For the full story and reaction see this week's Examiner on sale now

Mr Brown has previously hinted at the need for a shake up to help give the economy a boost following the the VAT bombshell.

As part of that, the departmental structure of government is to undergo a massive overhaul – subject to Tynwald approval – with only two government departments remaining untouched.

There will remain nine government departments, but seven will be in new formations, including the widely touted and long awaited Department of Economic Development being set up to co-ordinate key sectors including financial services, manufacturing, tourism and e-business.

It would spell the end, however, of the Department of Tourism and Leisure, whose tourism remit would fall under the DED, and the Department of Trade and Industry.

The Department of Health and Social Security would be split into a Department of Health and a Department of Social Care.

And there would be a completely new Department of Culture and Leisure, to cover culture, recreation and farming – recognising agriculture's role in maintaining the countryside, but also sounding the end of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry as we know it, just as it moves into its new headquarters in St John's.

It is the most far-reaching change of government structure in nearly a quarter of a century, since the introduction of the ministerial system in 1986.

The Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Education would remain, although the latter is set to be renamed the Department of Education and Children.

The other seven departments would be:
Economic Development
Social Care
Health
Community, Culture and Leisure
Environment
Infrastructure
Treasury (from which responsibility for the promotion of financial services would be transferred to Economic Development).

You can download a PDF version of the restructuring chart by clicking on this link: RestructurechartFeb2010.pdf

Chief Minister Tony Brown said the aim was to increase efficiency and effectiveness. The idea is there will be no functions lost by the changes, which are 'not designed to create redundancies'.

Mr Brown said: 'The reduction in the Island's share of VAT revenue has created an urgent need for us to renew the drive for new business and new income.

'The Department of Economic Development would spearhead that drive by bringing marketing teams together in one organisation dedicated to building the economy.

'In the current fiscal climate the case for a new Department of Economic Development is a strong one. If it is accepted, then other departmental changes become necessary as a knock-on effect.'

He added: 'The public and business community is expecting leadership and action at this time of challenge for the Island. The important thing is to get a new structure in place to sharpen our focus on growing the economy and revenues, so Government can continue to support the quality and standard of life of the people of the Isle of Man.'

What do you think of the proposals? Send your opinion to newsviews@newsiom.co.im

YOUR COMMENTS

I'm at a loss to see how this will actually save or generate more money. It's the illusion of change without real change actually happening and as usual it's very short on detail. Where will any savings come from? Just how will the new DED "spearhead... the drive for new business and new income"? What will it do that's different from what the current DTI and DTL does now? How about releasing some figures for this so that they can be measured to see if the whole process was worthwhile? Or is this another smoke and mirrors trick? Nice timing in the run up to the election too. Of course there's no mention either of how much the whole re-branding exercise and "massive overhaul" will cost. Very important that everyone gets the signs on their parking space and office door changed to reflect their new job titles.
J

The actual report on which the restructure is based which can be found on www.gov.im says the following: 2.9.3 Review Report Recommendation 28
2.9.4 "Responsibility for Social Security should be transferred from the Department of Health and Social Security to the Treasury and the former should be renamed the Department of Health and Social Services."
2.9.5 The Committee does not agree that the Department of Health and Social Security be re-named Department of Health and Social Services but rather the two new Departments be established, a Department of Health and a Department of Social Care. The remit of both Departments is defined in Part 3 of this document. Why does the committee not agree with this recommendation? This makes more sense considering we have been trying to achieve a more joined up service and stop the revolving door service of vulnerable people who are passed from Health Service (e.g. Hospital) to Social Services (e.g. Residential Homes)and back again. Surely splitting the departments will make this worse?
ANON

Well at least the Castletown Shopkeeper can now justify not spending £3 million of UK health cover, he will be able to spend it on rebranding and re organising the job structure for his chums.
DH

Hmm. J. has raised some very valid questions. http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=38054&st=0 is carrying a discussion thread where this plan is already being greeted with derision. Worth a gander I think.
PM

How much time (& therefore money) has been spent to introduce this change? This is just re-branding & re-distribution of existing resources with newer more 'spangly' names. The 'Department of Economic Development' is probably an exception as there needs to be more focus on bringing in new business & opportunities here. It is unfortunate that it will be reffered to as 'DED', which could describe some of our ministers (as in brain dead). I assume it will be this departments job to intice new business, whilst battling against trying to convince prospective investors that we do not have housing costs in excess of the UK average, gas & electricity monopolies resulting in one of Europes highest tarrifs, dearer food costs, dearer petrol costs & excessive travel costs, particularly frieght. Good Luck. Apart from this dept. the rest should have stayed as is, it will cause mass confusion. How will public sector employee contracts be affected? Is this whole move tied in with the pensions proposals? Government should be trimming like the private sector has had to do over the 18 months.
S

At least we now know what old Tony was scribbling on back of the fag packet on way home from his " Saving Healthcare Agreement" trip!! Is it just me or are tourism and child care decisions now going to have to be considered/agreed by a number of different departments before anything will be allowed to progress? Some step forward that will be! Perhaps our TB owns the paper mill supplying the government stationary! Time the Island copied World Health Organisation (www.who.int) and had a " Stop TB Department"?!!
J2

At a time when the entire developed world is looking to restructure itself in a more coherent and easy to manage way, we on the IOM have introduced a plan to confuse and make even more accountable departments! Why? You know we dont like change! On this occasion change is not on the whole necessary. The public sector is overpopulated as it is, natural wastage and dead wood should be trimmed just as a private sector company has had to do to survive. The only upside is that certain printers, van sign writers etc. will be able to keep a few more people employed when government put in thier new stationary orders!!
SJ

This has all the hallmarks of the usual Manx Government Strategy, commonly known as Lip Service. The problem, as everyone knows, is not structure, but action. We have strategies and plans coming out of out ears, but no implementation, and no results. Why is this ? "The answer, my friends is blowing in the wind.." that is, our leaders are. Fat cat expense junkies too busy on free jaunts to Kuala Lumpur to do anything useful in their own paid-up jobs. How is their performance measured, errm it isn't. How is their value assessed...erm .. it isn't. How do we know they are performing .We don't. This is not an accident. If we really knew how little they did, and how talentless they were, they would no longer be employable. Promote real talented people, and not the current zombies. At the top and then outwards. Burn the deadwood. Remove the old-boy backscratchers, then we will really see something worthwhile. Will it happen ?
JC

Also in the report:
2.9.40 Review Report Recommendation 39
2.9.41 "Departments should have only one or two political members in addition to the Minister."
2.9.42 The Committee considers that this recommendation is far too prescriptive. The Committee does not support the Review Report recommendation.
ANON

People have a lot of valid questions about TB's press release - not surprising as it lacks any detail or substance. When will IOM Newspapers step up to the plate and act like a proper newspaper and ask some of these and other difficult questions? Time and time again we see the Govt use the papers as their mouth piece and we rarely see any indepth investigation from the journalists (are there any?) at Publishing House. With the election not far away it's important that the politicians are not given an easy ride into their next 5 years of ineptitude.
J

At a time when all Government Departments are being told to cut expenditure and have had their budgets cut, this is proposed? And where will the money come from to finance these changes as we're being continually told that there is no more money? I agree that it does smack of "smoke and mirrors", and I don't believe the "guarantee" that there will be no job cuts either. It would be interesting to know where these proposal originated from as nobody seems to know, or are prepared to own up to.
C

If change is being introduced - which I welcome, and it's good to see initiatives for new business being focussed in one area - but there are no savings, especially in headcount then what's the point given the problems we face? The words Titanic, deckchairs and rearrange come to mind!
SS

The Emperor's new clothes.
THE PICANINNY

Would anyone like to hazard a guess at how much it will cost to re-print all the stationary??? just another thought, Marathon - snickers, Co-Co pops - co-co crispis, Opal fruits - Star Bursts... Point being?
LOUISE

The plan is pointless unless it results in at least a 50% reduction in staffing and a complete change of the political leaders and senior government officers at or prior to implementation.
DISGUSTEDWITHGOV

'Restructuring' has happened in a couple of the companies I've worked for in the private sector, and it only ever means one thing (despite being told the opposite by the powers that be): Redundancies. Might not be a bad thing in that case. It's a pretty naive civil servant that isn't unnerved by this announcement. If this isn't the hidden agenda then really, what is the point? PS thanks Louise, I hadn't realised that Co-Co Pops had changed their name. You lives and you learns.
MICK, Douglas

Just had a very quick look at the proposals. It is poetic licence to describe this as a "massive overhaul of the entire structure of Government". It is a rejigging of what is already there. Some initial responses. Firstly nothing seems to be going to be done in terms of government about the Council of Ministers. We will continue to have the strange situation where members of a house of review are involving themselves in setting priorities not reviewing them. The present financial crisis is an opportunity not only to reform the public service but the over complex and costly political system needed to 'govern' just 32,000 households. Secondly there are some 'restructuring' opportunities that seem to be going begging. I agree that Tourism needs better control and to be seen as part of our economic future. But why do we need the Department of Community, Culture & Leisure? Their activities could be divided effectively between the Department of the Environment, The Department of Economic Development (as part of Tourism) and the Department of Infrastructure (as part of the Transport portfolio). Thirdly, the splitting of Health and Social Services has already been commented on as a move away from joined up thinking. The thinking behind this decision needs to be explained as it is an added senior management cost. Fourthly what process will be used to ensure that the right people get the right jobs? Without a process to get the right people into the key jobs this could well end up as a shuffling of deck chairs. Fifthly what also appears to be missing from a preliminary read is the cost/benefit analysis. In what way will services to the public be improved and will this mean better services for less cost? How much will it cost to implement these decisions? When will reform of the political system be addressed? When will the issues related to PS staffing levels and pensions be dealt with? When will the issues related to 'Members'
pensions be dealt with?
PF

New sources of income will be identifiable with or without the proposed change. More importantly no additional savings seem likely from this re-organisation. Without either benefit aren't we just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?
ANON

How much more inept can this government get? If it can become more efficient and effective, and as a result redundancies are necessary then so be it. Welcome to the real world
SAINTBAGS

As a public sector worker, I am not surprised by the "re-structure" that was announced today and have been a lone voice in the wilderness for a long time when discussing my views of what was about to unfold with fellow colleagues. To say the "re-structure" is a reaction to and a cure for economic problems is a nonsense. This sudden announcement is no surprise to myself and the real reasons I believe are straight forward : a pensions short fall within the public sector of about 20% in real terms and therefore the "merging" of certain Government Departments will result in a loss of positions (although not "redundancies" as stated) and a reduction of the pensions burden in future years. The loss of jobs in real numbers will be masked by early retirements and not advertising posts when people move (or merge)into other public or private sector jobs, also resulting in the transfer of responsibilities onto other workers when positions cease to exist. We are living in an uncertain time and I believe this is the thin end of an ever increasing wedge of belt tightening over the next few years.
MR P.O. LAND (almost retired)

Whilst I agree that this is possibly a smoke and mirrors exercise. I do wonder how many of the professionals working in these Departments as they stand now were asked for their input, on what the consequences of this change may be. I also wonder whether other cuts had been explored first? the MHK pay cut didn't get much discussion. Perhaps that should be explored more thoroughly or even whether as a small Island we really do need 26? MHK's at all?
PM

Tony you should have studied Roman History you might have come across this Gentleman. Gaius Petronius Arbiter (210 BC), who wrote: "We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. "I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralisation."
JC

Brown down, deeper & down, please go back to Castletown !!
CLAGUEY

I am intrigued that Tony Brown calls the proposals a massive overhaul of government. Certainly there is a rejigging of the Public Service but not one mention of any masive changes to the poilitical arm of government. So it is a partial overhaul of government. If we can have a more efficient Public Service surely we can also have a more efficient Tynwald and local government sructure. Until this happens there will always be a sense that political self-interest is preventing this from happening.
DP

Yet again Government tries to fix something that isn't broken. A few tweaks here & there might be needed but not the overhaul put forward! I cannot see how this saves money. New signage, name boards etc are going to be required and Mr Brown thinks costs will be negligible. Government should be leading by example when asking others to look at cutting costs. Mr Brown, can you please let us know how much government is actually saving by making all these changes? Will it cover the revenue lost by the change in the VAT agreement? Also, is it right that a large sum of money has just been spent on a new computer system for DHSS to link the departments up? And now you separate them! Ministers are obviously so confident in their positions that they don't need to worry what the public, their constituents who vote them, think! Roll on next election.
MANXIE

No changes hey, Mr Cretney had an article in the business pages of the examiner telling us how training and education would play an important part in the future for the Isle of Man, well if that's the case how is it they are going to close TRAINING CENTRE at Hills Meadow.
MANXY