Local campaigner Alf Caine has raised serious concerns about the Local Government Amendment Bill in an email to Tynwald members, explaining why he believes Clause 5 should be removed or suspended until after this year’s general election.
I am writing publicly to set out my serious concerns regarding Clause 5 of the Local Government (Amendment) Bill 2023, and to explain why, in my view, this clause should be removed from the Bill or suspended until after the General Election in September 2026.
Over recent months I have extensively communicated with Local Authorities, Tynwald Members, and others regarding Clause 5 and its implications. I would like to thank all those who took the time to consider my emails, and offer particular thanks to the many contributors who replied. It is imperative that we safeguard the sustainability of local services, and consider carefully how we can continue to live and work on the Isle of Man in a cost effective and fair way.
Public Awareness & Financial Risk
Clause 5 creates a mechanism by which additional responsibilities can be imposed on local authorities, with the costs ultimately falling on ratepayers rather than being transparently debated as part of central government taxation. For households and small businesses already facing rising costs, this represents a real and immediate risk.
Opposition From Local Authorities
Through both written and oral evidence, it is clear that the majority of local authorities are opposed to Clause 5 and have asked for it to be removed. Their concerns are not theoretical. They relate to:
• Unfunded or underfunded responsibilities
• Long term financial uncertainty
• Erosion of local democratic decision making
• Disproportionate impacts on smaller authorities
This level of unified concern from those directly responsible for delivering local services should not be dismissed.
Centralisation of Power & Future Risk
The current Minister for Infrastructure appears determined to proceed with Clause 5 without meaningful safeguards, and has even sought the removal of protections added by the Legislative Council.
Even if assurances are given today, there is nothing to prevent future Ministers or Departments from using Clause 5 to impose further responsibilities. This creates permanent uncertainty for local authorities and ratepayers and undermines long term planning.
At the same time, the Waste Management Strategy 2025 to 2035 sets out new centrally directed policies for waste collection, recycling, disposal, and infrastructure. While household waste collection remains a duty of local authorities, the costs will be built into the local rates system. This includes:
• Expanded recycling and reuse requirements
• Hazardous waste management
• Operation of the Energy from Waste facility
• New landfill and post closure responsibilities
These developments highlight the ongoing risk that local authorities could be required to take on additional services and financial obligations, potentially increasing rates for residents.
Democratic Mandate & The 2026 Election
To the best of my knowledge, no sitting MHK, including the Minister for Infrastructure, proposed Clause 5 in their 2021 General Election manifestos. The public has therefore not given a democratic mandate for such a fundamental change in the relationship between central and local government.
With a General Election scheduled for September 2026, there is a clear and reasonable alternative. Clause 5 should be removed from the Bill or suspended, allowing prospective candidates to put their views to the electorate. This would give voters the opportunity to consider all options, including:
• Locally delivered services funded through rates
• Island wide services funded centrally through taxation
• A proper review of how local authority services are structured and funded
That is how democratic accountability should work.
Financial Pressures & Taxation by Stealth
Government finances are under significant pressure, with repeated drawdowns from cash reserves, approximately £110 million in 2025, used to balance the budget. In that context, there is an obvious temptation to shift costs away from central government and onto local authorities, raising revenue indirectly through rates rather than openly through taxation.
Clause 5 risks becoming a form of taxation by stealth, with real consequences for households and businesses but limited political accountability.
Acknowledging The Wider Debate
Some may say that a review of local authority services and how they are funded is indeed long overdue. If that is truly the case, then it should be carried out properly, collaboratively, and with the explicit involvement of the Manx public.
Conclusion
Clause 5 is not a minor technical amendment. It represents a significant shift of power, responsibility, and financial risk. Proceeding without a clear electoral mandate risks undermining trust in government and local democracy.
I therefore urge Tynwald Members to remove Clause 5 from the Bill or suspend it until after the 2026 General Election, allowing the Manx public to consider the options and hold candidates accountable.
This is about protecting the long term financial sustainability of our Island, supporting effective local services, and ensuring that decisions affecting our cost of living are made with the public and not forced upon them.