Difference between revisions of "Editorial Update/Limited Extent Amendments"

Revision as of 16:22, 6 January 2022

Overview

Limited extent amendments occur when the amendment to be applied has a narrower geographical extent (or territorial application (TA)) than that of the amended provision. We need to bear this in mind to ensure that we don’t remove or replace text that still applies in other jurisdictions.

Limited extent amendments should not be confused with amendments which have only so far been partially commenced for some of their jurisdictions, but have yet to be brought wholly into force for all their jurisdictions. That situation is dealt with here.

Whether or not an amendment has limited extent (or TA) should be indicated in the TOES data prior to update, through affected extent research. The editorial system compares the affecting and affected extents/TAs when the update is allocated and, where an affecting provision has a narrower extent/TA than the affected provision it hits, a warning message will appear on the Update Details page and the extents/TAs for the relevant amendments will appear in red.

REMINDER: It is important to carry out Affected Extent Research (AER) and not skip this task where there are likely to be limited extent amendments in the TOES for your update, to make sure that you will see the limited extent warnings whilst editing. If you think that carrying out the AER is likely to cause a delay, it’s a good idea to email your reviewer or line manager to ask them to expedite the AER review for you.

Please note that (as the warning message shown above indicates) the fact that an amendment appears to be limited in its extent/TA does not necessarily mean that it should not be carried out in full. On legislation.gov.uk the extent of the affected provision merely indicates the widest extent of the text it contains. Individual sub-provisions may have a narrower extent than the provision as a whole and specific text may obviously apply only to a single jurisdiction. For example, the title and number of an Act of the N.I. Assembly relates to the law of N.I. and so, where such an Act title is mentioned in a provision which extends to the UK, we would not expect to treat its substitution for N.I. only as a limited extent amendment.

Approach to limited extent amendments

Once we have established that our amendment is a genuinely limited extent/TA amendment that cannot be fully applied without misleading our users, then we can deal with it in one of two ways:

1. We can create a new "composite text" version of the provision by applying retained text amendments to it using the limited extent amendment options in XMetaL. "Composite text" here just means that we retain both the old text (which now applies to the other jurisdictions not covered by the new limited extent amendment) and the new limited extent text together in the same version of the provision. We would usually use this option for limited extent insertions of words or sub-provisions, limited extent substitutions of words or sub-provisions and limited extent repeals of words, sub-provisions and whole provisions.

2. We can create "concurrent versions" of the provision using the Concurrent Version Manager in the website preview. We would usually use this option where a whole provision is substituted for limited extent with different text, where limited extent substitutions of text or sub-provisions within a provision are conflicting or excessively complex and make the resulting composite text too complicated to make sense of, or -- since Brexit -- where we have limited extent amendments for either EWS or NI (or both) made to EU Implementing SIs (which were made under ECA 1972 to implement EU Directives) by EU Exit SIs to implement the NI Protocol.

The annotation for a limited extent/TA amendment should always include an indication of its limited extent/TA in brackets before the IF Date details (e.g. "(W.)", "(E.W.)", "(N.I.)", etc) no matter whether we have chosen to use the composite text or concurrent versions method in order to apply it.

In order to help you decide if your amendment is genuinely limited extent and what approach you should take when applying it we have devised two decision trees which appear in the next two sections.

Decision tree for limited extent amendments

Your affecting provision ostensibly has a narrower extent/TA than the affected extent:

1.

Double check the extent of the affecting provision by looking at its extent provision. Information about how the amendment applies may also be found in the affecting provision itself or at the end of the Chapter, Part or Schedule in which the provision resides. If it is in secondary legislation there may be an Explanatory Memorandum (EM) to help you.

2.

Check the extent/TA of the affected provision by looking at the affected document’s extent provision and/or EM. If it is secondary legislation and has no extent provision and no EM, then check the extent provision for its enabling provision/s in the power conferring Act.

3.

Does the affected sub-provision have a narrower extent than the extent of the whole provision which contains it? If yes and its extent is the same as (or narrower than) the extent of your affecting provision, then it is not a limited extent amendment.

4.

Is the TA of the affected provision the same as (or narrower than) the affecting TA? Is it a Welsh SI or Welsh Act/Measure (which extends to EW but of course only applies to W) hit by an amendment which only applies to W? Is it a UKSI that only applies to E being amended by an affecting document that also only applies to E? Is the subject of the affected provision an even narrower geographical area like a city (e.g. London) or is it a thing in a specific locality (e.g. a power station or other construction project, a road or railway line, etc) which is obviously of narrower stretch than the affecting TA? If yes, it is not a limited extent amendment.

5.

Where a Welsh Act, Measure or WSI (which of course only apply to Wales, since the Senedd -- and before it the Welsh Assembly -- only has legislative competence for Wales) amends a provision of a UK PGA which extends to EW we assume that the drafters are acting within their competence and only altering the text in so far as they are allowed to do so by the Government of Wales Act 2006 (c. 32), s. 108A (and formerly s. 108), which means that we can usually assume that W only substitutions of words and sub-provisions in an EW provision can be carried through in full because the drafter will only change text which also applies to E to the extent that it is "ancillary" and only so far as to make it effective for W, not to change how it relates to E. On the other hand, we would need to treat a W only repeal of words, sub-provisions or a whole provision as a limited extent repeal if the affected provision genuinely applied to both E and W. And again we would need to be circumspect where a whole provision was substituted for W only and that provision genuinely applied to both E and W. In the latter case, we may be forced down the concurrent versions route.

6.

Is the affected provision itself an amending provision (is it a consequential amendment or a repeal schedule entry, for example)? If yes, what is its extent? Is it marked as UK extent (or the widest extent of the whole document containing it) because it is in fact a “co-extensive” amending provision (i.e. where the amendments have the same extent as the provisions they amend)? If yes, what is the extent of the provision it amends? If this is the same as (or narrower than) your affecting provision, then it is not a limited extent amendment.

7.

Does the affected text plainly only apply to the same extent/TA as the extent/TA of your affecting provision? For example, does the Part heading, cross-heading or provision heading which subsumes the affected provision only relate or refer to England, or to Wales or to Scotland etc, even though the extent is given as EW or EWS? Is the affected text a citation of a Northern Ireland Act or SR title or a Scottish Act or SSI title etc so that its respective substitution for NI or S only should clearly not be considered limited extent? Does the affected text relate to a defined term that only applies in the jurisdiction covered by your ostensible limited extent amendment? Does the affected text provide for how the rest of affected provision is to apply to only a part of the extent which that provision covers (e.g. in its application to Scotland)? If you are satisfied that the affected text really only applies to the same (or narrower) extent/TA as your affecting provision, then do not treat it as a limited extent amendment.

8.

Is your amendment by an EU Exit SI which extends to UK but applies only to EWS and affects a retained EU Decision or Regulation? If yes, then do not treat it as a limited extent amendment, but do include reference to the affecting TA ("(E.W.S.)") before the IF Date in the annotation. On IP completion day the UK essentially copied and brought into UK law all the EU legislation that previously directly applied to it as a member state of the EU. On the same day, it amended this "retained EU law" so that it could function as part of UK law after Brexit or revoked it if it was no longer relevant. However, some EU law still directly applies to Northern Ireland as a result of the NI Protocol which forms part of the Withdrawal Agreement. This EU law is referred to as "relevant separation agreement law" and applies directly to NI as if it were still an EU member state via the “conduit” in the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 (c. 16), ss. 7A, 7B. This means that users wishing to view "relevant separation agreement law" applying directly to NI under the NI Protocol should view the current EU law on EUR-Lex. The corresponding "retained EU law" held on legislation.gov.uk is the UK legislation as it applies apart from the NI Protocol and outside the EU post-Brexit.

If, having asked yourself the above questions, you decide that your amendment is a limited extent amendment after all then you will next need to decide how you should apply it. Should you create a "composite text" version of the provision composed of both the old text and the new limited extent text in the same version? Or should you create "parallel text" for each jurisdiction by creating concurrent versions using the Concurrent Version manager? We are devising a decision tree to help you do this which will be inserted in the next section.

Decision tree for deciding whether or not to create concurrent versions

Your amendment is a genuinely limited extent/TA amendment to a provision that does not already have concurrent versions:

Do you only have one such amendment or more than one? And are the amendments all of the same type or different types? If you have more than one amendment and they are of different types then you need to assess them all together first before plunging onwards since, if concurrent versions are needed (e.g. for a substitution), then it makes sense to create them first before applying amendments which otherwise would not require the making of concurrent versions (e.g. insertions or repeals).

1. Insertions/additions

Most limited extent insertions do not require concurrent versions. However, where you have conflicting insertions for both EWS and NI made by an EU Exit SI on an EU Implementing SI made under ECA 1972, then this should be treated in the same way as a limited extent substitution made by an EU Exit SI on such an SI (see substitutions below).

1.1 Is your amendment a limited extent insertion of words or sub-provisions? No concurrent versions are needed (except if they are conflicting insertions for EWS and NI made by an EU Exit SI on an EU Implementing SI made under ECA 1972). Insert the new text using the limited extent insertion option in XMetaL. If the words or sub-provisions have already been inserted for another jurisdiction, then you just need to update the existing annotation with an appended commentary for the new limited extent insertion.

(Note: There is a bug in the editorial system whereby false E-notes are created when you apply a limited extent amendment to provision headings. Where this happens you will need to be delete the commentary refs to remove them.)

1.2 Is your amendment a limited extent insertion of a whole provision? No concurrent versions are needed. Insert the new text using the limited extent insertion option in XMetaL. If the same-numbered provision already exists (inserted for another jurisdiction) and your inserted provision is not identical to it (or if you have conflicting insertions of different whole provisions for EWS and NI made by an EU Exit SI on an EU Implementing SI made under ECA 1972), then you should treat it the same as a limited extent substitution of a whole provision (see substitutions below). If your new insertion is identical to the existing provision then no concurrent versions are needed and you just need to update the existing annotation with an appended commentary for the new limited extent insertion.

(Note: there is a useful text comparison website here to help you work out if the text of two provisions is really identical.)

1.3 Is your amendment a limited extent insertion of a higher level provision (e.g. a heading and range of provisions, or a Chapter, Part or Schedule)? No concurrent versions are needed. Insert the new text using the limited extent insertion option in XMetaL. However, if the same higher level provisions are already inserted for another jurisdiction and your inserted provisions are not identical, then you should treat it the same as a limited extent substitution of a higher level provision (see substitutions below). If your new insertion is identical to the existing high level provision then no concurrent versions are needed and you just need to update the existing annotation with an appended commentary for the new limited extent insertion.

1.4 is your amendment a limited extent insertion of a heading only, whose children continue to be of wider extent than the inserted heading. In this case, insert the heading as a full insertion of words after having inserted the correct xml tagging for the heading (e.g. Pblock tagging for a new cross-heading). The newly inserted heading will keep the wider extent (i.e. the widest extent of any of the children subsumed under it) for search purposes on legislation.gov.uk, but you will make sure that its limited extent is indicated in its annotation. Then you should drag (or cut and paste) the existing children which the new heading has adopted into the new tagging.

2. Repeals/revocations/omissions

2.1 Is your amendment a limited extent repeal of words or sub-provisions? No concurrent versions are needed. Retain the text using the limited extent repeal option in XMetaL. Following the repeal, any further amendments to the text or sub-provision for its remaining jurisdiction/s should be carried out as whole extent amendments.

2.2 Is your amendment a limited extent repeal of a whole provision? No concurrent versions are needed. Retain the text using the limited extent repeal option in XMetaL. Following the repeal, any further amendments to the provision for its remaining jurisdiction/s should be carried out as whole extent amendments.

2.3 Is your amendment a limited extent repeal of a higher level provision (e.g. a heading and range of provisions, or a Chapter, Part or Schedule or whole document)? No concurrent versions are needed. You should carry out a limited extent repeal of words in the heading and cut and paste the closing bracket to the end of the item of legislation or Chapter/Part/Schedule, so that the whole text of the item of legislation or Chapter/Part/Schedule is retained with square brackets around it. The F-note reference will be situated at the beginning of the heading and a derived annotation will be viewable in individual child provisions.

2.4 Is your amendment a limited extent repeal of a heading only, which leaves the child provisions subsumed under that heading intact? No concurrent versions are needed. Treat this in the same way as a limited extent repeal of words.

3. Substitutions

Our usual assumption for most limited extent substitutions has for a long time been that concurrent versions should only be used as a last resort where the result of making a composite text version is excessively complex and therefore difficult to read and comprehend. See for example 1997 c. 50, s. 113A.

However,

A. where a whole provision is being limited extent substituted and the text of the new provision is different from the existing provision, then concurrent versions should be used.

B. where the affected document is an EU Implementing SI made under the now repealed European Communities Act 1972 (c. 68), s. 2(2) to implement EU Directives, then the assumption from now on is that any substitution made by an EU Exit SI, whether it be of words, sub-provisions or the whole provision, and whether it be limited to EWS or to NI (or where conflicting insertions or substitutions are made for both EWS and NI), should result in the creation of concurrent versions.

3.1 Is your amendment a limited extent substitution of words or sub-provisions? No concurrent versions are needed UNLESS the resulting composite text version is incomrehensible OR UNLESS the affected document is an EU Implementing SI made under ECA 1972 amended by an EU Exit SI.

3.2 Is your amendment a limited extent substitution of a whole provision? Concurrent versions should be created in this case EXCEPT where the new provision is identical to the existing provision which has already been inserted/substituted for an alternative jurisdiction. In the latter case you just need to update the existing annotation with an appended commentary for the new limited extent substitution.

(Note: there is a useful text comparison website here to help you work out if the text of two provisions is really identical.)

3.3 Is your amendment a limited extent substitution of a higher level provision? No concurrent versions are possible in this situation because the Concurrent Versions Manager only works at whole provision level.

3.3.1 If the high level provision being substituted is a cross-heading and range of provisions, Chapter or Part, then we need to do the following:

a) do a limited extent substitution of the words of the heading so we end up with the old and new headings together in the same version;

b) then, where the same-numbered child provisions are substituted and they have different text, we need to create concurrent versions for each substituted child provision;

c) where there are more new provisions than existing provisions (“more for less”) we will have to do a limited extent insertion of the newly numbered child provisions;

d) where there are fewer new provisions than existing provisions (“less for more”), we will have to do a limited extent repeal of any child provisions not substituted.

All provisions involved get the same annotation (which should include an indication of the limited extent) whether they have been treated as a substitution, insertion or repeal.

3.3.2 If the high level provision being substituted is a Schedule (and it is not identical to the existing Schedule), then we should treat this as a limited extent insertion of the new Schedule. After inserting the new Schedule, a limited extent substitution annotation should be inserted at the existing Schedule’s heading level and the existing schedule should have its extent changed in the attribute inspector in XMetaL to remove the jurisdiction now covered by the new Schedule. If the children all inherit their extent from the parent then their extent attributes will be blank and will not need to be changed, but if they have their own extent attributes then this will need to be changed in each child.

3.3.3 Is your amendment a limited extent substitution of a heading only, which leaves the child provisions subsumed under that heading untouched? No concurrent versions are needed. Treat this in the same way as a limited extent substitution of words.

Limited extent amendment options in XMetaL

XMetaL has special amendment options for carrying out limited extent insertions and for provision-level repeals and substitutions. These will produce slightly different results than for standard amendments. If you attempt to use the standard menu options when carrying out a limited extent amendment, XMetaL will prompt you to use the Limited Extent Menu options.

Limited Extent Insertions: A Limited Extent Insertion will look exactly the same as a standard insertion. The only difference is that the extent information will be added to the XML. For an insertion of words or a sub-provision, this means that the extent information will be included in the Extent attribute of the ukl:Addition element. For an insertion of a whole provision (and higher level insertions), as well as including the extent in the extent attribute of the ukl:Addition element, the extent will also be included in the RestrictExtent attribute of the relevant provision. This information will be used by the website to identify the extent of the amendment. The annotation will also include a reference to the extent. You can use the Limited Extent Menu option to carry out provision level and higher level limited extent insertions.

Limited Extent Repeals: Limited Extent Repeals will not result in the text being replaced by a dotted line. Instead the repeal text will be retained, enclosed by brackets and ukl:Repeal tags, with an F-note reference appearing immediately after the opening bracket. As with insertions, the extent of the amendment will be added to the XML (i.e. the Extent attribute of the ukl:Repeal tags) and the annotation will include reference to the extent. You can use the Limited Extent Menu option to carry out provision level limited extent repeals, but you will need to follow the instructions on the Higher Level Repeals page for higher level limited extent repeals.

Limited Extent Substitutions: Limited Extent Substitutions will result in both the new and the old text being retained side by side. Both sets of text will be enclosed by brackets with an F-note reference appearing immediately after each opening bracket. The old text will be enclosed by ukl:Repeal tags and the new ukl:Addition tags. As with repeals and insertions, the extent will be added to the XML (i.e. the Extent attribute of the ukl:Repeal and ukl:Addition tags, and the RestrictExtent attribute of the substituted provision, where relevant) and the annotation will include reference to the extent. You can use the Limited Extent Menu option to carry out provision level limited extent substitutions, but it cannot be used for higher level substitutions and you are advised to consult a Review Editor for advice in this situation.

See more on the Extent and RestrictExtent attributes on the XMetaL and XML tagging page.

WARNING: There is a bug in the limited extent amendment code that means that limited extent amendments to provision headings result in false E-notes being created - look out for this and remove any false E-notes.

Making changes to an existing limited extent amendment when an identical amendment is applied for another jurisdiction

The same amendment may be made for different jurisdictions on different dates, one after the other, until eventually the amendment covers the full extent of the affected provision. If your new limited extent amendment is identical to a limited extent amendment which has already been applied for another jurisdiction at an earlier PiT, you will need to amend the original limited extent amendment as follows:

Amendment remains limited extent

If the amendment remains limited extent after your amendment (e.g. the amendment has already been made for E+W and your amendment is for N.I., but the full extent of the provision is E+W+S+N.I., leaving S. yet to be amended), then you will need to:

1. Leave the retained text from the original limited extent amendment intact but remember to amend the Extent attribute of the amendment tagging to include the new jurisdiction; and

2. Merge the annotation details in such way that the new details don't "trickle" back into the previous versions (see the example below - note that whilst this example is for an amendment that is wholly in force for all jurisdictions, the principles for dealing with merging the annotation details are the same).

Amendment is now wholly in force for all jurisdictions

If your amendment means that that the original amendment will be wholly in force for all jurisdictions (e.g. the amendment has already been made for E+W+N.I., the full extent of the provision is E+W+S+N.I. and the same amendment is now being carried out for S.), you will need to:

1. Fully carry out the original amendment (i.e. remove any retained text), as the old text will no longer be needed for any jurisdictions;

2. Amend the Extent attribute of the amendment tagging to include the new jurisdiction; and

3. Merge the annotation details in such way that the new details don't trickle back into the previous versions (see example below).

Example

On 2/12/2019, there was a limited extent substitution of words in 2004 c. 33, s. 237(2)(b)(ii) for E.W., and this was followed by the same amendment being made for N.I. on 13.1.2020:

On 1/6/2021, there was a further substitution of exactly the same words for S., so that the substitution of words was now wholly in force for all jurisdictions. The retained text could therefore be removed at this PiT and the annotation amended as follows:

1. Because the substitution was now complete for all jurisdictions, we removed the retained text from the original limited extent substitution, i.e. the provision was checked out in XMetaL and the ukl:Repeal tags and words they contained were deleted:

This left just the substituted text (i.e. the text within the ukl:Addition tagging):

2. Next, we needed to add the details of the S. substitution to the existing annotation. To prevent this from "trickling" back into the previous versions of the provision (which would happen if we just merged the text for the S. substitution into the existing annotation), it had to be done in a special way, using the following method:

a) insert a new annotation reference in front of the existing ukl:Addition opening bracket using the Insert Commentary option in the Legislation/Non-textual Amendments top menu (having selected the relevant task in the Task Manager so that the correct annotation text is generated):

b) copy the text of the existing annotation to the beginning of the new annotation as plain text (this can be copied from the website Preview of the provision):

c) edit the annotation to merge the text for the various jurisdictions. In this example, after the text of the existing annotation was copied into the new annotation, the words “Words in s. 237(2)(b)(ii) substituted” were deleted from before “(S.)” and replaced with “; and”. The word “and” before “(N.I.)” was also replaced with a semicolon and a colon was added after “substituted”:

Words in s. 237(2)(b)(ii) substituted: (E.W.) (2.12.2019) by The Civil Partnership (Opposite-sex Couples) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/1458), regs. 1(2), 39; (N.I.) (13.1.2020) by The Marriage (Same-sex Couples) and Civil Partnership (Opposite-sex Couples) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/1514), regs. 1(2), 17(6) (with regs. 6-9); and (S.) (1.6.2021) by Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2020 (asp 15), s. 16, sch. 2 para. 6(5); S.S.I. 2021/23, reg. 2, sch. (with reg. 3)

You should end up with an entirely plain text version of the new annotation (if there is any tagging within the tagging that you need to remove, you can place your cursor inside the tags and use Edit/Remove Tags from the top menu to remove them), so you are left with:

d) View the Attributes of the new ukl:CommentaryRef tag in the Attribute Inspector (click on the id number to the right of the ukl:CommentaryRef/ tag and open up the Attribute Inspector), then copy the id Ref number of the new annotation by clicking on the Ref number, right clicking and selecting “copy”:

e) Place the cursor in the opening ukl:Addition tag for the substitution of words and paste that id number over its CommentaryRef attribute. This makes the existing amendment point to the new annotation:

WARNING: Do not alter the Change ID reference number in the Attribute Inspector, as this will cause problems with the update.

While you are viewing the attributes of the ukl:Addition tagging, you will need to amend the Extent attribute to include the new jurisdiction (in this case the extent of the previous limited extent amendments was E+W+N.I., so E+W+S+N.I. was selected from the drop-down menu to change the extent of the amendment and include the new jurisdiction of S.):

f) Delete the inserted ukl:CommentaryRef tagging as it’s no longer needed (just highlight the ukl:CommentaryRef/ tag and delete it):

g) Check the provision back in and the deployment code will add links to the plain text annotation;

h) Preview your amendment to check the amendment brackets are in the correct location, you have removed the retained text and the annotation content and links are correct.

Creating a concurrent version

Checklist for creating and editing a concurrent version: 1. Correct the extent of your provision (if you need to) 2. Insert the PiT you are updating (if you need to) 3. Add Extent Notes to each concurrent version 4. Edit each version of the provision separately, remembering to carry out limited extent amendments fully and leave the extent in the annotation 5. Check in your amendments and preview them 6. If you need to make any further amendments, check back out from the Parent level Remember: 1. Be careful to make your amendments in the right version of the provision (i.e. don't make EWS amendments in the NI version, etc.) 2. Check that the extent is included in the annotation if it needs to be and add it in if it has been missed out 3. If you check out from the Parent level, only the principal concurrent version will appear in the expected position in the order of provisions, the alternative concurrent version/s will be displayed at the bottom of the checked out fragment in the <versions> tagging

REMINDER: It is important to carry out affected extent research (AER) and not skip this task when there are limited extent amendments in the TOES for your update, to make sure that you will see the limited extent warnings whilst editing; this will also help you to identify when concurrent versions might be necessary. If you think that carrying out the AER will cause a delay, it’s a good idea to email your reviewer or line manager to ask them to expedite the AER review.

How to create a concurrent version

1. Preview the provision from the Update Details page.

2. Open up the Concurrent Version Manager by clicking on “View Manager”:

Correct the extent of your provision (if you need to)

You may see a Warning message, for example:

This message appears when the existing extent is incorrect and will usually be due to an error in the format of the RestrictExtent attribute (for example missing full points, i.e. E+W+S+NI should be E+W+S+N.I.). You will need to follow the instructions in the red warning box to correct the existing RestrictExtent attribute of the provision before you can continue.

Insert the PiT you are updating (if you need to)

You may also see the following Warning message if the PiT you are working on needs to be added to the timeline:

To create a concurrent version and carry out the update according to the update task for the PiT you are working on, you will need to follow the instructions in the red warning box and add the relevant PiT using the Timeline Resolver.

Once you have cleared any warning messages (by correcting the provision extent or adding the relevant PiT to the timeline) you will be able to move on to creating a concurrent version.

3. Select the extent you want to create the concurrent version for in the drop-down box under “Add Concurrent Versions” (make sure you select the extent of the concurrent version of provision you want to see displayed after the principal version), then click on the box “Add Concurrent Version”. The Editorial System will generate another version of the provision, and both versions will be displayed one above the other in the Preview with the extent displayed next to the provision heading.

WARNING Don't try and use the "Remove Concurrent Versions" option - it isn't working properly at the moment. Consult a Review Editor if you think you need to remove a concurrent version.

4. You can now check the provision out in XMetaL from the Update Details page, to edit the provision for E.W.S. and N.I. separately (as described in the next section).

Editing newly created concurrent versions

Limited extent amendments are carried out fully in concurrent versions, not as limited extent where text is retained. So, for an amendment that relates only to the jurisdiction of the version of the provision that you are amending, carry out your amendment fully (not as a limited extent amendment that would retain text), and leave the extent in the annotation.

For example, in the following update task there were three limited extent amendments for E.W.S. and two limited extent amendments for N.I.:

After creating a concurrent version for N.I., the E.W.S. amendments were carried out fully in the E.W.S. version of the provision (i.e. the words were substituted and the original text was not retained), and "(E.W.S.)" was left in the annotation:

The N.I. amendments were then carried out fully in the N.I. version of the provision (i.e. the words were substituted and the original text was not retained), and "(N.I.)" was left in the annotation:

Remember to make any whole extent amendments to all versions of the provision, and carry those amendments out in the usual way.

Insert E-notes into newly created concurrent versions

You will also need to add an E-note to each version of the provision to explain what the extent of that version is by placing the cursor before the provision number inside the ukl:Pnumber tagging and selecting Legislation/Manual Annotations/Insert E Note from the top menu:

Ignore the warning message about not linking the amendment to a task and click “OK”.

When prompted, enter the relevant wording for the annotation (e.g. “This version of this provision extends to England and Wales and Scotland only; a separate version has been created for Northern Ireland only”). See further standard wordings for E-notes on the Annotation Conventions page.

TIP: You can copy and paste the relevant E-note wording directly from the Annotation Conventions page.

Remember to insert an E-note detailing the relevant extent in all versions of the provision.

REMEMBER: you do not need to perform amendments as limited extent within concurrent versions, but you should check that the annotations still contain the extent (e.g. “(N.I.)”) before the IF Date.

Once you have completed your amendments, check the amended provision back in and view your amendments in Preview, for example:

Check out from the Parent level if you need to make any further edits after previewing your amendments

When you check the provision back in, you will see a red Concurrent Versions message underneath the Limited Extent Warning Message on the Update Details page. However, please note that if you do need to go back in and make any further edits after you have previewed your original amendments, you will need to check the provision out from the Parent level on the Higher Level Updates Details page (if you check back out from the Provision Level Update Details Page, your amendments won't "stick"). When you check out from the Parent level, concurrent versions will be located at the bottom of the document in XMetaL, so you will need to scroll down to the bottom of the document to edit them.

Editing legislation with existing concurrent versions

When the provision you are editing has existing concurrent versions: From time to time an amendment you are applying might hit a concurrent version.

When an amendment hits a concurrent version, (x2) or (x3) will appear next to the amendment on the Update Overview page and the Details Page to signify there are multiple versions in the data (the number will change depending on the number of versions).

All amendments to concurrent versions will be listed as high level amendments because they have to be edited from parent level:

On the Table of Contents any concurrent versions will be marked with an exclamation mark.

To edit a concurrent version, make sure you check the relevant provision out from the parent level.

In XMetaL you will be presented with multiple versions of the provision in question. In this example there are two versions of s. 18, one for Scotland and one for E.W. A blue header will appear at the top of each provision to indicate which is which, as shown in the following example:

Note: you may have to carry out the amendment in more than one version, depending on the extent of the amendment. For example, if your amendment extends to E.W.S, and there are two versions(one for E.W. and one for S.) you will need to carry your amendment out in both versions. Equally if your amendment extends to Scotland only you need only carry it out in the Scotland version and you won't have to treat it as limited extent because that version only extends to Scotland.

WARNING: Remember that you do not need to perform amendments as limited extent within concurrent versions, but you should check that the annotations still contain the extent (e.g. “(N.I.)”) before the IF Date.

Further Examples

Limited Extent; re-numbering of sub-paragraphs: 1992 c. 51, s. 10 This example also includes a good variety of other limited extent amendments.
Limited Extent; exceptions where it is not possible to use the usual limited extent substitution of a provision procedure to produce concurrent versions as the affected provisions are tagged as ukl:P1 rather than ukl:P1 group: 1920 c.41, Sch. para 5B and 1920 c.41, Sch. para 5C

@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 ===Decision tree for deciding whether or not to create concurrent versions===
-[TBC]
+Your amendment is a genuinely limited extent/TA amendment to a provision that does not already have concurrent versions:
+Do you only have one such amendment or more than one? And are the amendments all of the same type or different types?  If you have more than one amendment and they are of different types then you need to assess them all together first before plunging onwards since, if concurrent versions are needed (e.g. for a substitution), then it makes sense to create them first before applying amendments which otherwise would not require the making of concurrent versions (e.g. insertions or repeals).
+<strong>1. Insertions/additions</strong>
+Most limited extent insertions do not require concurrent versions.  However, where you have conflicting insertions for both EWS and NI made by an EU Exit SI on an EU Implementing SI made under ECA 1972, then this should be treated in the same way as a limited extent substitution made by an EU Exit SI on such an SI (see substitutions below).
+.1 Is your amendment a <strong>limited extent insertion of words or sub-provisions</strong>?  No concurrent versions are needed (except if they are conflicting insertions for EWS and NI made by an EU Exit SI on an EU Implementing SI made under ECA 1972).  Insert the new text using the limited extent insertion option in XMetaL.   If the words or sub-provisions have already been inserted for another jurisdiction, then you just need to update the existing annotation with an appended commentary for the new limited extent insertion.
+(Note: There is a bug in the editorial system whereby false E-notes are created when you apply a limited extent amendment to provision headings.  Where this happens you will need to be delete the commentary refs to remove them.)
+.2 Is your amendment a <strong>limited extent insertion of a whole provision</strong>?  No concurrent versions are needed.  Insert the new text using the limited extent insertion option in XMetaL.   If the same-numbered  provision already exists (inserted for another jurisdiction) and your inserted provision is not identical to it (or if you have conflicting insertions of different whole provisions for EWS and NI made by an EU Exit SI on an EU Implementing SI made under ECA 1972), then you should treat it the same as a limited extent substitution of a whole provision (see substitutions below).  If your new insertion is identical to the existing provision then no concurrent versions are needed and you just need to update the existing annotation with an appended commentary for the new limited extent insertion.
+(Note: there is a useful text comparison website [https://text-compare.com here] to help you work out if the text of two provisions is really identical.)
+.3 Is your amendment a <strong>limited extent insertion of a higher level provision</strong> (e.g. a heading and range of provisions, or a Chapter, Part or Schedule)?  No concurrent versions are needed.  Insert the new text using the limited extent insertion option in XMetaL.  However, if the same higher level provisions are already inserted for another jurisdiction and your inserted provisions are not identical, then you should treat it the same as a limited extent substitution of a higher level provision (see substitutions below).  If your new insertion is identical to the existing high level provision then no concurrent versions are needed and you just need to update the existing annotation with an appended commentary for the new limited extent insertion.
+.4 is your amendment a <strong>limited extent insertion of a heading only</strong>, whose children continue to be of wider extent than the inserted heading.  In this case, insert the heading  as a full insertion of words after having inserted the correct xml tagging for the heading (e.g. Pblock tagging for a new cross-heading).  The newly inserted heading will keep the wider extent (i.e. the widest extent of any of the children subsumed under it) for search purposes on legislation.gov.uk, but you will make sure that its limited extent is indicated in its annotation. Then you should drag (or cut and paste) the existing children which the new heading has adopted into the new tagging.
+<strong>2. Repeals/revocations/omissions</strong>
+.1 Is your amendment a <strong>limited extent repeal of words or sub-provisions</strong>?  No concurrent versions are needed.  Retain the text using the limited extent repeal option in XMetaL.  Following  the repeal, any further amendments to the text or sub-provision for its remaining jurisdiction/s should be carried out as whole extent amendments.
+.2 Is your amendment a <strong>limited extent repeal of a whole provision</strong>?  No concurrent versions are needed.  Retain the text using the limited extent repeal option in XMetaL.  Following  the repeal, any further amendments to the provision for its remaining jurisdiction/s should be carried out as whole extent amendments.
+.3 Is your amendment a <strong>limited extent repeal of a higher level provision</strong> (e.g. a heading and range of provisions, or a Chapter, Part or Schedule or whole document)?  No concurrent versions are needed.  You should carry out a limited extent repeal of words in the heading and cut and paste the closing bracket to the end of the item of legislation or Chapter/Part/Schedule, so that the whole text of the item of legislation or Chapter/Part/Schedule is retained with square brackets around it. The F-note reference will be situated at the beginning of the heading and a derived annotation will be viewable in individual child provisions.
+.4 Is your amendment a <strong>limited extent repeal of a heading only</strong>, which leaves the child provisions subsumed under that heading intact?  No concurrent versions are needed.  Treat this in the same way as a limited extent repeal of words.
+<strong>3. Substitutions</strong>
+Our usual assumption for most limited extent substitutions has for a long time been that concurrent versions should only be used as a last resort where the result of making a composite text version is excessively complex and therefore difficult to read and comprehend.  See for example [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/50/section/113A 1997 c. 50, s. 113A].
+However,
+A. where a whole provision is being limited extent substituted and the text of the new provision is different from the existing provision, then concurrent versions should be used.
+B. where the affected document is an EU Implementing SI made under the now repealed [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/68/section/2/2018-04-01 European Communities Act 1972 (c. 68), s. 2(2)] to implement EU Directives, then the assumption from now on is that any substitution made by an EU Exit SI, whether it be of words, sub-provisions or the whole provision, and whether it be limited to EWS or to NI (or where conflicting insertions or substitutions are made for both EWS and NI), should result in the creation of concurrent versions.
+.1 Is your amendment a <strong>limited extent substitution of words or sub-provisions</strong>?  No concurrent versions are needed UNLESS the resulting composite text version is incomrehensible OR UNLESS the affected document is an EU Implementing SI made under ECA 1972 amended by an EU Exit SI.
+.2 Is your amendment a <strong>limited extent substitution of a whole provision</strong>?  Concurrent versions should be created in this case EXCEPT where the new provision is identical to the existing provision which has already been inserted/substituted for an alternative jurisdiction.  In the latter case you just need to update the existing annotation with an appended commentary for the new limited extent substitution.
+(Note: there is a useful text comparison website [https://text-compare.com here] to help you work out if the text of two provisions is really identical.)
+.3 Is your amendment a <strong>limited extent substitution of a higher level provision</strong>?  No concurrent versions are possible in this situation because the Concurrent Versions Manager only works at whole provision level.
+.3.1 If the <strong>high level provision being substituted is a cross-heading and range of provisions, Chapter or Part</strong>, then we need to do the following:
+a) do a limited extent substitution of the words of the heading so we end up with the old and new headings together in the same version;
+b) then, where the same-numbered child provisions are substituted and they have different text, we need to create concurrent versions for each substituted child provision;
+c) where there are more new provisions than existing provisions (“more for less”) we will have to do a limited extent insertion of the newly numbered child provisions;
+d) where there are fewer new provisions than existing provisions (“less for more”), we will have to do a limited extent repeal of any child provisions not substituted.
+All provisions involved get the same annotation (which should include an indication of the limited extent) whether they have been treated as a substitution, insertion or repeal.
+.3.2 If the <strong>high level provision being substituted is a Schedule</strong> (and it is not identical to the existing Schedule), then we should treat this as a limited extent insertion of the new Schedule.  After inserting the new Schedule, a limited extent substitution annotation should be inserted at the existing Schedule’s heading level and the existing schedule should have its extent changed in the attribute inspector in XMetaL to remove the jurisdiction now covered by the new Schedule.  If the children all inherit their extent from the parent then their extent attributes will be blank and will not need to be changed, but if they have their own extent attributes then this will need to be changed in each child.
+.3.3 Is your amendment a <strong>limited extent substitution of a heading only</strong>, which leaves the child provisions subsumed under that heading untouched?  No concurrent versions are needed.  Treat this in the same way as a limited extent substitution of words.
 ==Limited extent amendment options in XMetaL==