Write for us!
Earlier this month, the government quietly closed one of the more brazen rackets in modern British public life. For years, bots and third-party companies had been bulk-buying driving test slots from the DVSA and reselling them to desperate learner drivers for up to £500 eight times the official price of £62. New rules now mean only the learner themselves can book, change or cancel their test. Simple. Effective. Long overdue.
But here’s the question worth sitting with: why did it take so long?
This wasn’t a hidden problem. The Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency knew. Ministers knew. The waiting lists stretched up to 12 months in some areas, the WhatsApp resale groups were hardly secret, and a BBC investigation last December documented the racket in detail, including driving instructors being offered kickbacks to hand over their login credentials. Yet it was only after years of quiet exploitation that anything substantive was done.
The answer, uncomfortable as it is, has little to do with complexity and everything to do with who was being harmed.
When the powerful suffer, government moves fast
Cast your mind back to the campaign against ticket touting at concerts and football matches. It gathered pace quickly once major venues, Premier League clubs and artists with large media profiles got behind it. Ed Sheeran, the Arctic Monkeys and others spoke out publicly. The entertainment industry lobbied hard. Legislation followed.
The difference wasn’t that ticket touting was more harmful than driving test fraud. It’s that the people losing money to touts in the concert world included commercially significant institutions (venues, promoters, rights-holders) who were watching income they felt they were entitled to being siphoned away by middlemen. They had lawyers, lobbyists, and lunches with ministers. They got an audience and they were heard.
Learner drivers, typically young, often from lower-income households, many of them needing a licence to access work, had none of that. By the time they’d navigated the system, passed their test and moved on with their lives, they had no incentive to campaign. Their loss was real but diffuse, and diffuse losses rarely generate political pressure.
This isn’t a party-political point
It would be convenient to pin this on one government or another, but the pattern holds across decades and across parties. Conservative and Labour administrations alike have been more responsive to organised business interests than to the kind of low-level systemic unfairness that grinds away at ordinary people’s lives. The lobbying infrastructure that surrounds Westminster operates continuously, regardless of which colour rosette is in power.
The smaller parties – the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Alliance Party in Northern Ireland, have tended to be more alert to this kind of issue, perhaps because they represent communities with a stronger tradition of expecting the state to actively protect people from exploitation, and because their politics isn’t shaped by the same donor relationships and corporate access that frame Westminster’s mainstream. But they lack the numbers to force change on their own.
The structural problem runs deeper than any individual government’s priorities. First-past-the-post politics compels both major parties to compete for a narrow band of swing voters, who tend to be older, more settled, and less likely to be sitting on a six-month waiting list for a driving test. Proportional systems tend to give a louder voice to parties that champion exactly the kind of consumer protection and systemic fairness issues that fall through Westminster’s cracks.
The bigger picture: energy, utilities and the services we all depend on
The driving test case is relatively minor in the scheme of things. But zoom out, and the same dynamic that applies in organised industry interests (interests that outweigh the diffuse needs of ordinary people) have shaped policy in sectors that affect every household in Britain.
Take energy. For years, the big six suppliers operated in a market that was nominally competitive but functionally opaque. Prices rose faster than costs justified. Switching was deliberately complicated. Standing charges crept upward. The industry had well-funded trade bodies, close relationships with OFGEM (some might say too close), and a revolving door of officials moving between regulator and regulated. Consumers, meanwhile, had Citizens Advice and occasional outrage in the tabloids. Reform came slowly, partially, and only after the cost-of-living crisis made inaction politically indefensible.
Water is worse. Privatised in 1989 with promises of investment and efficiency, the water companies spent the following decades loading themselves with debt, paying out billions in dividends, and discharging sewage into rivers with near impunity. Ofwat was captured, not through conspiracy, but through the slow gravitational pull of an industry that understood the regulatory process far better than the public ever could. The backlash, when it finally came, required years of campaigning by environmental groups, dramatic river pollution events, and social media pressure before the political class felt sufficiently uncomfortable to act.
Broadband, rail, social care all show the story repeating. In each case, the industry’s voice was amplified and continuous. The consumer’s voice was sporadic, emotional and easy to manage. Consultations were held, responses were submitted, and the resulting policy inevitably landed somewhere convenient to the incumbent business interests.
This is not cynicism. It is simply how systems without strong countervailing pressure tend to drift.
What would it look like to genuinely listen?
The question isn’t whether business should have a voice in policy, of course it should. The question is whether that voice is so disproportionately loud that the interests of ordinary people are routinely drowned out until a crisis or a media investigation forces the issue.
A government serious about rebalancing this would need to do more than tinker at the edges. It would mean stronger, genuinely independent regulators with consumer protection as their primary mandate rather than industry stability. It would mean properly funded consumer advocacy, not the threadbare organisations currently expected to hold billion-pound industries to account. It would mean thinking hard about how universal services are structured, who bears the risk when they fail, and whether the privatisation model that has shaped British infrastructure for forty years has actually delivered for the people it was supposed to serve.
It might even mean asking, before a policy is designed, not “what does the industry need?” but “what do people need?” and treating the answer as the starting point rather than an afterthought.
The driving test reform is welcome. But it is a small fix to a relatively small problem. The bigger question it points toward is whether we are willing to have an honest conversation about who our public institutions and universal services are actually designed to serve, and whether, decades on from the decisions that shaped them, it might be time to reconsider the answer.
Because right now, the evidence suggests that the person waiting eighteen months for a water company to stop pumping sewage into their local river, the family rationing the heating because standing charges have made energy unaffordable, and the young person who paid £400 to take a government test… they’re all waiting for the same thing.
To be heard.
