The London taxi controversy almost certainly divides public opinion, so TfL’s decision not to renew Uber’s licence will be in the news for some time – and will probably end up in the High Court.

So, what is the role of public consultation in the current trend towards deregulating key activities or pubic services? Private hire is not the only area where there is a battle between those who believe in tightly-regulated services with the inevitable bureaucracy and alleged resistance to change and innovation and those who want a greater choice with the service user being able to absorb the risk of lower standards.

In most cases, regulators undertake consultation on changes to such standards. This is true if we look at Food Safety (Food Standards Agency) Health & Safety (Health & Safety Executive), pollution (the Environment Agency) or even human fertility (the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority). And there are dozens of others. In most cases, the most enthusiastic consultees are from within a specialist area; service providers, technology suppliers, trade bodies and, of course relevant consumer groups. Only rarely are the general public involved in numbers.

But taxi services in London are potentially usable by millions of people. To what extent should they be consulted?

In fact, in 2016, TfL consulted on changes to the rules that govern the 21,000 black cab users.

(See https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tph/private-hire-proposals-2015/)

16,000 responses sounds impressive, but is, of course only a tiny fraction of the capital’s market for private hire. Note, however that Uber was already mobilising its grassroots customer base. Over 200,000 people used a template letter provided by the Company and objecting to some of the proposed changes, and TfL prudently took a cautious approach to the more controversial ideas.

It is one thing to consult about the rules but quite another to determine whether a specific licensing application should succeed. TfL’s decision today is not about what the rules are, but a judgement made by a Regulator in respect of the extent to which Uber’s application fulfils its requirements. That is not a matter for consultation – but it is well-known to be subject to lobbying. Trade Union pressure is thought to have played a part here – but there is equal pressure from residents who like cheaper fares. They have been on Twitter in their thousands to object to this decision.

There are many ways to ascertain the views of the community, and were we to make full use of online consultation technology, we might well find a huge groundswell of support for online private hire technology as well. As things stand, we may find a disconnect between an exercise to engage key stakeholders on the rules and regulations, and a process of seeking the views of the wider public.

Maybe we need to clarify how Regulators of all kind take account of public opinion when implementing their regulations?

We will no doubt return to this theme in the Institute.