Enterprise Minister Tim Johnston mounted a detailed defence of the Department for Enterprise’s executive agency model.
He told Tynwald that the scrutiny committee’s report on the department rests on “uncertain foundations” and does not provide the evidence required to justify major structural reform.
Speaking during debate on the Economic Policy Review Committee’s second report, Johnston said the committee had misinterpreted the original aims of the agency model and elevated “observations and selected quotations” into founding principles that were never adopted.
He argued that the report confused operational imperfections with strategic failure.
No Evidence
Johnston criticised the committee for not taking evidence from any agency chief executives, chairs or board members, the people directly responsible for leading and overseeing the agencies.
He said this omission left “significant gaps” in the evidential base and would not be considered acceptable in other areas of public administration.
While acknowledging that improvements were needed, Johnston insisted the model had strengthened engagement between government and industry, brought private‑sector expertise into policy development, and delivered measurable outcomes in areas such as tourism.
He warned that dismantling or restructuring agencies without clear evidence would be “not a sound approach in government”.
Give Evidence Then
Government amendments were tabled to soften the committee’s recommendations, committing instead to publishing findings from the ongoing internal review of the agency model, improving business development monitoring, and conducting a cost‑benefit analysis of a unified national brand.
Johnston asked members to reject Recommendation 5 outright, saying the committee had not demonstrated that the Business, Digital or Finance Agencies were failing or that restructuring them would improve outcomes.
He said decisions of this scale should follow evidence, not precede it, and urged members to support the amended recommendations.
But his comments could be seen as leaving himself open to the challenge of the department itself volunteering any evidence that the committee itself did not seek.
