How do we pay for it? — Peter Shimmin

How do we
pay for it all?

BUDGET

It is easy during an election to promise more spending.

The harder question is: how do we pay for it?

My manifesto includes proposals that would require investment, alongside others that are about changing priorities, improving how Government works or making better use of the money we already spend.

I don’t pretend everything can be delivered for free.

Image source: Unsplash

Not every proposal in my manifesto has the same financial impact.

Some would require new recurring spending. Others could be delivered through existing budgets, changes in how services are organised, capital investment or legislation rather than large amounts of new money.

I think voters deserve to see that distinction clearly.

The table below sets out the main proposals that have a financial impact and, for each one, the approach I would take to funding it.

Where a reliable cost depends on information held within Government, I have not invented a figure for the sake of an election campaign.

My starting point is simple: identify the cost, decide whether it is genuinely a priority, and establish a sustainable way to pay for it before committing public money.

The wider picture

Government plans £1.47 billion of revenue spending in 2026/27 and its five-year plan allows £126 million of reserves to be used to balance the budget this year.

That reliance is expected to reduce over time, while investment returns should help total reserves grow.

I don’t believe the Isle of Man is about to run out of money, but recurring spending and recurring income must be brought back onto a sustainable footing.

Funding approach by proposal - Education and Skills

This would be a genuine ongoing cost, so it needs ongoing funding.

The 2026 Budget has already added £4.4 million across the childcare strategy, vocational training assistance and apprenticeships.

My first step would be to look at how that additional funding is being used and whether existing childcare spending can be better targeted.

Any further extension should then be properly costed and funded from recurring Government income, not reserves.

I would also want the assessment to recognise the wider benefit of helping more parents remain in work.
Government already operates a loan cancellation scheme for returning teachers, currently capped at £7,500 for a three-year degree or £10,000 for a four-year degree, following two years working in an Island school.

I would start with a targeted extension to other clearly identified shortage professions, rather than create an open-ended scheme.

The cost should be compared with what Government is already spending to recruit and retain staff in those areas.
I would improve the schemes we already fund before automatically creating another budget.

The 2026 Budget includes additional money for vocational training and apprenticeships as part of the £4.4 million package.

I would want to see whether that money is removing the barriers employers and young people currently face before asking for more.

Funding approach by proposal - Housing

I would start with a small, controlled pilot and examine whether it can be supported through existing housing capital or funds before asking for additional money.

Government is already providing £8.5 million a year for five years to the Housing Deficiency Fund, alongside an additional £1 million for the Housing and Communities Fund, although any use of existing funds would have to fit their proper purpose.
This is mainly a policy and legal change rather than a major new spending commitment.

I would explore whether the Isle of Man could adopt elements of Jersey’s residency-based housing system, alongside targeted restrictions on purchases by off-Island investors or companies where that would improve access for local buyers.

Jersey links housing rights to residential status, with some homes specifically restricted to eligible first-time buyers, while companies generally need consent to acquire residential property.

I would not simply copy Jersey’s system, but I think it provides a useful model to test.

Any change would need proper legal and economic assessment so that we improve access for local people without unnecessarily reducing housing supply or useful investment.

The Isle of Man already applies residency requirements to its own first-time buyer schemes, so the principle of giving established residents priority in publicly supported housing already exists.
I support stronger protection for tenants, but I do not believe the answer is simply bringing the Landlord Registration Act into force and placing another layer of administration on every responsible landlord.

The 2021 Act has still not been fully commenced because the supporting regulations on standards, registration and enforcement have not been approved.

Tynwald has now agreed that this work should be progressed during 2026. I would use that opportunity to review the proposed system and put the emphasis first on poor property conditions, unsafe accommodation and landlords who exploit tenants, with meaningful enforcement where standards are repeatedly ignored.

Good landlords providing decent homes should face proportionate requirements, not bureaucracy for its own sake.

Any additional enforcement capacity should be identified within existing housing and environmental health resources as far as possible.
Developers can sometimes make a financial contribution, known as a commuted sum, instead of providing all of the affordable housing required on a development itself.

Tynwald agreed in March 2026 that where these sums are used, they should be ring-fenced for further affordable housing.

I would go further on transparency. Government should publish, at least annually, how much has been received, which developments the money came from, how much remains unspent, where it has been allocated and how many affordable homes it has helped deliver.

This should be straightforward public reporting using information Government already holds, rather than a significant new spending commitment.
We should make much better use of the homes we already have. The 2021 Census recorded 5,695 properties as vacant on Census night, although that figure includes second and holiday homes, properties being renovated or sold and other temporary vacancies.

The 2024 Objective Assessment of Housing Need still concluded that the Island has a comparatively high level of vacant housing.

Treasury has also already consulted on removing rates exemptions from dangerous or ruinous properties to discourage homes and buildings being left unused for long periods.

I would build on that work by identifying genuinely long-term empty homes and considering higher rates or a specific charge where properties are deliberately left vacant without good reason. I would also examine whether a different rates treatment is justified for second homes that are routinely left unoccupied.

There would need to be sensible exemptions, for example during probate, substantial renovation or genuine attempts to sell.

The main purpose would be to bring homes back into use, not simply to raise money.

Funding approach by proposal - Health

My starting point would be service redesign, not another large funding request.

Health funding has risen to £412 million for 2026/27, while the Budget also increased the existing health transformation fund by £5 million and added £5 million to the Digital Projects Fund.

I would expect proposals for digital consultations, better information and simpler systems to make use of existing health and transformation investment where possible, and to show a clear benefit for patients and staff.

Since publishing my manifesto, an extension to the initial pilot has been announced.
This is not a new commitment invented for my manifesto.

Independent advocacy was already included in the 2024/25 Manx Care Mandate, and the Health Minister subsequently committed to progress in April 2026.

I would press for Government to finish the work it has already committed to, with the cost and funding clearly set out through the health and social care budget.
This is a change in how senior leadership operates, not a new spending programme.

I would expect it to be built into existing roles and working arrangements.

Funding approach by proposal - Infrastructure

I would give greater priority to maintaining what we already own before allowing problems to become larger and more expensive.

That means looking first at existing infrastructure and capital budgets and moving money towards preventative work where the long-term case is stronger.

Extra investment should be backed by evidence that spending earlier will reduce the overall cost to the taxpayer.
I am proposing that this is explored through the new Sea Services Agreement, not promising an unlimited taxpayer subsidy.

The first step is to establish what different options would cost, who would benefit and whether they could be built into future sea-service arrangements.

I would only support a scheme where the benefit to residents justifies the cost.
I would expect a body like this to be small and practical, not another expensive organisation or arms length body.

My preference would be to fund it from within existing sea-services and transport administration.

If that cannot be done, its cost should be published and justified before it is established.

Funding approach by proposal - Immigration

This is primarily a legislative and administrative change.

Any additional staffing or systems required to operate it properly would need to be identified and costed by the responsible department before implementation.
This would raise revenue rather than create a new spending commitment.

Tynwald agreed in July 2025 to extend the legal provisions needed to introduce an Isle of Man Immigration Health Surcharge.

Tynwald was told that the charge would be paid directly to the Isle of Man and would generate additional revenue that could support health services.

The detailed scheme still needed further work. I would press for that work to be completed while making sure exemptions do not damage recruitment into essential roles.

Funding approach by proposal - Community

This is not necessarily a cash payment by Government, but it does mean giving up some potential income from an asset.

I would only support that where there is a strong case that the wider regeneration, business and community benefit is worth more than maximising the short-term return from the land.
Charities and voluntary organisations already provide important services across the Island, sometimes reaching people earlier or in ways Government cannot easily replicate.

I would look at where a targeted grant or commissioned-service agreement could help a charity expand a proven service while also reducing pressure elsewhere in the public sector.

This should not mean expecting charities or volunteers to provide public services on the cheap.

Where Government relies on an organisation to deliver something important, the funding should properly reflect what it costs to do the job, with clear outcomes and longer-term arrangements where appropriate.

Government already commissions services as part of health and social care, and DHSC has committed to developing its future model with the voluntary and community sector.

I would build on that approach where there is a clear benefit for residents and value for public money.
I see the creative industries as an economic opportunity, not simply something Government should subsidise because it is culturally valuable.

I would want the Department for Enterprise to treat areas such as film, television, digital content, gaming, design, music and the wider creative economy as potential growth sectors.

They should identify where the Isle of Man can realistically compete, and use existing business, skills and enterprise support before creating new funding schemes.

There is a strong case for looking seriously at this. In the UK, creative industries generated an estimated £145.8 billion in 2024, around 5.5% of total GVA, and grew faster than the wider economy.

The UK now treats creative industries as one of eight sectors with the greatest growth potential over the next decade.

We need our own Manx assessment of the opportunity, with any public investment judged on jobs, skills, exports, visitor spending and the wider economic return it can produce.
I support renewable energy, but based on the information currently available I do not support Mooir Vannin.

I also think it is important to be honest about the financial opportunity that decision could mean giving up.

Ørsted estimates the project could generate around £2 billion in taxation and seabed rental over its 35-year operating life, equivalent to roughly £55 to £60 million a year under its current assumptions.

Treasury's Economic Advisory team has said its own high-level modelling places the £2 billion figure within a realistic range, while also stressing that there are significant uncertainties at this stage.

That is a serious potential source of Government income and has to be weighed properly against the project's scale, environmental impact, local energy benefit and the other concerns that have been raised.

If Mooir Vannin does not proceed, I would not simply accept the loss of that opportunity and move on.

I would want Government to pursue other renewable and clean-energy opportunities that offer a better balance of cost, impact and local benefit.

Manx Utilities says onshore wind is currently expected to provide the lowest-cost electricity available to the Island, and work is already progressing on onshore wind and solar as part of the energy transition.

I would also want Government to explore other viable income streams from the clean-energy sector, including private investment, future generation projects, supply-chain activity and appropriate taxation or leasing arrangements.

The aim should be to secure both cleaner energy and new economic value for the Island, without assuming that one very large offshore development is the only way to achieve it.

How do we pay for it all?