ONE of the consequences of the Wales Audit Office report into Guernsey’s governance has been to raise again the spectre of executive government. Firstly, because a number of deputies said that suggesting there were weaknesses in the system could undermine the 2004 States resolution not to go down that road.

Secondly, because of the WAO’s conclusion that executive government already exists – at departmental level and with the Assembly above that.

But what the current system does not have is any mechanism for ensuring on a day-to-day basis that everyone is pulling in the same direction. And it is that one deficiency that gives rise to so much of the WAO’s critical report on good governance and the inability to demonstrate value for money public services.

What that means is the States is neither directed nor controlled as a single corporate entity, but instead acts as a collection of autonomous departments that choose if or when they submit to corporate policy.

Interestingly, that assessment comes from the chief minister today in the first of what will be a monthly column in this newspaper and in which he reveals that domestic issues remain his priority, among them debating the WAO report and moving on to Harwood II.

As things stand, delivering joined-up government is held back by two flaws in the current system: there is no way of ensuring the States as a whole acts with common purpose as a corporate entity and, probably worse, there is no mechanism for transferring money and resources to where they are needed most.

Tackling that has to be a priority – but doing so does not automatically mean introducing cabinet or ministerial government. It could be as simple as ministers, their boards and executives accepting that departmental interests are subordinate to corporate policy, as expressed by the States five-year strategic plan.

The difficulty, of course, is what happens if a department does not share that common vision.

Should one minister and his four voting members be able to deflect that golden thread of policy?

If not, the real issue is not executive government – but how members propose stopping them.