Is the Government going to be forced to postpone the First Appointed Day for licence transition?
It is set for 7 February, which is exactly a month away. But in order to meet this deadline, a number of things have to be in place, and we are running dreadfully short of time.
The first is, of course, the statutory policy for each local licensing authority. By today, nearly 400 local authorities should have published the finally agreed version of their licensing policy, so that those involved in the transition process and new applicants for licences can read it and act accordingly.
If a significant number of these policies have not been completed or agreed, then it may be seen as unfair to proceed with the February date. As the publication of the policy is a statutory requirement, applicants might argue that they cannot be fairly treated if they do not know what the council's policy is in relation to variation of their existing licences, for example.
The Christmas and New Year period may not have helped, because all policies have to be approved by the full council, not by a sub-committee. This means that the final draft must be placed before a council meeting, and these do not normally occur over the holiday period.
While this week may have seen a number of meetings taking place, the Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) will have to consider whether it is asking too much to proceed when a proportion of local authorities have not met the DCMS imposed deadline.
The second gap is, of course, the regulations. These were due to be formally laid in Decem-ber. They were not. At the time of writing they still have not been published. They include all the application forms for transition and other procedural matters.
I understand that more than 200 representations were re-ceived by the DCMS, most complaining about the state of the regulations and the construction of the application forms. The forms have, it appears, been stoutly defended by DCMS officials, even though no-one else thinks they are any good. The impression given before Christ-mas was that some amendments would be made but not to the basic structure.
But they have not appeared. Neither has the final fees order. And we are right on the wire.
I find it difficult to see how the Government can continue with this brinkmanship unless there is some serious debate about whether the whole changeover should go ahead in its present form.