Competition raises difficult questions

The first, most obvious one, is what happens to the Guernsey Competition and Regulatory Authority if it loses an appeal? Its operation is already under criticism from quarters like Guernsey Electricity and the States’ Trading Supervisory Board and hitting the MSG with a £1.5m. penalty seriously ups the ante if it has miscalculated. Also, what protection would consumers have if the GCRA ceased to exist or saw its scope severely curtailed?

In the case of the MSG, its involvement is fundamental here. The argument is whether a business can impose ‘non-compete’ clauses on specialists who leave it – basically a ban on them working here for up to five years.

Quite apart from the impact on an individual being prevented from earning a living, the GCRA rightly targeted the anti-competitive nature of the MSG effectively stopping someone else offering specialist medical services.

The regulator said the restrictions threatened to deprive Guernsey consumers of medical services which could be available more quickly and cheaper.

These are complex areas and, if not for the regulator, would be left unchallenged.

While no one relishes a regulator’s attentions, the MSG’s response is rather underwhelming. We’re working hard to save patient lives during a pandemic and this is an unwelcome distraction, it appears to be saying.

Many islanders have good cause to be grateful to the skills of MSG partners but facing litigation goes with the territory and is factored into MSG business activities.

The other aspect is the cost of treatment highlighted in the fine imposed – specialists certainly do not come cheap. They already have a near £18m. contract with the States and Guernsey taxpayers, and this result indicates private practice turnover for the group of some £4.6m.

Everything now hangs on the appeal. Competition certainly raises some intriguing questions.