point is that it might be that we need lots more new social houses by the end of the year after we have done the analysis, which is what we plan to do. But I do not think we should start off with a conclusion. I would think it is a fair expectation to have a policy and a target on that at the end of the analysis, rather than at the beginning of the analysis. The second point I would make is it could be that lots of social houses will become free for other reasons; for instance, if we enable people to want to move out of social housing into their own owner-occupied housing, or if the age profile of people in social housing is such that lots will become available. Or if the population changes it could be that lots of social housing becomes available in the next few years. I would say my working hypothesis is that, basically, in the Isle of Man at the moment, we have 6,500 publicly owned properties. A way to think of this is we are taking the solution to this crisis into a modern dimension. We have got 6,500 properties and some of them could be used sometimes for mid-rent, some of them can be used for rent-to-buy, some of them could be used for social housing. But they do not always need to be used always for exactly the same purpose. Would it not be better if we could come to the conclusion that we have got 6,500 houses, we might need 7,000 or 6,000 and then those houses can be used as suits society at that time? For instance, we could solve this by making massive improvements for sheltered housing, because it is not nice at the moment for some people living like they do outside sheltered housing when they would rather have more care. Would it not be great if we could actually make speedy progress in terms of care and extra care and better sheltered housing, and actually free up lots of that social housing for future generations and for younger people, basically? But also, at the same time, creating better life chances and life opportunities for older people by putting them in places they want to be more than where they are now? It is going to be difficult, but we need to address it. "

That was the speech. Here are the foreword bullet points about first year actions: " Early interventions to begin to tackle our housing crisis include: Affordable Housing - Adjusting thresholds for the existing Shared Equity first time buyer scheme in line with current conditions alongside kicking off a more fundamental review of affordable housing support to bring forward potential reforms by the end of the year (see appendix 1); Housing First - Funding for emergency shelter to secure the currently available provision and develop a commissioning lite approach to define, design and then commission a single pathway with multiple provisions to tackle homelessness and deliver Housing First supported living (see appendix 2); and Budgeting Loans - Enhance this element of Social Security. Other first year action includes: Consultation about rental property minimum standards and deposit protection; An empty properties initiative; Further developing policy to support owner / occupiers including the use of land registry fees and innovative financial products; Housing and tenancy law modernisation; and The continuation of social housing reform including mid-rent, fixed term tenancies and rent setting. " An Objective Assessment of Housing Need does not feature in those bullet points.

Thanks for question. I guess my foreword in action plan summarises action. Here's my speech in Tynwald this month when moving Action Plan for approval. " I am pleased to bring the Housing and Communities Board Action Plan 2022/23 to this Hon. Court today in line with the commitment made in Our Island Plan. I also welcome, as I believe the whole Board do, suggestions and appraisal as the Plan is offered to Tynwald for its receipt and approval. This Plan lays out the initial 12-month actions to articulate more of the legislative, financial and practical interventions to deliver the ‘Building great communities’ housing vision in Our Island Plan by the Housing and Communities Board and others. That vision is of everyone having a suitable and affordable place to call home with the Island’s housing stock meeting the needs of our population now and into the future. I was honoured to be appointed by the Chief Minister to chair the Housing and Communities Board back in October. I recognise and share his concerns outlined in his manifesto as Chief Minister that affordability of housing for young people is reaching crisis point. My manifesto had identified several areas where urgent action to fix our housing crisis could be taken. I know the other members of the Board care passionately about housing too and are dedicated to addressing the challenges we face with action. Mr President, there are many facets to the work of the Board and I believe all Board members, and indeed all of us Hon. Members, agree that a holistic approach to housing is needed: a co-ordinated housing policy with optimised regulation and optimised operations. With that in mind, an objective assessment of housing need is being scoped for commencement in coming months. The objective assessment will look at all aspects of housing and bring together data from across all areas of housing provision to address not just how many properties we need, but also who needs them, along with a comparison of the types of housing we need. There is experience elsewhere from which we can learn. I can also report that discussions have taken place with the Climate Change Transformation team, some built environment officers and the Manx Development Corporation team to keep each other appraised of plans and delivery, just as the Chief Minister intended. One hugely significant delivery to date is that £118,000 has been secured very recently from the Housing and Communities Fund to support the continuation of the emergency night shelter operated by Graih for a year. This significant contribution will enable accommodation for those experiencing a crisis. This work has been delivered by the nascent Joint Commissioning Delivery Team, with leadership from the Department of Health and Social Care. Mr President, no person on the Isle of Man should be without a place to sleep, whatever their circumstances. Work is ongoing to introduce the housing first approach – a single pathway with multiple provisions to support living for so many. The Board has also supported the Department of Infrastructure to prepare an amended Shared Equity Purchase Assistance Scheme, which I hope will be launched in August, subject to Tynwald approval. The proposed changes will help to encourage more take up of the Scheme as thresholds and terms will be enhanced. In addition, the Treasury intends to make changes to the Social Security budgeting loans regulations to help certain vulnerable people secure accommodation and thus prevent homelessness. The amendment regulations are expected to be brought before this Hon. Court in July. In addition to the positive announcements I have been able to make today regarding an objective assessment of housing need, emergency housing provision and enabling first-time buyers and Social Security budgeting loans, work is under way according to the other actions outlined in the Action Plan. For instance, the Board has recently engaged with local authorities in respect of dilapidated properties and how to deal with them. This early work provides a foundation in working towards and delivering an empty property initiative. The Treasury Minister identified other potential dimensions of that in answer to Mr Moorhouse’s Question this morning. Appendices to the Action Plan include the Board terms of reference and also those for the Treasury Housing and Communities Fund. Approval is now in place, I believe, for a full-time officer to work directly with the Board in all aspects of this ambitious and much-needed programme of work. Hon. Members, in closing, as Chair of the Housing and Communities Board, I thank Hon. Members for their engagement to date about housing and look forward to hearing from Members today and in the future. This Action Plan provides a framework. The Action Plan is indeed bold and some have said, and would say, it has got ambitious delivery dates. But I am sure Hon. Members here today will agree with me that bold, decisive action is what is needed both in the short and long term and I am pleased to be part of a Housing and Communities Board that is committed to delivering all elements of the Action Plan. "

Thanks for critical appraisal. I feel I often learn, which sometimes varies my viewpoint. But I also disagree and correct factual inaccuracy. Is that defensive?

Housing associations by law here cannot "trade for profit" and are "established" for "providing, constructing, improving or managing dwellings to be kept available for letting". Why do you feel local authority owned housing is preferable to housing association housing?

I agree that more mid-rent property is needed. The 5 property pilot scheme in Colby has been successful. Legal basis of this arrangement needs enhancing I suggest. Rent to buy schemes make sense, surely? I also agree about housing associations, and primary law does provide for them. See part 2 here Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (gov.im). There are some small ones already too e.g. Legion Housing Association, Manx Housing Trust, etc. However housing association arrangements here are underdeveloped and need developing. Tynwald policy is to do that.

It will not. Have you read action plan? What specific comments do you have about any of the workstreams or terms of reference?

It is a short action plan. How is it long winded?

The document is short action plan with appendices including terms of reference.

Consultation with local authorities already completed. Next steps in Empty Properties Initiative.

What lofty ambitions and grandiose schemes do I have? How do you not know in which constituency Marine Drive is? Not knowing that seems contradictory to your normal posting style of "often wrong, but never in doubt".

Thanks for your reply. Three reviews at the moment about NI in Isle of Man: Treasury's NI review to report back to inform 2023 budget, and two GAD actuarial considerations for different dates/periods. GB NI fund is different from IOM one. Starting point was same, legislation for both is similar, but - for instance - i) GB NI fund Investment Account has only around 40 x the value of IOM NI Fund Investment Account so you do maths about per capita value or impact of fund investment income, ii) no annual Treasury grant into IOM one, iii) IOM fund is not invested mostly in UK government debt and iv) investment income from fund is now often used to provide benefits alongside NI contributions and there is intergenerational aspect about retaining investment income in funds for future demographics (that is not just rhetoric, it is fact and policy). IOM NI funds can be used to provide social security, state pensions, health care, administration and other things approved in Tynwald. IOM decides policy in respect of fund, not Westminster, not GAD. IOM and GB/NI national insurance fund investment account policy diverged many years ago. Hope helpful?

It seems you agree that the public is being prepared for drawing down the NI Fund Investment Account for general expenditure more and more?

What a long post! What is the legal and political basis for your view that the Isle of Man NI Fund Investment Account is "simply for contingency"? Our Island situation is different from that in GB and NI. How do you reconcile the fundamental NI "contributory principle" with your suggestion that NI can be used for the public good?

Is that public sector pension fund? If so, around £30 million now, and some of that is effectively missing investment income on contributions which are not invested. Remember too that public sector pension fund is general revenue in any case. Public sector pension situation is much improved since 2016 with the reserve's life extended by several years and the shortfall reduced by 1/3rd.

The petition, and the objections to the original planning application, were on many grounds. My comment was about the legally argued case which was made successfully at the appeal. Alternatives include: Fibre to provide the home service which Sure has piloted in north and central Douglas since 2019 using another approach Use of the mast in Masonic Hall grounds with full planning permission Mast sharing between Sure and Manx Telecom, for instance at Dalton Street Licensed used of Douglas Borough Council street lights Masts on top of existing infrastructure and buildings Planning and telecoms policy around this is not right. There are two Government reports which relate.

Thanks for question. Roger Mexico is correct that there were many projects in Cabinet Office and Council of Ministers in 2020 that Government were more able to put aside after my sacking. For instance economic regulation, 'generational thinking', rates modernization, application of needs and means testing principles, smart services framework, One Public Service etc.. This is a thread on Liverpool dock. Each of these matters could be considered in their own thread, existing or new.

Not wrong, just over-emphasizing the 5G element I feel.

Thanks for comment. Significant harm to residential amenity (General Policy 2 of Strategic Plan) and harm to conservation area character, appearance and views (Environmental Policies 35 and 36, Strategic Policies 4 and 5, and General Policy 2B) were reasons for refusal but another important one was failure to demonstrate strategic national need for the mast which cannot be secured by mast sharing or alternative locations (Infrastructure Policy 3). This was an important element of my Tynwald telecommunications motions in the last 18 months or so. Telecommunications policy, implementation and public funding are flawed. I would hope fibre, mast sharing and existing infrastructure are part of the way ahead. Sure has had a 5G pilot and wrote things like "no prospect of 5G in this area without a development of some kind" but concluded that "there is an urgent need for improved mobile phone coverage in the conservation area". Many residents did petition and object, and two appealed, but I was the only observer at the appeal hearing and the case made by one appellant's lawyers was persuasive.

True. Is there really such interest?

5G mast? The mast was not 5G. Planners did not reject. Appeal was successful based on legal arguments.

CURA has published its decision which is "no increase to gas tariffs at this time". See https://www.cura.im/media/1575/information-notice.pdf. More completely CURA's decision is: "22. The Authority’s Decision is that there will be no increase to gas tariffs at this time. A further increase would benefit Manx Gas, but disproportionately negatively impact on the Authority’s other stakeholders, specifically gas consumers and the public interest. The Authority should seek to avoid such asymmetric outcomes where possible. 23. At the time of writing the commodity prices are near an all-time high, however, as pointed out previously, it is unclear if this is a transitory phenomenon or not. In the recent past the market has seen dramatic increases in price but it proved to be short lived. It would be wise for the Authority to maintain a watching brief on it at this time but there is insufficient data available make any reliable predictions as to whether this will be a sustained increase or not. In any event, the current market highs were not the motivation for Manx Gas seeking the review of tariffs at this time. 24. The Authority is working to have more detailed price controls in place in early 2022, the effect of these controls will be to ensure that tariffs are fair. The biggest change that this regulatory framework will bring about will be transparency – all stakeholders will be able to see how the tariff is made up and that the returns being generated by Manx Gas are in line with market norms and are closely monitored. This means that consumers can have confidence that the tariff they pay is reflective of the cost of the gas they consume and the cost of providing it." CURA also helped clarify any remaining misunderstanding about Manx Gas's request in a background note as follows: "4. On 29th November 2021 Manx Gas wrote to the Authority, advising that in light of continuing high commodity prices it was losing “significant profit’” versus the previous year and requesting “a further review from CURA and recommendation of either another price increase or an alternative solution to rectify the significant impact on our business”. 5. It should be noted that this request for a review is in line with the review process set down in the Decision made by the Authority in May. Clear evidence of the criteria being met to trigger a review was provided to the Authority."

For completeness: MT was never in Isle of Man Government ownership, unless I am mistaken. Government/Post Office was offered telephone part of GPO at its launch, but that was nearly 50 years ago; and What costs of gas are nationalised? I think Treasury and MUA seem to charge gas costs and charges to Manx Gas and thus to gas customers. Any dispute is about the size of those costs and charges, and, for instance, how they are charged to MUA customers and to those of Manx Gas.

I cannot see the same thing coming as you believe you see. Telecoms regulation needs to improve too. That is already work in progress for me. For instance why does the monopoly part of telecoms get 8.9% ROCE annually when this rate has been found to be too high in gas and is Government using public funds to over-invest in cabling and masts rather than focusing on forcing infrastructure sharing? Some people even suggestion anti-competitive practices.

My campaigning since 2012 for economic regulation of gas and other natural monopolies - with questions, motions, regulatory contributions and executive government activity - might have contributed too!!!