A Tynwald debate on the Economic Policy Review Committee’s report revealed sharp divisions over the Department for Enterprise’s performance.
It also drew dividing opinions on the strength of the committee’s evidence base, and the future of the island’s executive agency model.
Committee chair Jason Moorhouse opened the debate by warning that “something is not quite right” in the wider economy, citing opaque growth data, declining sectors, falling business confidence and entrepreneurs reluctant to invest.
He said the report was intended to test whether the agency model remains fit for purpose nearly a decade after its creation.
Independent Review
The committee’s recommendations called for an independent review of DfE, a clearer business development framework, a unified national brand, a statutory tourism board, and consideration of structural changes to the Business, Digital and Finance Agencies.
But several members raised concerns about the report’s evidential foundation. Gary Clueit MLC said the committee had identified legitimate governance issues but had not provided evidence strong enough to support its most far‑reaching conclusions.
He noted that no agency CEOs, board members, independent experts or beneficiary businesses were consulted, leaving “a significant evidential gap”.
Michelle Haywood MHK said stakeholder opinion had been treated as proof, and that questioning metrics was not the same as demonstrating failure.
Dawn Kinnish MLC highlighted Visit Isle of Man’s strong performance, including 99.2% tourist satisfaction and rising visitor spend, questioning whether change was being proposed “for change’s sake”.
Missed an Open Goal
Others argued the department had been overly defensive.
Tim Glover MHK said the committee had “missed an open goal” by not speaking to agency leaders, but insisted the central question remained unanswered: where is the independent, measurable evidence that the agency model delivers value for taxpayers?
Enterprise Minister Tim Johnston delivered a lengthy rebuttal, defending the agency model and warning against structural change without clear evidence.
Government amendments were tabled to soften or reframe each recommendation, committing instead to publish findings from the ongoing internal review, improve business development monitoring, and conduct a cost‑benefit analysis of a unified brand.
The debate ended with broad agreement on one point: DfE must now demonstrate outcomes, not activity.
The department’s internal review is due to report early next year, leaving the next administration to decide whether reform, consolidation or continuation of the agency model is the right path for the island’s economic future.
Result
Tynwald approved the government’s amendments to Recommendations 1-4 and rejected Recommendation 5.
The amended report was received, meaning the committee’s work is formally noted, but the structural reforms originally proposed will not proceed.
