Why then if the new regulations couldn't be published in time was the whole validation process bit not put on hold. Surely a law shouldn't be changed and only promulgated through pprune. That in itself could be unlawful.
Because the effective date for all new NPPLs was the date the ANO change came into force. Existing NPPL holders who wished to change to the new system also had a legal right to do so with effect from that date.
When you say a member of the public was not prepared to abide by the lawful consultation process, do you mean - that a member of the public quite properly, if they so believed, challenged the process being undertaken on legal grounds. Presumably because they didn't believe proper consultations with those that it would effect had taken place.
Either we have a properly constituted consulatation process (as we do), or we have anarchy. There is a move being considered, incidentally, which will advise any such folk who wish to intervene with the DfT that, should they lose their case, they will be required to pay the associated costs. That should put a stop to endless time wasters.
I do not understand your arguments with regard to the AIC. There was once a day that changes to law were published prior to them becoming effective. An AIC was published, on occasion sometimes afterward, but usually only if necessary, to clarify. An AIC on its own is not the law. Where is it intended to publish the law?
The law has already been published in the ANO amendment. The AIC is intended to explain the changes in everday terms and describe the implementation process. As there was no 'big bang' on this occasion (except for new licences), no existing NPPL holder was obliged to act immediately.
On the point in question. Why is it necessary for a NPPL holder to formerly present themself to an examiner to have their bit of paper signed and dated when, if they don't, they will suddenly become illegal and therefore be breaking the law. They already have the bit of paper and if they are otherwise fully complient (not the 90 day rule which applies to all) why do they not continue to remain lawful until it is absolutely necessary for a signature and an expiry date to be entered.
The current SSEA Class Rating has a rolling validity and, ipso facto, no 'expiry date'. The new system introduces a fixed validity period; this starts on the day the licence holder presents his licence to the Examiner and has the new validity period entered. The 'transition period' is intended to spread any demand peaks and to give people plenty of time to understand the new system. But the transition period has a fixed end date - anyone without a validity expiry date in their licence after that date will not have a valid Rating and will not be able to use their licence privileges.