Latest revision as of 08:35, 10 June 2025

OVERVIEW

The update of retained EU legislation (REUL)—that is, retained EU Regulations and EU Decisions which were imported into UK law on IP completion day—is in principle exactly the same as the EU target update of domestic UK legislation and the goal of both is identical: to make accurate changes to the legal text with informative annotations to help the reader understand the provenance and scope of those changes and to accurately annotate non-textual changes made to the application or scope of the legal text.

However, REUL is drafted in a very different style from our domestic legislation and has been imported from EUR-lex and converted into XML format. Its documents contain a variety of non-standard structures, particularly within their Annexes. This caused us challenges when we recorded the amendments made to REUL by the EU Exit SIs in our TOES data and it will cause us further challenges when we attempt to apply those amendments during update.

BEFORE YOU START A REUL UPDATE TASK

No AER task for REUL update

All REUL was given UK extent on IP completion day and this means that when we come to edit it for the first time there is no need to complete an Affected Extent Research (AER) task. We may need to do AER on future updates, however, since the EU Exit SIs may amend the REUL in such a way as to limit its extent, making it narrower than UK in future.

Extent/TA of REUL

The REUL on legislation.gov.uk is the legislation that applies to the UK apart from the NI Protocol. It was copied from EU law and pasted into the UK statute book on IP completion day and is not identical with the EU Decisions and Regulations that still apply to EU member states. If users wish to see EU legislation as it applies to Northern Ireland as if it were still an EU member state under the NI Protocol, then they should look at the version of the legislation held on EUR-lex.

EU Exit SIs amending REUL for E.W.S. generally to be treated as whole extent amendments

Apart from obviously limited extent/TA amendments (where the document is being amended only for E., or W., or E.W., or S., etc) where we follow the usual limited extent/TA procedure, our approach for E.W.S. amendments to REUL is generally to treat them as whole extent amendments.

See EU Exit SIs amending retained EU legislation on the Limited Extent Amendments page.

In summary:

Where the affecting EU Exit SI states in its substantive text (i.e. not merely in its EM, but in an actual extent provision) that it extends only to E.W.S. (or extends to UK but applies only to E.W.S.), then we will cite an extent indication (“(E.W.S.)” in the annotation, but otherwise we will not treat the amendment as a limited extent amendment and we will not retain text or create concurrent versions. Where we have added limited TA values into TOES purely on the basis of the Explanatory Memorandum (with no substantive mention of extent or TA in the legal text), then we will not even include an extent/TA indication in the annotation.

See, for example, the amendments by S.I. 2020/1388, reg. 13 to EUR 2011/142, where the extent is spelled out in reg. 1(3)(a):

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1388/regulation/1

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1388/regulation/13

The amendments include "(E.W.S.)" in the annotation but have still been treated as whole extent amendments, for example:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2011/142/article/20a

Extent/TA of knock on effects and amendments to earlier affecting provision effects

During your REUL update you will often find the following situation:

A “first wave” EU Exit SI (made on the assumption of a “hard” EU Exit) applies an amendment which has UK affecting extent;
That amendment is itself amended by a “second wave” EU Exit SI (which provides for the withdrawal agreement and the NI Protocol) which results in subsequent amendments to earlier affecting provision effects or knock on effects in addition to your original amendment which claim (for example, in the Explanatory Memorandum (EM)) to apply only to EWS or NI.

We will not treat these subsequent amendments as limited TA amendments and we do not need to cite an TA indication (e.g. "(E.W.S.)" or “(N.I.)”) in the appended commentary when we apply them.

Limited extent amendments to REUL

Limited extent amendments to REUL do occur, and may involve the same amendment being made for different jurisdictions on different dates. See for example:

In EUR 2019/935, Art. 2, the words “referred to in point (d) of Article 75(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013” get omitted for E. on 14.12.2022. This amendment was carried out as a limited extent repeal:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2019/935/article/2/2022-12-01

Then, on 14.12.2022, the same words get omitted for W. The retained text was left as it was, and the details for the W. omission were merged into the annotation using the method described here to prevent the details from “trickling” back into the previous PiT:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2019/935/article/2/2022-12-14

Finally, the same words get omitted on 2.2.2023 for S., which was treated as a whole extent omission, with the words being fully omitted and the details of the omission for S. merged into the annotation (using the same method as before to prevent the details from “trickling” back in the annotation):

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2019/935/article/2/2023-02-02

Concurrent versions in REUL: the Concurrent Version Manager doesn't seem to work very well in REUL, so we should try to carry out any limited extent amendments to REUL in composite text as far as possible and avoid creating concurrent versions. Check with a Review Editor if you think you do need to create a concurrent version.

Check TOES for potential issues before you start

If you see any effects with start dates prior to 31/12/2020, these are likely to be TOES errors and you should investigate and if necessary get TOES corrected before you start the update.

If you see any unusual types of effect you should also investigate these before you start the update.

REUL UPDATE ISSUES

EU issues spreadsheet

There is an EU issues spreadsheet where issues that have been logged with TSO have been recorded. There are also tabs for tagging issues and policy.

If you need to add an issue to the spreadsheet, please also email the details to Richard Hodgson so that the issue can be logged with TSO (or added to an existing story).

Editorial System Issues

Issues with the way that tasks are displayed

Split tasks

Where the editorial system has found it difficult to translate awkward REUL amended provisions into rdf tasks, we may end up with update tasks against non-existent provisions or duplicated update tasks (where one and the same amendment is represented by tasks both at high level and also at provision level).

Where tasks are split and you have applied the amendments, you should make sure both sets of split tasks are marked as applied. Do not mark one set of split tasks as applied and the other as not required. This will cause system issues.

Where tasks are split you may find it awkward to access one set of split tasks to mark them as applied. Usually this can be worked around by using the high level ToC to access the parent provision for the affected provision you need to access. If you cannot mark both sets of split tasks as applied, we will need to ask for help from TSO to allow you to move on.

Provision level tasks appearing as high level tasks

If you have provision-level tasks appearing as high level tasks and you have carried them out by checking out a higher level, make sure you check the timeline at provision level when you preview your amendment, to make sure that the PiT has created correctly at provision level and, if it hasn't, use the Timeline Resolver to add it in.

The update details pages also may not present the full type of effect information correctly

For example, the task may indicate a repeal of Annex 1:

When, in fact, the TOES data tells you there is actually a repeal of Annex 1 heading or a point within Annex 1, i.e.:

In order to recognise this and do your update accurately you should always work with the TOES spreadsheet open for you to consult so that you can check the real TOES data.

Using the Task Association Tool (i.e. Assign Tasks button) when you are unable to access the amended provision because the update details preview displays a page not found error

Where you cannot access the amended provision because the update details preview displays a page not found error, you should be able to work around this by using the Assign Tasks button.

See the instructions in Update Troubleshooting for details of how to use the Task Association Tool.

You can use the Assign Tasks function more than once to assign tasks first to one provision and then to another provision if you have tasks for different provisions displaying together on the same update details page. For example, these effects were recorded against Annex 2c Pt. 1 para. 1 and Annex 2c Pt. 3 para. 1, but the Editorial System didn't recognise the Parts dues to the way they were tagged in the data, and displayed all the effects together on one update details page:

The Assign Tasks button was used to assign the tasks to Annex 2c Pt. 1 para. 1 and those tasks were carried out, then the Assign Tasks button was used to assign the tasks to Annex 2c Pt. 3 para. 1, which enabled the remaining tasks to be carried out to that provision.

Complex (5-level deep) amending provisions, duplicate update tasks and incorrect hyperlinks

Some amending provisions in EU Exit SIs run to 5 levels deep, e.g. S.I. 2019/89, Sch. para. 55(5)(b)(ii)(aa) and (bb): https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/89/schedule/paragraph/55/made

This causes issues for the editorial tool in two main ways.

Firstly, the system creates duplicate update tasks. As you can see below there are 4 tasks showing in the update details under amending provision Sch. para. 55(5)(b)(ii):

Whereas in fact there are only two real tasks by Sch. para. 55(5)(b)(ii)(aa) and (bb). You can see this in the TOES data:

https://editorial.legislation.gov.uk/changes/affected/eudn/2015/1506/data.xls?extended=full-with-co

(NB This example is further complicated by the fact that the amended provision Art. 4(2)(c) contains further sub-provisions numbered (1)-(7) which are contained in an Ordered List under (c) and our amendments hit Art. 4(2)(c)(1) and Art. 4(2)(c)(7) respectively).

This means that there are also duplicate XML tasks showing in the Resource Manager in XMetaL. You can use either of the duplicate tasks to perform your amendment.

When you have done your amendments, mark all duplicated tasks as completed. Do not mark one complete and the other not required because this will cause further issues.

Secondly, because the system has not properly handled the capture of these two tasks, the annotations produced by these tasks will come through incorrectly and their links will point to the wrong place. For example, if we perform the substitution of words in Art. 4(2)(c)(7) by Sch. para. 55(5)(b)(ii)(bb) the annotation looks like this:

If we look at the Attribute Inspector, we see that the first ukl:CitationSubRef tag here points correctly to “schedule-paragraph-55-5-b-ii” and the URI is also correct, so this link will work:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/uksi/2019/89/schedule/paragraph/55/5/b/ii

The second ukl:CitationSubRef tag however points incorrectly to “schedule-paragraph-55-5-bb” and the URI also points to that incorrect location, so this link will not work:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/uksi/2019/89/schedule/paragraph/55/5/bb

We need to correct the annotation by moving the separate citation of “(bb)” out of the second and into the first ukl:CitationSubRef tag. We then need to delete the second ukl:CitationSubRef tag, remove the comma and make the reference to plural “paras.” into a reference to a singular “para.”:

NB In the attribute inspector check that the operative attribute value is correct in your ukl:CitationSubRef to ensure the amending provision shows in bold in the annotation (Operative = true).

Issues with checking out provisions

Avoid page not found errors when checking out high level amendments because there are too many tasks by deselecting tasks

When checking out high level amendments, remember to de-select all tasks except the ones you need to apply your amendments, otherwise you may get an error on check out because there are too many XML tasks. See instructions in Update Troubleshooting - “Internal error” message when trying to check out a high level provision.

Beware issues with checking out whole documents that contain Attachments

If your document contains Annexes or other provisions that have been tagged as Attachments, if you check out the whole document you may find that the provisions tagged as attachments disappear from the Table of Contents when you check the document back in.

If this happens, the document needs to be referred to TSO to be fixed.

This issue is the subject of a development story with TSO and will hopefully be fixed soon. In the meantime, you should avoid checking out the whole documents for documents that contain any provisions tagged as Attachments.

XMetaL Issues

Affected provision appearing as "A." rather than "Art. 1(2)" in annotations

This was an issue whereby the affected provision appeared as "A." rather than, for example "Art. 1(2)", in the annotation that was generated when we carry out an amendment.

We needed to manually amend this when we carry out the amendment in XMetal (and Reviewers also need to bear this manual intervention in mind when checking each annotation).

For example from this:

To this:

This issue was logged in the EU issues spreadsheet, and should now have been resolved - if you see this issue or anything like it in an annotation it will need to be raised.

Wrong hyperlinks to affecting provisions in annotations

This issue occurs where there are complex amending provisions with multiple levels e.g. reg. 5(4)(a)(ii)(aa), and is explained above, under the heading Complex (5-level deep) amending provisions, duplicate update tasks and incorrect hyperlinks.

Website preview issues

Missing F-note references for multiple omissions of words within a provision

Where the same amending provision makes more than one omission of words to the same provision, on check-in the F-note reference sometimes only shows against the first omission, the others just show the three dots for the omission. This is fixed by checking the provision back out and then in again.

Missing annotation even though there is an F-note reference

If your annotation does not appear in the website preview even though the F-note is there, check whether the general container tagging (i.e. ukl:Commentaries ukl:/Commentaries or leg:Commentaries /leg:Commentaries) for the commentaries has been added after the provision tagging and if it is missing you can add it in manually before doing your amendment and the annotation should appear. If the tagging is not available to add in the Element List you may need to add it manually.

If the container tagging for the annotation is present, but the annotation is still not appearing even though the F-note reference is there, this may be to do with the tagging structure where the F-note reference is located.

Sometimes the annotation may not appear if the F-note reference is located in the second set of ukl:Division tagging of an Annex provision. If you insert an additional F-note reference in the first set of ukl:Division tags of the Annex provision, you may be able to get the annotation to appear in the preview. This isn't ideal, but at least it makes the annotation appear on the front end.

See for example:

The annotation for the substituted words in the Explanatory Notes didn't appear until the footnote reference F1 was added into the <ukl:Title> tag of the first set of <ukl:Division> tags:

If you have a different sort of tagging structure, you may need to use trial and error to find the best location for this extra F-note reference (you will end up with two annotation references in your affected provision).

If this workaround doesn't work in your scenario, it will need to be referred to TSO.

There is also often an issue with annotation not appearing in Appendices to Annexes, even though the annotations are there inside the correct container tagging, for example:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2012/965/annex/III/appendix/I

This issue has been raised with TSO.

Annotations splitting up a provision or not appearing in the expected location

When you are updating a provision that contains lots of nested ukl:Division tagging, or other types of tagging such as ukl:P tags within ukl:Division tagging, you might notice that annotations appear in unexpected locations, for example:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2012/965/annex/II/division/subpart+gen/division/section+i/division/arogen135

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2011/10/annex/I

This issue has been raised with TSO.

Timeline issues

You may notice page not found errors when you click back to the previous PiT for a provision inserted on 31.12.2020 (because the timeline automatically includes a PiT for exit day and the start of the implementation period, which was before the provision was inserted):

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2011/142/article/24A

Missing text in the website preview

See for example, EUR 2004/853 where Art. 1(5) was missing from the website preview because this sub-provision consisted entirely of sub-sub-provisions, and consequently there was no text in the ukl:P2Para tagging before the ukl:P3s. The solution was to add a blank ukl:Text tag in the ukl:P2Para tag:

Missing images in the website preview

Images that have been tagged within <ukl:Span> elements may be missing from the website preview, i.e.:

<ukl:P>
<ukl:Text>
<ukl:Span>
<ukl:Image ResourceRef="r00001" Height="auto" Width="auto"/>
</ukl:Span>
</ukl:Text>
</ukl:P>

Removing the red highlighted tags should resolve this issue and the images should then appear in the website preview.

Sub-provision numbering doesn't fit before text of the sub-provision

When a sub-provision is amended resulting in an amendment bracket being included before the sub-provision number, this might cause part of the number (or punctuation) to appear on the line below, because it no longer fits before the text, for example:

This is a front-end presentation issue and has been logged in the EU issues spreadsheet.

Unnumbered paragraph text ranged too far left and wrapped around preceding text

In this document, when Art. 8 came to be updated on 31.12.2020, the update editor noticed that the unnumbered paragraph at the end of Art. 8(1) was ranged too far left wrapped around the preceding text in Art. 8(1)(c)(ii).

Art. 8(1)(c) had originally been tagged like this:

This issue was resolved by retagging Art. 8(1)(c)(i)(ii) as ukl:P4s and moving them into the same ukl:P3para as Art. 8(1)(c). The unnumbered paragraph text was then just included after the closing Art. 8(1)(c) ukl:P3 tag within ukl:Text tags:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2012/1151/article/8/2020-12-31

Opening square bracket jumping to appear before Article number

There is currently an issue when the words of an unnumbered sub-paragraph at the beginning of an Article are substituted, the opening bracket for the substitution jumps to appear before the Article number. In this example, after the amendment to substitute the words in the first paragraph in this Article were substituted, the data looked like this:

However, when the provision was checked back in, the opening bracket for the substitution of words jumped to appear before the Article number, even though this was not a whole Article substitution:

We can use a workaround by inserting a hard space character entity   before the bracket. Place the cursor between the opening ukl:Text tag and the opening ukl:Substitution tag and paste in the entity  . Note: you should copy and paste the entity from here in one go - it won't work if you enter the characters individually from your keyboard. You won't be able to see this entity once you have pasted it in, there will just be a space:

When it gets checked back in, the opening bracket should now stay in the correct location:

This issue has been logged in the EU issues spreadsheet as “Bracket positioning: revision is made in the first sub-provision - check in routine assumes if the revision starts on the first text node of the provision it should include the provision number” and logged with TSO.

Annexes: text displaying below rather than next to the provision number

If the text of a provision is displayed below rather than next to the provision number, this may be caused by a blank ukl:Title tag, which can simply be removed from the XML and the text should display next to the provision number:

The blank ukl:Title tagging shown in the XML above was removed to make the provision text appear next to the provision number:

Annexes: provision numbers appear centred and above the provision text, rather than left-aligned and on same level

See Example of the insertion of a new Annex.

Previous EU amendments

EU annotations

You will notice that annotations from previous EU amendments that were made prior to 31.12.2020 are worded in a different way to to our usual annotation style, giving little detail about the location and type of effect, for example:

Substituted by Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/797 of 17 June 2020 amending Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 as regards requirements for animal by-products and derived products originating from, and returning to, the Union following refusal of entry by a third country (Text with EEA relevance).

We can leave these annotations as they are, but when we apply new amendments (from 31.12.2020), we will use our usual annotation style. See also Annotations in REUL for REUL -specific annotation issues.

EU amendment brackets

Do not remove EU F-notes and X-notes and their amendment brackets for higher level amendments or corrections that subsume the provision you are working on. We only remove the brackets where the whole element is superseded by a new amendment (e.g. if a previously inserted provision is now substituted the F-note and brackets for the insertion are now no longer needed).

Warning messages appearing for previous EU on EU omissions

Sometimes previous EU on EU amendments for omissions of words that look like this “[F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .]” may get changed to look like this “F1 ‘No commentary item can be found for this reference’ ...” when we check out a provision and check it back in again. If this occurs, you will need to check the provision back out and you will see that the commentary reference, brackets and dotty line have been replaced by two commentary references and three dots:

Remove the second, empty, commentary reference tag:

See, for example:

Original amendment in an Annex:

Amendment after Annex checked out and back in again:

Corrected version after empty commentary ref tag removed:

Note that if you are checking out a higher level provision, this may occur anywhere in that higher level provision, so when you preview the amendment you will need to scroll through the whole provision to check that there are none of these red warning messages.

Update April 2024: this issue was fixed in Editorial Release 121, so we should no longer get these red warning messages in this scenario.

CARRYING OUT REUL UPDATE

Things to look out for

Here is a summary of the main things you need to look out for whilst carrying out REUL update. It's also a good idea to make sure that you are also aware of all the REUL update issues detailed above before you start an REUL update task.

1. Incomplete task details shown in the Resource Manager (e.g. “Repeal Annex 2” when task is to repeal Annex 2 point 3). You will need to always have the TOES open and refer to it closely to make sure that you carry out the task correctly – see REUL update issues. 2. Manual intervention is often necessary when you carry out the amendment, due to the way that REUL has been tagged and the tagging structures in amending and amended provisions is often different, see Structure and tagging. Also be mindful that the amended provision or sub-provision may contain one or more unnumbered paragraphs and so you may need to delete these separately after having carried out your main amendment using the addition/substitute/repeal actions in XMetaL. 3. Look out for errors in annotations generated by the Editorial System in XMetaL – roman numerals, incomplete provision details, see Annotations in REUL. 4. Do not remove EU F-notes and X-notes and their amendment brackets for higher level amendments or corrections that subsume the provision you are working on. We only remove the brackets where the whole element is superseded by a new amendment (e.g. if a previously inserted provision is now substituted the F-note and brackets for the insertion are now no longer needed). 5. Where possible the opening amendment bracket for insertions and substitutions of whole provisions and sub-provisions should come before the number. However, this will not be possible if sub-provisions are tagged up as `<ukl:ListItems>` within Ordered lists. (We have a similar situation with definitions in UK legislation). 6. Powers to make subordinate legislation: be aware that your amendment may insert a new power to make secondary legislation into an EU document and you should remember to flag this in XMetaL in the usual way. We should have added a Comment for Editor in the TOES which says "Contains power", but these are sometimes missed. 7. Binding words assumed to be repealed as part of the repeal of the final Article of an EU Regulation: if the final Article of an EU Regulation gets repealed, the drafters may consider that it is unnecessary for them to separately make another provision specifically repealing the binding words and we need to remember to manually repeal the binding words in the Signature using the same task and amend the annotation, as detailed below. Also look out for Incorrectly recorded effects against final Article rather than the Signature element (amendments to binding words), where amendments to the Signature element (usually to the binding words), have been recorded against the final Article rather than the Signature element (where the affected words are actually located).

Structure and tagging

The fact that REUL contains odd structures which had to be converted into XML coupled with the fact that the EU Exit SI drafters had to draft amendments to those unclearly structured documents means that we need to be prepared to make these amendments fit by re-tagging their elements where necessary.

Except in the case of the insertion or substitution of words, it is unlikely that you will be able simply to copy the amendment text, select the target provision or sub-provision and expect your amendment to “fit”.

You need to look at the XML tagging of the amended provision (and also at its surrounding peer provisions and parents), compare it to the amending provision tagging and work out what you need to change to make your amendment fit in. You should follow the tagging structure that has been used in the amended document when retagging amendments, so you will need to retag the amendment text in the amending document to make it fit into the amended document.

You should use the element list in XMetaL where you need to insert new element tagging, for example when inserting a new whole provision. Please do not copy and paste tagging from elsewhere in the document to re-use. Existing tagging contains metadata (attributes) which will cause problems in the document if duplicated. It is good practice to use the element list.

Skeleton tagging for a P1Group

An empty P1group in an Article looks like this in REUL:

If you need to retag an amendment, you can copy and paste the skeleton tagging structures from here and populate with amendment text as appropriate:

P1Group

<ukl:P1group xmlns:ukl="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/namespaces/legislation"><ukl:Title></ukl:Title><ukl:P1><ukl:Pnumber></ukl:Pnumber><ukl:P1para><ukl:P2><ukl:Pnumber PuncAfter="."></ukl:Pnumber><ukl:P2para><ukl:Text><?xm-replace_text Type new ukl:Text here ?></ukl:Text><ukl:P3><ukl:Pnumber PuncBefore="(" PuncAfter=")"></ukl:Pnumber><ukl:P3para><ukl:Text><?xm-replace_text Type new ukl:Text here ?></ukl:Text><ukl:P4><ukl:Pnumber PuncBefore="(" PuncAfter=")"></ukl:Pnumber><ukl:P4para><ukl:Text><?xm-replace_text Type new ukl:Text here ?></ukl:Text></ukl:P4para></ukl:P4></ukl:P3para></ukl:P3></ukl:P2para></ukl:P2></ukl:P1para></ukl:P1></ukl:P1group>

P2

<ukl:P2 xmlns:ukl="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/namespaces/legislation"><ukl:Pnumber PuncAfter="."></ukl:Pnumber><ukl:P2para><ukl:Text><?xm-replace_text Type new ukl:Text here ?></ukl:Text><ukl:P3><ukl:Pnumber PuncBefore="(" PuncAfter=")"></ukl:Pnumber><ukl:P3para><ukl:Text><?xm-replace_text Type new ukl:Text here ?></ukl:Text><ukl:P4><ukl:Pnumber PuncBefore="(" PuncAfter=")"></ukl:Pnumber><ukl:P4para><ukl:Text><?xm-replace_text Type new ukl:Text here ?></ukl:Text></ukl:P4para></ukl:P4></ukl:P3para></ukl:P3></ukl:P2para></ukl:P2>

P3

<ukl:P3 xmlns:ukl="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/namespaces/legislation"><ukl:Pnumber PuncBefore="(" PuncAfter=")"></ukl:Pnumber><ukl:P3para><ukl:Text><?xm-replace_text Type new ukl:Text here ?></ukl:Text><ukl:P4><ukl:Pnumber PuncBefore="(" PuncAfter=")"></ukl:Pnumber><ukl:P4para><ukl:Text><?xm-replace_text Type new ukl:Text here ?></ukl:Text></ukl:P4para></ukl:P4></ukl:P3para></ukl:P3>

P4

<ukl:P4 xmlns:ukl="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/namespaces/legislation"><ukl:Pnumber PuncBefore="(" PuncAfter=")"></ukl:Pnumber><ukl:P4para><ukl:Text><?xm-replace_text Type new ukl:Text here ?></ukl:Text></ukl:P4para></ukl:P4>

Powers to make subordinate legislation

Please check whether your amendment inserts a new power to make secondary legislation into an EU document and remember to flag this in XMetaL in the usual way. We should have added a Comment for Editor in the TOES which says "Contains power", but these are sometimes missed.

For example, S.I. 2019/335, reg. 10(5) inserts a new Art. 1(6) into the retained Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 which gives the Treasury power to make regulations and therefore Art. 1 needs to be flagged as a power-conferring provision.

Binding words

Incorrectly recorded effects against final Article rather than the Signature element (amendments to binding words)

Beware of incorrectly recorded "omitted" or "words omitted" effects in TOES which should really be against the Signature element because their intention id to remove the binding words ("This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States."). The drafter frequently claims these words are in the final paragraph of the last Article, but they are not. They are in the Signature element. We can either correct TOES or insert an F-note in the last Article and then open the Main Body, carry out a repeal on the relevant Signature text and move the F-note. We should then leave a note for Reviewer to correct TOES later.

See, for example SI 2020/1462, reg. 56(27):

(27) In Article 21, omit “and directly applicable in all Member States”.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1462/regulation/56

These words are actually contained in the Signature, which comes after Art. 21, and the amendment was therefore applied to the Signature:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2010/206/signature

Binding words assumed to be repealed as part of the repeal (or substitution) of the final Article of an EU Regulation

The drafters sometimes treat the binding words (“This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.”), which appear in the Signature element in the xml for retained EU Regulations on leg.gov, as belonging to the main body of the document.

As such, they have often assumed that the binding words belong to the final Article of the EU Regulation (which usually deals with “Entry into force”, similar to our commencement provisions). Often they may refer to the binding words as a sentence within, after, or following the final Article. If they have repealed or substituted that final Article, they may consider that it is unnecessary for them to separately make another provision specifically repealing the binding words.

For example, when EUR 2014/537, Title 4 Ch. 4 was repealed, separate provision for repealing the binding words was not made. However, as Title 4 Ch. 4 contained the final Article, Art. 44, which was followed by the binding words (and since those words are now meaningless in the Regulation’s new context as retained EU law within the corpus of domestic UK legislation) a manual repeal of the binding words in the Signature using the Title 4 Ch. 4 repeal task was carried out and the annotation was altered to read:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2014/537/title/IV/chapter/IV

Title 4 Ch. 4 (including binding words) omitted (31.12.2020) by virtue of The Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/177), regs. 2, 104; 2020 c. 1, Sch. 5 para. 1(1)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2014/537/signature

Note that, in addition to containing the binding words, the Signature element may also contain the actual signature text itself, for example:

If you need to omit the binding words from the Signature element, make sure that you leave the signature text intact:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2019/1241/signature/2020-12-31

See also EUR 2019/2238, where the final Article was substituted on 31/12/2021:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2019/2238/article/14/2021-12-31

The binding words were also omitted by virtue of this amendment:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2019/2238/signature/2021-12-31

Applying “Exceptions from duty to publish” effects that come from Ministerial Directions

If you see the type of effect “excepted from duty to publish” or “words excepted from duty to publish” in your update task, you should carry out a repeal of the relevant whole provision, sub-provision or words. See for example EUR 2014/537, Art. 5(3).

Annotation format:

Art. 5(3) excepted from duty to publish (31.12.2020) by The Exception from the Duty to Publish (Department for Business and Trade) (No. 1) Direction 2023 (No. 1), Sch.

We only publish pdfs of Ministerial Directions on the website, but the editorial system should still create the links to the pdf of your affecting Ministerial Direction in the annotation.

If for any reason you need to fix these links because they don't link to the right document, check the link attributes. In the ukl:Citation tagging the Class should be “UnitedKingdomMinisterialDirection” and type of document in the URI should be “ukmd”:

In the ukl:CitationSubRef tagging, the type of document in the URI should also be “ukmd”:

Note that the affecting provision in a Minsterial Direction may be a Schedule, or a direction (dir.) (see Record Effects - Provisions in Directions).

How to deal with conflicting amendments where there is an exception from duty to publish

In EUR 2014/537, Art. 24(3), there is also an example of a conflict between an EU Exit SI effect and an exception from duty to publish where the EU Exit SI omits words in Art. 24(3). We could justifiably treat the EU Exit SI effect as “beating the air” and mark it as not required. But, because this is an unusual situation, we have applied the repeal for the exception from duty to publish and then inserted an F-note commentary for the EU Exit SI effect using the following formula:

Words in Art. 24(3) expressed to be omitted (31.12.2020) by virtue of The Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/177), regs. 2, 98(b); 2020 c. 1, Sch. 5 para. 1(1)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2014/537/article/24/2020-12-31#article-24-3

Applying “Appointed Day(s)” effects in REUL

These effects are usually recorded along with a Suggested Commentary that gets used to construct the annotation, in the format:

[Provision number]: [Date] specified for the purposes of [specified provision] ...

They are applied as P-notes, see for example:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2017/625/article/154

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2017/625/annex/6

See also Exercises of power to appoint a day or specify a date on the Record Effects page.

Whole document repeals

You should be able to use the auto-repeal button as you normally would for a whole document repeal.

When you preview the amendment in the introductory text, you will see that the word “(revoked)” (or “(repealed)” if relevant) should have been added at the end of the title text. There should then be a dotty line preceded by an F-note reference and annotation for the repeal, for example:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eudn/1994/741/introduction

Whole document previously wholly repealed (with savings) - subsequent amendment of “as saved” version

See, for example:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2004/817/introduction/2022-07-28

Annotation format:

Regulation repealed (with savings) (24.12.2006) by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 of 15 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), Arts. 64, 65; and Regulation (as saved) amended (E.) (28.7.2022) by The Rural Development (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022 (S.I. 2022/765), regs. 1(1), 2(2)

Editing the introductory text

There is currently an issue with making amendments to the introductory text whereby we are prevented from making any amendments by check-in errors. If you need to make amendments to the introductory text, try checking out the whole document rather than just the introductory text (but beware issues with checking out the whole document where the document contains provisions tagged Attachments).

Workaround to add auto-annotations to the introductory text after a whole document has been repealed with savings

If you need to add auto-annotations to the introductory text after a whole document has been repealed (for example if a repeal has savings but it has been decided that text should not be retained), you should use this workaround:

1. Check out the whole document (rather than just the introductory text) by going to the high level ToC and using the appropriate check out button.

2. Move the ukl:CommentaryRef for the auto-annotations to the dotty line text tag directly after the repeal F-note reference (and any previous auto-annotations that have been applied, to respect the date order of the annotations in the preview).

3. Then check in.

See, for example:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2004/883/introduction

See also Annotation Conventions - repeal is with Savings for details on how to amend an annotation for a repeal with savings where there are amendments to the ‘as saved’ version of the legislation at a later PiT.

Editing the main body

The main body seems to be the most consistently structured part of REUL documents. Standardly, it is composed of Articles (which correspond to the sections of a UK Act) and these are divided into paragraphs (which correspond to our sub-provisions) and further into points (sub-sub-provisions). Articles may be grouped together under higher parent elements, such as Parts, Titles, Chapters and Sections (note that Sections are always a high level parent provision in REUL). However, please be aware that Articles may also contain further unnumbered divisions beneath the level of paragraph or point, such as unnumbered paragraphs or indents.

There is a handy table of the elements of EU legislation in the TOES guidance here:

http://community.legislation.gov.uk/mediawiki/index.php?title=Preparation_Tasks/Record_Effects#Structural_Subdivisions_of_the_Enacting_Terms_of_a_Legal_Act

Main body - insertions and substitutions

Articles in the main body of REUL are consistently tagged as P1groups with a title and P1 for the main Article, which is then subdivided into P2s for its sub-provisions (paragraphs) and P3s for its sub-sub-provisions (points within those paragraphs).

Despite the Articles having a reasonably consistent structure you will often find that you need to re-tag amendments made to them because the amending text is tagged differently. If you need to retag whole provisions that you are inserting, don't forget to also set the provision attributes as appropriate (i.e. extent, powers).

Where possible the opening amendment bracket for insertions and substitutions of whole provisions and sub-provisions should come before the number. However, this will not be possible if sub-provisions are tagged as ordered lists (we have a similar situation with definitions in UK legislation).

Example of the insertion of a whole Article

Article 24A was inserted into EUR 2011/142 by SI. 2020/1388, reg. 13(18):

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2011/142/chapter/VIII

The Article was tagged as a ukl:Pblock in the amending provision:

However, the existing Articles in the amended provision were tagged as ukl:P1Groups, so it was not possible to carry out an Insertion of a whole provision in the usual way:

To carry out the insertion, the required elements were inserted into the amended provision from the Element List, to create the empty tagging structure ready to be populated with the content from the amending provision:

To populate this empty tagging, the title text was copied from within the ukl:Title tagging in the amending provision and inserted into the empty set of ukl:Title tags in the amended provision, using the relevant task in the Resource Manager to generate the square brackets and the annotation. The Article number and the text within the ukl:Text tags were then both (separately) copied and pasted into the empty tagging in the amended provision, and the closing square brackets was moved to the end of the text:

Example of the insertion of an Article that needs to be retagged but the sub-provisions don't

See also EUR 2007/834, where the inserted Arts. 38a and 38b contained sub-provisions that were tagged with ukl:P3 tagging, which did not need to be retagged and could be directly copied across to the amended provision once the rest of the tagging for the newly inserted Articles had been inserted, but the sub-provision numbers were missing opening and closing brackets that need to be added in as described here.

Inserted ukl:P3Numbers are missing opening and closing brackets:

These are added in using the Attribute Inspector:

Note that the amending provision had itself been amended by the "second wave" EU Exit SI 2020/1453, reg. 12(13), and these amendments were tidied up in the amended provision when the insertion was carried out, which included tidying up the punctuation.

Amending provision:

Amended provision:

Amending provision:

Amended provision:

Note that the omitted sub-provisions (3) and (7) in Art. 38b have been completely removed.

Example of the insertion of a sub-provision into an Article that needed to be retagged, with an ordered list used for sub-paragraphs beyond the P5 level

On 31.12.2020, SI 2018/1403, reg. 26(3) inserted Art. 2.1A into EUR 2014/600:

The affecting provision was tagged as follows:

The entire sub-provision needed to be retagged in order to fit into the tagging structure of the affected provision:

Note how the tagging of sub-paragraphs (aa) and (bb) was changed to a ordered list, as this was the only way to get them to look right on the front end. We need to resort to this once we get past P5 level.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2014/600/article/2/2020-12-31#article-2-1A

Also note the annotation format for this amendment:

Art. 2.1A inserted (31.12.2020) by The Markets in Financial Instruments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018/1403), regs. 1(3), 26(3) (with savings in S.I. 2019/680, reg. 11); 2020 c. 1, Sch. 5 para. 1(1)

This style was used because Art. 2.1 and 2.1A are further subdivided, i.e. Art. 2.1A(1), (2), (3), etc.

Examples of the insertion of sub-provisions tagged as <ukl:ListItems> in an Article

Outline of the insertion of a range of sub-provisions that needed to be retagged as <ListItems>

EUR 2007/834, Art. 2 contains a list of definitions, with each definition numbered as a sub-provision of the Article:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2007/834/article/2

The sub-provisions of Art. 2 were tagged as ukl:ListItems, which meant that when new sub-provisions were inserted, these needed to be retagged using ukl:ListItems and ukl:OrderedLists, as follows:

Amending provision:

Amended provision:

Note that the opening bracket cannot be placed before the sub-provision number as it is in a ukl:ListItem, so is placed at the start of the text. The sub-provision numbers were set in the Attribute Inspector:

Also remember to set the attributes of any Ordered List elements that you insert.

Worked example of the insertion of a range of sub-provisions into an Article that needed to be retagged as <ListItems> and also included “amendment to earlier affecting provision” effects

The amendment used in this example inserts Art. 2(e)-(g) into EUDN 2017/547, and the affecting provision was itself amended before coming into force, so there were also “amendment to earlier affecting provision” effects that needed to be dealt with:

The first step was to check the provision out in order to carry out the insertion; you can see that the tagging of the affecting provision was different to that of the affected provision, with the paragraphs and sub-paragraphs tagged as ukl:P3s and ukl:P4s, while the existing paragraphs in the affected provision were tagged as ukl:ListItems:

Affecting provision

Affected provision

It was therefore not possible to carry out the amendment using the usual method of selecting and copying the inserted paragraphs in the affecting provision, because of this difference in tagging structures. Instead, empty tagging was inserted in the correct location in the affected provision using the Element List, following the existing tagging structure of the affected provision, and this empty tagging was populated with the contents of the sub-provisions that were being inserted (to generate the brackets and annotation for the amendment, the insertion task was used by selecting the relevant task in the Task Manager for the first insertion).

In this example, the first empty tag to be inserted was a ukl:ListItem, which was inserted after the closing ukl:ListItem tag for paragraph (d) (by placing the cursor to the right of the closing ukl:ListItem tag of (d) (but before the closing “ukl:OrderedList” tag) and double clicking on “ukl:ListItem” in the Element List. This inserted a new set of ukl:ListItem tags after paragraph (d):

You will immediately see that the paragraph number in this new tagging was initially wrong, and needed to be amended from “(a)” to “(e)” by placing the cursor to the right of “(a)” within the opening ukl:ListItem tag and using the Attribute Inspector to change the sub-provision number to “(e)” using the “NumberOverride” attribute:

A set of ukl:Para and ukl:Text tags was then inserted into this empty ukl:ListItem tagging (using the Element List):

Next, the contents of the ukl:Text tags was deleted (i.e. the words “Type new ukl:Listitem here”) to prepare for the insertion of the contents of paragraph (e) from the affecting provision into this empty text tagging, as described next.

The text from the affecting provision was then copied and, using the relevant task in the Resource Manager, the insertion was then carried out in the usual way to generate the amendment brackets and annotation, as described below.

Contents of paragraph (e) copied from the affecting provision:

The contents of paragraph (e) were inserted into the empty tagging in the affected provision, using the task to generate the amendment brackets and annotation and selecting Legislation - Textual Amendments - Addition from the top menu bar:

The next stage was to insert empty ukl:ListItem tagging for sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) into (e).

To accommodate the ukl:ListItem tagging for sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii), a new ukl:OrderList was inserted within the ukl:OrderList for paragraphs (a)-(e), by placing the cursor to the right of the closing ukl:Para tag of paragraph (e) (before its closing ukl:ListItem tag) and double clicking on “ukl:OrderedList” in the Element List:

This resulted in the following tagging being inserted:

The attributes of the ukl:OrderList tagging were set to “roman” and “parens” (by placing the cursor immediately to the right of the opening ukl:OrderList tag to see the attributes for this tagging in the Attribute Inspector). This generated the correct sub-paragraph number (i) (and for subsequently inserted sub-paragraphs (i), (ii), etc.):

ukl:Para and ukl:Text tagging was then inserted into the new ukl:ListItem tag, and the contents of sub-paragraphs(i) were inserted into this new tagging by straightforward copying and pasting:

Next, ukl:ListItem tagging for sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) was inserted and populated in the same way, to end up with:

In this example, the next sub-paragraph was omitted in the affecting provision (by an amendment to the affecting provision, which also needed to be applied as an “amendment to earlier affecting provision effect after the insertion had been carried out). This meant that sub-paragraphs (iv) did not need to be included in the insertion, because it was omitted before the insertion of paragraphs (e)-(g) came into force.

The next sub-provision to be inserted was paragraph (f), so a ukl:ListItem tag was inserted after the closing ukl:ListItem for paragraph (e) (N.B. taking care not to insert it after the closing ukl:ListItem for sub-paragraph (iii)). As had been done for paragraph (e), the “NumberOverride” attribute was set to the sub-paragraph number and ukl:Para and ukl:Text tagging was inserted.

The contents of paragraph (f) also included an amendment to the affecting provision, and the amendment brackets for this earlier amendment needed to be removed from the affected provision (N.B. the details of this earlier amendment were added to the annotation for the insertion of paragraphs (e)-(g) later on).

From:

To:

In this way, the tagging and contents of the rest of the sub-provision was inserted and populated. Finally, the closing amendment bracket was moved to the end (note that the opening bracket could not be moved to come before the paragraph number (e), as this is not possible in ukl:ListItems). Note also that the punctuation at the end of paragraph (d) was amended from a full stop to a semicolon and punctuation at the end of paragraph (g) amended to a full stop.

In preview:

Lastly, the appended commentary for the “amendment to earlier affecting provision” effect was included in the annotation, using the method described here.

Example of the substitution of a whole Article

In this example of the substitution of a whole Article, the affecting provision was tagged in a different way to the affected provision (in a ukl:Pblock rather than ukl:P1Group), with the ukl:Title and ukl:Number tags appearing in a different order and the paragraphs being located in ukl:P1s rather than ukl:P2s:

For this reason, it was not possible to carry out a whole provision substitution in the usual way, it could only be done manually. Firstly, the Article heading was substituted using the substitution task to generate the square brackets and annotation:

The text of paras. 1 and 2 could be substituted by copying and pasting them, because the tagging structure was already in place for these sub-provisions in the affected provision. This was done by selecting only the content within the ukl:Text tags firstly for para. 1, pasting that into the existing ukl:Text tagging within the affecting provision and then doing the same for para. 2.

e.g. from this:

to this:

Next, the ukl:P2 tagging for para. 3 was inserted using the Element List, the ukl:Number tagging within this was populated with the number 3 and the full point was added in the Attribute Inspector:

The ukl:P2para and ukl:Text tagging were added for para. 3 and the contents of the first sentence of para. 3 was inserted (by copying and pasting it in):

The ukl:P3 tagging for para. 3(a)(b) could both be selected and copied and pasted directly into the affected provision in one go, because the tagging for these sub-provisions was the same in both the affecting and affected document. Note that the sub-provision numbers were missing opening and closing brackets after they were pasted in, so the brackets were added using the Attribute Inspector as described here:

The tagging for para. 4 was then inserted and populated in the same way, also directly inserting sub-paras. (a) and (b) and amending the attributes to include the brackets.

Next, the closing square bracket was moved to the end of the text in para. 4 (the opening square bracket could remain where it was at the start of the heading).

Lastly, the amendment brackets for the earlier amendments needed to be removed to tidy up the text, as described here, leaving just the amendment brackets for the substitution of Art. 47:

The provision could then be checked in and previewed in the usual way (note that the earlier amendments to the affecting provision also needed to be added as an appended commentary at this stage, as described here) .

Substitution of Article heading at the same time as substitution of whole Article

Where drafters have separately substituted the Article heading at the same time as substituting the whole Article, this should be dealt with by bundling together both effects into a single substitution annotation and using "by virtue of": e.g. "Art. 24 substituted (31.12.2020) by virtue of The Animal Feed (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/654), regs. 1, 109, 110; 2020 c. 1, Sch. 5 para. 1(1)":

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2009/767/article/24

Example of the substitution of a sub-provision in an Article

Here is an example of a substitution of a sub-provision, EUDN 2005/1506, Art. 2(1) (i.e. paragraph 1 of Article 2). You can see that the Article here is tagged as a ukl:P1 (if it had a heading, it would be tagged as a ukl:P1group with a ukl:Title tag for the heading placed before the ukl:P1 element). The sub-provision is tagged as a ukl:P2 element. Normally when substituting a sub-provision we would select the ukl:P2para tagging, but here we have selected only the ukl:Text tagging:

We have chosen to substitute just the ukl:Text element here because of the way the drafter has tagged the amendment in the amending provision.

Below you can see the XML for the amending provision. It is not tagged in the same way as the amended provision. The sub-provision paragraph 1 is incorrectly tagged as ukl:P1. Therefore, instead of selecting the ukl:BlockAmendment tag to copy for our amendment, we have only selected a part of the amendment text:

We have to substitute the text element of the sub-provision (using the relevant task in the Resource Manager) to produce our annotation and obtain our amendment brackets:

But now, in order to complete our amendment, we need to copy the P3 elements for points (a) and (b) in the amendment text from the amending provision:

And pasting them directly into our newly amended amended provision. After pasting in the ukl:P3s for points (a)(b) we then need to:

• move the closing amendment bracket to the end of point (b), and

• move the opening amendment bracket to before the sub-provision number.

Notice that the ukl:Pnumber tags at P3 level are missing brackets around the sub-provision numbers, this should be dealt with as described in the next section.

Sub-provision numbers at P3 level missing closing bracket

If we check the provision back in now, it will look like this:

Notice that the brackets around the sub-provision numbers for the new points (a)(b) are incomplete: e.g. “(a ”. This is caused by there being no value in the “PuncAfter” attribute in the number tagging, so we need to correct this:

We need to add opening and closing brackets in the “PuncBefore” and “PuncAfter” attributes. (NB we cannot simply add brackets in the number tagging itself as this will result in a double opening bracket: e.g. “((a)”.):

Having done this the sub-provision number will show correctly: e.g. “(a)”.

Remember to add the opening and closing brackets for all the ukl:P3 sub-provision numbers that are missing them.

Amendment text that has itself been amended

Amendment text that has itself been amended should be tidied up in the target document following insertion/substitution. If the amendment text contains any amendment brackets, these should be removed and any dotty lined omitted sub-provisions should also be removed (even if this means that the number order is no longer consecutive). Dotty lines for omissions of words should be removed. The text should be pristine because the changes happened to the amending provision before it was brought into force.

For example, the amending provision SI 2019/654 (which inserted a new Art. 28A into EUR 2009/767) was itself amended in several places by SI 2020/1504, reg. 12(21), before coming into force on 31.12.2020:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/654/regulation/116

These amendments were tidied up when the amendment was applied to EUR 2009/767:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2009/767/article/28A

Also note the appended commentary has been simplified by citing at the higher "umbrella" provision level, i.e. reg. 12(21), rather than listing out all the amending sub-provisions:

Art. 28A inserted (31.12.2020) by The Animal Feed (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/654), regs. 1, 116 (as amended by S.I. 2020/1504, regs. 1(2), 12(21)); 2020 c. 1, Sch. 5 para. 1(1)

See more on Appended Commentaries.

Powers - remember to check for these and set attributes accordingly

Don’t forget to check for powers to make secondary legislation in newly inserted/substituted provisions and set power attribute accordingly. It is good practice to filter Comments for Editor in the TOES spreadsheet for rows containing "Contains power" or "Confers power" etc and checking that the powers have all been flagged in the updated XML before you complete your update task.

Main body - repeals

When you carry out the repeal of a whole provision or high level repeal, you should end up with a dotty line and F-note for the repeal (with the F-note reference usually located before the provision number).

If the auto-repeal button is available, this can be used to carry out a high-level repeal, however look out for any text remaining after the auto-repeal has been carried out and if necessary remove this manually.

If no auto-repeal button is available, you may be able to set the attributes using the workaround for high level repeals, in order to carry out the repeal. This method certainly works with Titles (see example below) and Sections.

If the auto-repeal button is not available and the workaround is not possible, the repeal will need to be carried out manually. You will need to select suitable tagging upon which to carry out the repeal in order to generate the F-note annotation and dotty line. When you check the provision back in, please check to see what kind of dotty line has been produced and change it, if necessary.

Repeals of words (including unnumbered paragraphs within provisions) should be represented by an ellipsis (3 dots: "..."), but repeals of whole provisions and sub-provisions should be represented by the longer block repeal dotty line (see example below). Where sub-provisions are tagged as list items (rather P2paras or P3paras etc) the editorial tool does not correctly add a block repeal dotty line for their repeal and you should correct this.

You can copy this block repeal dotty line:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Main body - using the batch repeal function

It is possible to use the batch repeal function to repeal a range of Articles, however, after carrying out the batch repeal you may have to do some tidying up. Remember to make sure that each repealed Article contains an F-note reference for the repeal and, if it is missing, check the provision out and add it in. Also check that all the text has gone in each provision and, if not, check out again and remove it manually, also making sure that the F-note reference is moved to the correct location before the Article number, if necessary.

e.g. from this:

to this:

How to repeal a Title or Section

If no auto-repeal button is available, use the the workaround for high level repeals, in order to carry out the repeal, i.e.

Firstly, check out the Title from the high level ToC, insert the repeal F-note at the top (i.e. before the word “Title” in the ukl:Number tagging) and make sure the ukl:EUTitle tagging has these attributes:

Match = true
Status = repealed
Restrict start date = [PiT date that you’re working on]

For example:

Next, repeal the child provisions (usually Articles) within the Title using the same task and make sure they have the following attributes when you place the cursor in the ukl:P1group:

Match = false
Status = repealed
Restrict start date = [PiT date that you’re working on]

For example:

Website preview of the completed amendment at Title level:

At child provision level (Articles are still accessible from the ToC):

How to repeal an Article

Where an Article is tagged conventionally as a ukl:P1Group containing a ukl:P1 (or if there is no title as just a ukl:P1), you can select the ukl:P1para tagging and carry out a repeal in the usual way (i.e. click on the relevant task in the Resource Manager to highlight it, and select Legislation - Textual Amendments - Repeal on the menu bar at the top of the page):

Once you check the provision back in and preview it, you should end up with the F-note for the repeal before the Article number, the title of the Article and a dotty line:

How to repeal a sub-provision tagged as a <ukl:ListItem>

If you need to carry out a repeal on a numbered sub-provision in an Article that is tagged as a ukl:ListItem, you can select the text tagging and carry out a repeal in the usual way, but remember to replace the 3 dots with a dotty line after the repeal has been carried out by the Editorial System:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Because the sub-provision is tagged as a ukl:ListItem, it won’t be possible to include the F-note reference before the sub-provision number, it should be placed at the start of the dotty line, see the repeal of EUR 2006/1013, Art. 2(18)-(21):

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2006/1013/article/2

How to repeal an unnumbered paragraph in an Article

If an Article contains several unnumbered paragraphs, and these have been tagged with ukl:P1para tags, if you need to repeal one of the paragraphs you should carry out the repeal on the text within the ukl:P1para tags, to make sure that you end up with three dots not a dotty line.

See, for example:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2006/1907/article/124

In this example, the repeal of the first unnumbered paragraph is treated as a repeal of words.

How to repeal the binding words in the Signature

Although repealing the binding words in the Signature usually means that all the text in the Signature is repealed, this should be treated as a straightforward repeal of words, for example:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2009/1099/signature/2020-12-31

Make sure you leave the actual words of the signature in place, if they are present, for example:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2019/1241/signature/2020-12-31

Annotation checks - things to look out for

When you carry out your usual annotation checks, also consider the REUL-specific annotation issues.

Timeline - things to look out for

When you preview your amendment, you may notice page not found errors when you click back to the previous PiT for a provision inserted on 31.12.2020 (because the timeline automatically includes a PiT for exit day and the start of the implementation period, which was before the provision was inserted):

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2011/142/article/24A

This is a known issue and you do not need to take any further action.

However, if you carry out an insertion of a words or words, a substitution or a repeal and the previous PiT does not appear in the timeline, remember you can use the timeline resolver to make the previous PiT appear.

Editing Annexes

As with Schedules in UK legislation, Annexes follow the main body in REUL. Similarly, they are tagged within ukl:Schedules and ukl:Schedule tagging. However, the provisions within Annexes are usually tagged very differently to Schedules in UK legislation and they also render differently on the website, which means that headings and provision numbers may not be formatted in the same way as a Schedule would be (see the example of the insertion of a new Annex, below).

The drafting guidelines give no specific rules about the presentation of Annexes, and, although they are nonetheless meant to have a uniform structure and be subdivided in such a way that the content is as clear as possible, the drafters may use any appropriate system of numbering or subdivision. This means that Annexes don't have a consistent structure and format, and, whilst the basic units within Annexes are often referred to as points, this can vary between documents.

As Annexes in REUL are formatted very differently to Schedules in UK legislation, with a variety of structures being used, provisions within Annexes were tagged using ukl:Division tagging, which are often nested one within another for the sub-provisions within a provisions. This nested ukl:Division structure means that sub-divisions that would not normally be included in the ToC in UK legislation may be included in the ToC in REUL, and this tagging structure can also result in formatting issues such as annotations appearing throughout a whole provision because they are placed below each sub-provision they relate to, rather at the bottom of the whole provision.

ukl:Division tagging includes the provision number in a set of ukl:Number tags and may or may not contain a heading in ukl:Title tagging (and note that sometimes the ukl:Title tagging can actually contain the first line of the text of the provision). The content is often located within ukl:P and ukl:Text tagging. Sub-provisions may then be tagged as ukl:OrderedLists within ukl:P tagging, for example:

A variety of other tagging structures may also be used, however, and we need to closely compare the amending provision tagging with the amended provision, as these are usually different and manual intervention will be needed in most amendments. You should always follow the existing tagging structure of the Annex you are amending if you need to insert or substitute a provision or sub-provision. However, you may find that you need to deviate from the existing tagging structure if you encounter any issues such as provisions not displaying in the preview, as described below.

It is a good idea to have a look through an Annex before you start editing it, so see how the provisions within the Annex are referred to within the Annex itself and to familiarise yourself with how it has been tagged.

Remember that where possible, the opening amendment bracket for insertions and substitutions of whole provisions and sub-provisions should come before the number. However, this will not be possible if sub-provisions are tagged as ordered lists (we have a similar situation with definitions in UK legislation).

See more on the structural subdivision of EU legislation on the Record Effects page.

Annexes - insertions and substitutions

Example of the insertion of a new Annex

Annex 1A was inserted into EUR 2012/1151 on 31.12.2020.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2012/1151/annex/1A

Affecting provision XMetaL view:

Affected provision XMetaL view:

It was possible to carry out the amendment as a high level insertion, without needing to retag the provisions within the Annex. However, you can see how the tagging is positioned slightly differently in the affecting and affected documents.

The Annex also looks slightly different in the website preview of the affecting and affected documents, with provision numbers being centred above the provision text (rather than left-aligned and level with the provision text) in the affected document:

Affecting provision website view:

Affected provision website view:

As long as the P1s/P1group tagging hierarchy is correct and logical, we don't need to try and resolve this by retagging the Annex, as this is a rendering issue and something that may be resolved by front-end development work in the future.

Example of the insertion of a Schedule or Annex where there are none already

In order to insert a Schedule or Annex where there are none already, you need to check out the whole document and use the Element List to first insert ukl:Schedules tagging, then you will be able to insert the block amendment into this tagging in the usual way.

In this example, the amendment was to insert Schedules, but the principle is the same. ukl:Schedules tagging was inserted after the Signature and the Schedules were then inserted within this ukl:Schedules tagging:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2014/600/annexes

You will see that the front-end appearance of these Schedules is based on the appearance of an Annex, so looks slightly different to a normal Schedule. This is how the ukl:P1Groups render in this type of document and we are unable to change the appearance.

Example of the substitution of a whole Annex consisting entirely of forms and tables

If you need to substitute an entire Annex, and it consists entirely of forms or tables, it may not be possible to include the square brackets for the substitution and you can use the same method we would use to substitute a Schedule which has no children.

Alternatively, if it is possible to include square brackets but you also need substitute of forms which are images and/or tables, you can carry out the substitution on the Annex heading, substitute the images and tables separately using the image tool or the usual method for substituting a table, and then move the closing square bracket to the appropriate position, for example:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2006/1013/annex/IX/2020-12-31

Missing provisions in the website preview

Sometimes inserted or substituted text tagged as ukl:ListItems in ukl:OrderedLists or ukl:P3s within ukl:Division tagging do not display in the website preview. You will need to retag the amendment to make the text display - look at the surrounding peer provisions to see how they have been tagged and follow their format. For example, by using ukl:Para and ukl:Text tags after the ukl:Text tag for the opening words before the list or sub-provisions.

Also see:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2006/1013/annex/IC/division/IV/division/21/2020-12-31

Where the inserted sub-paragraphs within the definitions did not appear until they were included in their own set of ukl:P tagging, as follows:

They did not appear in the preview when included as an ukl:OrderedList at the end of the previous set of ukl:P tagging.

Example of the insertion of a whole provision in an Annex

The amending provision inserts a new provision at the start of an Annex:

This amendment was retagged in the amended provision using ukl:Division tagging, with ukl:OrderedLists for the sub-provisions, following the existing tagging structure of the Annexes in that document (also note that amendments by "second wave" EU Exit SI tidied up), as follows:

Annexes - repeals

When you carry out a high level repeal or the repeal of a whole provision in an Annex, you should end up with a dotty line and F-note for the repeal (with the F-note reference usually located before the provision number). It is very likely, due to the tagging structures of Annexes, that you will need to make manual interventions in high level repeals or repeals of whole provisions in Annexes.

If the auto-repeal button is available, this can be used to carry out the repeal, however look out for any text remaining after the auto-repeal has been carried out and if necessary remove this manually. You will need to check all the child provisions after you carry out the repeal to make sure there are no issues such as text or images left behind, dotty lines appearing in the wrong place or being split, or with multiple F-note references, for example:

If no auto-repeal button is available, you may be able to set the attributes using the workaround for high level repeals, in order to carry out the repeal.

It is therefore recommended that you follow the manual method where there is no auto-repeal button for an Annex as described below:

Manual method for carrying out repeals

You will need to select suitable tagging to carry out the repeal on in order to generate the F-note for the repeal and a dotty line. When you check the provision back in, look out for three dots being generated instead of a dotty line, and replace with a dotty line if necessary (by checking the provision out again and copying and pasting a dotty line over the three dots).

You can copy this dotty line:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Remember that you may also need to manually remove any other tagging and text that needs to be included in the repeal.

Example of the repeal of an Annex

In preview:

If you click back to the previous PiT, you can see that the content of Annex 4 consists of various forms and other text:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2019/1793/annex/IV/2020-01-31

This has all been replaced by a single dotty line and F-note for the repeal on 31.12.2020.

In XMetaL:

Example of the repeal of a Part within an Annex

If you click back to the previous PiT, you can see that the content of Pt. 2 consists of various forms and other text:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2010/206/annex/I/part/2/2020-01-31

This has all been replaced by a single dotty line and F-note for the repeal on 31.12.2020.

In this example, you can also see that the square brackets and X-note from a previous higher level EU amendment have been left in, as described in point 4 of things to look out for.

Example of a repeal of a Section within an Annex

The content of the section has been replaced with a dotty line and F-note reference inserted before the section number:

In XMetaL:

In the website preview:

Example of a repeal "except for..."

See the omission of "Legend to Annex 1 (except for the table headed “Sanitary Groups”)" in EUR 2018/659 Annex 1 on 1/7/2022:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2018/659/annex/I/division/1/2022-07-01

The content that has been omitted has been replaced by a dotty line above and below the Table that was not included in the omission, and the annotation includes the detail of the content that has been excepted from the omission, as per the amending provision:

https://legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/735/regulation/16/made#regulation-16-11-d

Repealing tables and forms

If you need to repeal a whole table or a form, there may not be any tagging present that you are able to carry out a repeal on. In this situation, you will need to either insert or use some existing appropriate tagging into which you can paste in a dotty line, such as ukl:P tagging. You will also need to insert the F-note for the task.

In this example, the table was included within ukl:Tabular tagging within a set of ukl:P tags:

The ukl:P tags were left in place, the ukl:Tabular tagging was removed and ukl:Text tags were added into which a dotty line was inserted. The table title was also moved out of the ukl:Tabular tagging and placed before the dotty line within its own set of ukl:Text tags:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2011/142/annex/XIV/chapter/II/section/11/division/1

Example of the repeal of a point in an Annex

In this example of the repeal of a point in an Annex, the repeal was carried out on the ukl:P tagging (i.e. the ukl:P tagging was selected, the relevant task was clicked on in the Resource Manager to highlight it, and Legislation - Textual Amendments - Repeal was selected on the menu bar at the top of the page):

However, when the provision was checked back in, the repeal had only generated three dots, not a dotty line, and the F-note reference was in the wrong place. There was also a title that still needed to be removed:

The provision was checked back out, and a dotty line was pasted over the three dots, the title and its tagging was also removed, and F-note reference moved to come before the provision number:

After check in, when the provision was previewed, the repeal now looked correct:

Also note that, in this example, the original PiT of 18.2.2019 was initially missing from the timeline and this was added back in using the timeline resolver.

Example of the repeal of a point containing nested <ukl:Division> tagging

In this example, point ARO.GEN.125 (which was tagged in a set of ukl:Division tags) contains sub-provisions (a) and (b), which were each also tagged with a set of ukl:Division tags:

When the point was omitted on 31.12.2020, these were removed and replaced with a single dotty line within the outer set of ukl:Division tags, and the two sets of ukl:Division tags for (a) and (b) were removed. The ukl:Title tagging was also removed and the F-note for the omission was inserted before point number:

In preview:

You might notice that where sub-provisions are tagged with nested ukl:Division tags, each sub-provision will appear in the ToC and so will disappear from the ToC when you carry out the repeal in this way. It is still possible to navigate back to the sub-provisions via the previous PiT on the timeline and you can check this when you carry out your timeline checks.

Repeal of a provision or sub-provision tagged as a <ukl:ListItem>

See How to repeal a sub-provision tagged as a <ukl:ListItem> in the Editing the main body guidance.

Example of the repeal of a provision tagged as a <ukl:ListItem> including a table

See EUR 2011/142, Annex 6, Ch. 2 Section 2 point 1(a)(i):

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2011/142/annex/VI/chapter/II/section/2/division/1/2020-01-31

Which gets repealed on 31.12.2020:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2011/142/annex/VI/chapter/II/section/2/division/1/2020-12-31

Annotation checks - things to look out for

When you carry out your usual annotation checks, also consider the REUL-specific annotation issues.

Timeline checks - things to look out for

When you preview your amendment, you may notice page not found errors when you click back to the previous PiT for a provision inserted on 31.12.2020 (because the timeline automatically includes a PiT for exit day and the start of the implementation period, which was before the provision was inserted):

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2011/142/article/24A

This is a known issue and you do not need to take any further action.

However, if you carry out an insertion of a words or words, a substitution or a repeal and the previous PiT does not appear in the timeline, remember you can use the timeline resolver to make the previous PiT appear.

ANNOTATIONS IN REUL

Amended provisions

Amended provisions should be cited with Arabic numerals in annotations

We should not use Roman numerals for the amended provisions in REUL.

For example, if the amended provision in an annotation came out as "Annex IV", this should be changed to the Arabic number, i.e. "Annex 4".

Use the full citation for the location of the effect in annotations

We should change the amended provision in annotations for amendments to provisions in Annexes with complicated structures to include the full citation for the location of the effect. In other words, follow the drafter’s description as far as possible.

For example, where we recorded a textual effect simply against “Annex 14 Ch. 6” in TOES because the Annex’s structure was complicated, when we come to do the amendment we should expand the citation to follow the drafter’s description in the amending provision: “In Annex 14, Chapter 6 ... in Section 3 ... in paragraph 1 ... omit “at the border control post””. And so the annotation becomes:

Words in Annex 14 Ch. 6 Section 3 point 1 omitted (E.W.S.) (31.12.2020) by virtue of The Animals, Aquatic Animal Health, Invasive Alien Species, Plant Propagating Material and Seeds (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/1388), regs. 1(2)(c), 13(104)(b)(i)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2011/142/annex/XIV/chapter/VI/section/3/division/1/2020-12-31

Although note that in this example, the drafter used the word "paragraph" but this was changed to "point" in the annotation, to be consistent with how the provision was referenced within the Annex itself (see point 2, which references point 1(a)):

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2011/142/annex/XIV/chapter/VI/section/1/division/2/2020-12-31

As far as possible treat paragraphs and points in Articles and sub-provisions of whole provisions in Annexes in the same was as we treat sub-provisions in UK legislation

Please bear in mind that paragraphs and points in Articles and sub-provisions of whole provisions in Annexes should as far as possible be treated in the same way as we treat sub-provisions in UK legislation. So, for example, where the drafter describes an amendment as follows:

In Article 2 … in paragraph 2 … in point (a), for “other Member States” substitute “the public sector body”

We should cite the amended provision as: “Art. 2(2)(a)”.

For example, see:

https://legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/89/schedule/paragraph/55/made#schedule-paragraph-55-3-b-i

Words in Art. 2(2)(a) substituted (31.12.2020) by The Electronic Identification and Trust Services for Electronic Transactions (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/89), reg. 1(2), Sch. para. 55(3)(b)(i); 2020 c. 1, Sch. 5 para. 1(1)

Point (1) or point 1 - when to include brackets around a point number in an annotation

If you were amending a provision in this Part, you would put brackets around the point number in the annotation e.g. Annex Pt. 6 point (3)(i):

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2019/945/annex/part/6/2020-12-31

This follows how the amended provision was referenced by the drafter in the amending provision:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1593/regulation/51/made

If you were amending a provision in this Part, you would only use brackets around the sub-provisions in the annotation e.g. Annex Pt. 7 point 4(1)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2019/945/annex/part/7/2020-12-31

This also follows how the amended provision was referenced by the drafter in the amending provision:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1593/regulation/52/made

Citation of footnotes in annotations

See Working with footnotes.

Sections

Sections in REUL are almost always high level parent provisions. Although we have recorded the effects against Sections in REUL with the format, e.g., “s. 0003”, references in annotations to a high level Section provision should be written out in full with a capital letter: "Section 3".

“Annex 3 Section 3 para. 3a(a) substituted (31.12.2020) by S.I. 2019/640, reg. 19(3)(a) (as substituted by The Food and Feed Hygiene and Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/1504), regs. 1(2), 9(11)(a))”

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2004/853/annex/III/section/III

There may be exceptions, where provisions or sub-provisions have been referred to as sections, and we have therefore used the usual “s.” format for these references within annotations, see for example:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2012/722/annex/I/2021-08-11

Amendment to earlier affecting provision and knock-on effect annotations

You may see various “amendment to earlier affecting provision” and KO effects in your update task, for example:

See the sections below for guidance on applying and dealing with the annotations for these two types of effect:

Appended commentaries for amendments to earlier affecting legislation

Knock-on effect annotations

Appended commentaries for amendments to earlier affecting legislation

We will need to use appended commentaries a lot during REUL update (as we had to when we did the EU Exit SI update).

Some of these will come through automatically in the system-generated annotation, where the appended commentary field has been used in TOES, for example:

• where a “first wave” EU Exit SI was due to come into force on “exit day” and this was changed to “IP completion day” by 2020 c. 1 , Sch. 5 para. 1(1).

• where a “first wave” EU Exit SI’s savings or transitional provisions or its extent provision were amended by a “second wave” SI.

Others will be needed for citing the details of “second wave” SIs for amendment to earlier affecting provision effects and you will need to edit the annotation yourself, using the method described below.

For further explanation about “first wave” and “second wave” EU Exit SIs, see the EU Exit Update Guidance Notes.

Method for adding an appended commentary by editing the annotation

1. Apply your amendment (i.e. the original “first wave” EU Exit amendment). You will see that it contains amendment brackets, dotty lines, etc, from the amendment by the “second wave” EU Exit SI, for example substitutions of the words “IP Completion day” for “Exit day”:

2. Remove the amendment brackets and dotty lines (and repealed sub-provision numbers, etc) from the amendments by the “second wave” EU Exit SI in the amendment text in the affected provision and check it back in.

3. Go to website preview and use the operative provision link in the annotation to visit the affecting provision:

In this example, clicking on operative provision link Sch. 35 para. (3)42 takes you to your affecting provision (as amended by the “second wave” EU Exit SI):

4. Copy the details of this “second wave” EU Exit SI from the annotation of the amendment to your affecting provision:

5. Return to the preview of your affected provision using the browser back arrow.

6. Click on the Edit button next to the annotation so that you can edit it.

7. Edit the annotation by adding the appended commentary “(as amended by … )” in the appropriate place (if there is a reference to 2020 c. 1, Sch. 5 para. 1(1), it should go before this) and insert your copied text into the annotation (but remove the brackets around the SI number):

8. The Editorial System should add the hyperlinks when you click the Update button, and you should be left with your clean, updated provision and correctly hyperlinked annotation:

9. Complete the amendment by making sure the update status is “Edit Complete” for both your original amendment (the “first wave” amendment), and the “amendment to earlier affecting provision” amendment (the “second wave” amendment):

Location of appended commentary for "amendments to earlier affecting provision" effects

The appended commentary for amendments to earlier affecting provision effects should come before the appended commentary for the change of exit day to IP completion day (i.e. before "; 2020 c. 1, Sch. 5 para. 1(1)", for example:

Words in Art. 25(3) inserted (31.12.2020) by The REACH etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/758), reg. 1(1), Sch. 1 para. 22 (as amended by S.I. 2020/1313, regs. 1(3), 6(2)); 2020 c. 1, Sch. 5 para. 1(1)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2006/1907/article/25

Simplify multiple amending sub-provisions in the appended commentary

Where an amending provision has been hit by multiple amending sub-provisions, the annotation for the appended commentary should simplify this by citing at the higher "umbrella" provision level. For example, the amending provision SI 2019/654, reg. 116 is hit by several amendments by SI 2020/1504, reg. 12(21)(a), (b)(i)(ii)(iii) and (c). The appended commentary should bundle those amendments together as "(as amended by S.I. 2020/1504, regs. 1(2), 12(21))", see:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2009/767/article/28A

Bundle together multiple appended commentaries

Where an appended commentary for an amendment to earlier affecting provision effect is needed in addition to an already existing appended commentary for a change to the “first wave” SI’s extent or savings, then both appended commentaries should be bundled together into a single parenthesis to avoid redundancy, for example:

• “(as amended by ... and ...)”, or

• “(as amended by: ...; ...; and ...)”

If the changes are by different “second wave” amending SIs, the SIs should be cited in numerical order.

“Amendment to earlier affecting provision” effects may not be displayed in the update tasks at the same level

Please be aware that amendment to earlier affecting provision effects made by “second wave” SIs to an original “first wave” high level amendment may not be displayed in the update tasks at that same high level. We may have entered these subsequent amendments in TOES as amendments to the child provisions. You need to remember to mark these child level amendments as applied once you have dealt with the appended commentaries.

Knock-on effect annotations

For a description of how to deal with KO effects, see Annotations for knock-on amendments in the EU Exit Update Guidance Notes.

Also bear in mind how we are dealing with Extent/TA of knock on effects and amendments to earlier affecting provision effects in REUL update.

Incorrect hyperlinks

See the section on Complex (5-level deep) affecting provisions, duplicate update tasks and incorrect hyperlinks.

Citation of REUL as affecting legislation

The short title in a KO annotation looks like this:

Regulation applied (31.12.2020) by Regulation (EU) No. 625/2017, Art. 143 (as substituted by The Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/1481), regs. 1, 27(3) (with reg. 46))

WORKING WITH FOOTNOTES IN REUL

We may need to apply amendments to different types of footnotes that are included by drafters in REUL, such as hyperlinked table footnotes and other drafters footnotes.

Table footnote reference:

The footnote reference is hyperlinked, linking to the footnote directly below the table:

Other drafters footnote reference:

The footnote reference is hyperlinked, linking to the footnote (sometimes referred to as endnote), which is displayed right at the bottom of the text in the preview:

Whilst we are able to amend table footnotes, we cannot edit other drafters' footnotes ourselves, so amendments to these two types of footnote are treated differently, as described in the next two sections.

Table footnotes

These are hyperlinked footnote references within a table that are usually referenced by a letter that link to footnotes directly below the table, for example:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2018/659/annex/I

Inserting a new table footnote

Table footnotes are usually linked to the table entry by a footnote reference. If you need to insert a new footnote reference, it can be tricky to make the hyperlinking work in the affected provision and you must be careful to take into account all the existing footnote references in the whole of the affected document to make sure you don't overwrite an existing footnote with new text. It is therefore recommended not to create hyperlinked footnote references when you are inserting a new footnote reference, but to use ukl:Superior tagging to add a superscript letter for the footnote reference in the appropriate position in the table text and at the beginning of the footnote text itself. The footnote letter should follow on in sequence from the last footnote letter used.

Note: table entries and connected table footnotes are often shown one above the other in the amending provision. In the amended provision, the table footnotes should be inserted at the bottom of the table at the end of the existing footnotes (not immediately under the table entry).

Also note that the insertion of a table entry together with its footnote has been treated simply as one “words inserted” effect in TOES e.g. “Annex 1 Table”. When we carry out the amendment, we just need to remember to add the entry in the table and then the footnote at the bottom of the table when we edit using the same task and therefore the same annotation “Words in Annex 1 Table inserted …”.

Omitting a table footnote

To omit a table footnote reference and footnote, you need to replace the footnote reference where it occurs within the table with three dots, replace the text of the footnote at the bottom of the table with three dots, but leave the footnote reference at the start of the footnote text in place.

It is not possible to carry out a repeal on the ukl:FootnoteRef/, so you need to delete it and manually type in three dots and insert an F-note before the three dots using the repeal task.

From this:

In preview

In XMetaL

To this:

In preview

In XMetaL

Make sure that you leave the ukl:FootnoteText tagging at the bottom of the table when you omit the footnote text, so that the footnote reference still appears at the start of the footnote. To make sure that the existing footnotes are left in the same order with all the same references no changes should be made to the footnote id attributes. Once you have omitted the footnote text, you should be left with, for example:

In preview

In XMetaL

The amended provision is cited like this in the annotation when the footnote and the footnote reference are both included in the same amendment:

Annex 1 Pt. 1 table footnote omitted (1.7.2022) by virtue of The Import of Animals and Animal Products and Approved Countries (Amendment) Regulations 2022 (S.I. 2022/735), regs. 1(2), 5(12)(g)(i)

Sometimes, the table footnote reference alone is the target of an amendment, in which case, the amended provision is cited like this in the annotation:

Annex 1 table footnote reference omitted (31.12.2020) by virtue of The Import of, and Trade in, Animals and Animal Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/1462), regs. 1(3), 68(31)(b)(iii) (with regs. 69-71)

In this example, the footnote reference in the row for Iceland gets omitted by SI 2020/1462, reg. 68(31)(b)(iii):

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1462/regulation/68#regulation-68-31-b-iii

The footnote itself gets omitted by SI 2020/1462, reg. 68(31)(b)(iv)(bb):

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1462/regulation/68#regulation-68-31-b-iv-bb

Other drafters footnotes

Other drafters footnotes are sometimes referred to as “endnotes” by drafters and are referenced by a number in brackets next to the text that they relate to. The reference number links to the footnote that is displayed at the bottom of the text being previewed. See for example, footnote references (1)-(33) in this Introductory Text:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2018/659/introduction

We are currently unable to make textual amendments to these drafters footnotes and get the amendment and annotation to “stick” when we check the amended provision back in. There is a workaround we can use, which is described here.

RELATED PAGES

EU Exit Update Guidance Notes

Lists

Approach, errors and troubleshooting:

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 ===EU Exit SIs amending REUL for E.W.S. generally to be treated as whole extent amendments===
-Apart from obviously limited extent/TA amendments (where the document is being amended only for E., or W., or E.W., or S., etc) where we follow the usual limited extent/TA procedure, our approach for E.W.S. amendments to REUL is generally to treat them as whole extent amendments.
+Apart from obviously limited extent/TA amendments (where the document is being amended only for E., or W., or E.W., or S., etc) where we follow the usual [[Editorial Update/Limited Extent Amendments|limited extent/TA procedure]], our approach for E.W.S. amendments to REUL is generally to treat them as whole extent amendments.
 See [[Editorial_Update/Limited_Extent_Amendments#EU_Exit_SIs_amending_retained_EU_legislation|EU Exit SIs amending retained EU legislation]] on the [[Editorial_Update/Limited_Extent_Amendments |Limited Extent Amendments]] page.
@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 We will not treat these subsequent amendments as limited TA amendments and we do not need to cite an TA indication (e.g. "(E.W.S.)" or “(N.I.)”) in the appended commentary when we apply them.
+===Limited extent amendments to REUL===
+Limited extent amendments to REUL do occur, and may involve the same amendment being made for different jurisdictions on different dates. See for example:
+In EUR 2019/935, Art. 2, the words “referred to in point (d) of Article 75(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013” get omitted for E.  on 14.12.2022. This amendment was carried out as a limited extent repeal:
+https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2019/935/article/2/2022-12-01
+Then, on 14.12.2022, the same words get omitted for W. The retained text was left as it was, and the details for the W. omission were merged into the annotation using the method described [[Editorial_Update/Annotation_Conventions#Merging_annotations_for_limited_extent_amendments_where_the_same_amendment_is_made_for_different_jurisdictions_on_different_dates|here]] to prevent the details from “trickling” back into the previous PiT:
+https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2019/935/article/2/2022-12-14
+Finally, the same words get omitted on 2.2.2023 for S., which was treated as a whole extent omission, with the words being fully omitted and the details of the omission for S. merged into the annotation (using the same method as before to prevent the details from “trickling” back in the annotation):
+https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2019/935/article/2/2023-02-02
+<strong>Concurrent versions in REUL:</strong> the Concurrent Version Manager doesn't seem to work very well in REUL, so we should try to carry out any limited extent amendments to REUL in composite text as far as possible and avoid creating concurrent versions. Check with a Review Editor if you think you do need to create a concurrent version.
 ==Check TOES for potential issues before you start==
@@ Line 56: / Line 74: @@
 There is an [https://nationalarchivesuk.sharepoint.com/:x:/r/sites/LS_edit/_layouts/15/Doc.aspx?sourcedoc=%7B8652139C-0F11-456C-86E0-4AB8ECFB27BD%7D&file=EU%20Update%20Issues%20Overview%20-%20Live%20Update%202022.xlsx&action=default&mobileredirect=true&cid=b6181bbd-8530-4cf1-87a1-998731e55ab1 EU issues spreadsheet] where issues that have been logged with TSO have been recorded. There are also tabs for tagging issues and policy.
-If you need to add an issue to the spreadsheet, please also email the details to Richard Hodgson and Clare Allison so that the issue can be logged with TSO (or added to an existing story).
+If you need to add an issue to the spreadsheet, please also email the details to Richard Hodgson so that the issue can be logged with TSO (or added to an existing story).
+==Editorial System Issues==
-==Issues with the way that tasks are displayed==
+===Issues with the way that tasks are displayed===
-===Split tasks===
+====Split tasks====
 Where the editorial system has found it difficult to translate awkward REUL amended provisions into rdf tasks, we may end up with update tasks against non-existent provisions or duplicated update tasks (where one and the same amendment is represented by tasks both at high level and also at provision level).
@@ Line 67: / Line 87: @@
 Where tasks are split you may find it awkward to access one set of split tasks to mark them as applied.  Usually this can be worked around by using the high level ToC to access the parent provision for the affected provision you need to access.  If you cannot mark both sets of split tasks as applied, we will need to ask for help from TSO to allow you to move on.
-===The update details pages also may not present the full type of effect information correctly===
+=====Provision level tasks appearing as high level tasks=====
+If you have provision-level tasks appearing as high level tasks and you have carried them out by checking out a higher level, make sure you check the timeline at provision level when you preview your amendment, to make sure that the PiT has created correctly at provision level and, if it hasn't, use the Timeline Resolver to add it in.
+====The update details pages also may not present the full type of effect information correctly====
 For example, the task may indicate a repeal of Annex 1:
@@ Line 75: / Line 99: @@
-When, in fact, the TOES data tells you there is actually a repeal of Annex 1 heading or a point within Annex 1, e.g.:
+When, in fact, the TOES data tells you there is actually a repeal of Annex 1 heading or a point within Annex 1, i.e.:
-  [[File: REUL_24.png|900px]]
+  [[File: REUL_24a.png|900px]]
 In order to recognise this and do your update accurately you should always work with the TOES spreadsheet open for you to consult so that you can check the real TOES data.
-===Using the Task Association Tool (i.e. Assign Tasks button) when you are unable to access the amended provision because the update details preview displays a page not found error===
+====Using the Task Association Tool (i.e. Assign Tasks button) when you are unable to access the amended provision because the update details preview displays a page not found error====
 Where you cannot access the amended provision because the update details preview displays a page not found error, you should be able to work around this by using the <strong>Assign Tasks</strong> button.
-See instructions on the [[Editorial_Update/Update_Troubleshooting#Issue:_I_am_unable_to_check_out_the_amended_provision|Update Troubleshooting]] page for details of how to use the Task Association Tool.
+See the instructions in [[Editorial_Update/Approach_to_Update,_Specific_Update_Issues_and_Update_Troubleshooting#Provision_not_identified_in_the_data:_using_the_Task_Association_Tool_to_assign_tasks_to_another_provision|Update Troubleshooting]] for details of how to use the Task Association Tool.
 You can use the Assign Tasks function more than once to assign tasks first to one provision and then to another provision if you have tasks for different provisions displaying together on the same update details page. For example, these effects were recorded against Annex 2c Pt. 1 para. 1 and Annex 2c Pt. 3 para. 1, but the Editorial System didn't recognise the Parts dues to the way they were tagged in the data, and displayed all the effects together on one update details page:
@@ Line 98: / Line 122: @@
 The <strong>Assign Tasks</strong> button was used to assign the tasks to Annex 2c Pt. 1 para. 1 and those tasks were carried out, then the <strong>Assign Tasks</strong> button was used to assign the tasks to Annex 2c Pt. 3 para. 1, which enabled the remaining tasks to be carried out to that provision.
-===Complex (5-level deep) amending provisions, duplicate update tasks and incorrect hyperlinks===
+====Complex (5-level deep) amending provisions, duplicate update tasks and incorrect hyperlinks====
 Some amending provisions in EU Exit SIs run to 5 levels deep, e.g. S.I. 2019/89, Sch. para. 55(5)(b)(ii)(aa) and (bb):
@@ Line 148: / Line 172: @@
 NB In the attribute inspector check that the <strong>operative attribute value</strong> is correct in your <code>ukl:CitationSubRef</code> to ensure the amending provision shows in bold in the annotation (Operative = true).
-===Avoid page not found errors when checking out high level amendments because there are too many tasks by deselecting tasks===
+===Issues with checking out provisions===
-When checking out high level amendments, remember to de-select all tasks except the ones you need to apply your amendments, otherwise you may get an error on check out because there are too many XML tasks.  See instructions on the
+====Avoid page not found errors when checking out high level amendments because there are too many tasks by deselecting tasks====
-[[Editorial_Update/Update_Troubleshooting#.22Internal_error.22_when_checking_out_a_high_level_provision_due_to_large_number_of_high_level_update_tasks|Update Troubleshooting]] page.
-==Issues with the way that amendments are carried out in XMetaL==
+When checking out high level amendments, remember to de-select all tasks except the ones you need to apply your amendments, otherwise you may get an error on check out because there are too many XML tasks.  See instructions in
+[[Editorial_Update/Approach_to_Update,_Specific_Update_Issues_and_Update_Troubleshooting#.E2.80.9CInternal_error.E2.80.9D_message_when_trying_to_check_out_a_high_level_provision|Update Troubleshooting - “Internal error” message when trying to check out a high level provision]].
-===Affected provision coming though into F-notes as "A." rather than "Art. 1(2)"===
+====Beware issues with checking out whole documents that contain Attachments====
+If your document contains Annexes or other provisions that have been tagged as Attachments, if you check out the whole document you may find that the provisions tagged as attachments disappear from the Table of Contents when you check the document back in.
+If this happens, the document needs to be referred to TSO to be fixed.
+This issue is the subject of a development story with TSO and will hopefully be fixed soon. In the meantime, you should avoid checking out the whole documents for documents that contain any provisions tagged as Attachments.
+==XMetaL Issues==
+===Affected provision appearing as "A." rather than "Art. 1(2)" in annotations===
 This was an issue whereby the affected provision appeared as "A." rather than, for example "Art. 1(2)", in the annotation that was generated when we carry out an amendment.
@@ Line 169: / Line 203: @@
   [[File: REUL annotation A2.png|900px]]
-This issue was logged in the [[Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#EU_issues_spreadsheet|EU issues spreadsheet]], and should now have been resolved - if you see this issue or anything like it in an annotation it will need to be raised.
+This issue was logged in the [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#EU_issues_spreadsheet|EU issues spreadsheet]], and should now have been resolved - if you see this issue or anything like it in an annotation it will need to be raised.
+===Wrong hyperlinks to affecting provisions in annotations===
+This issue occurs where there are complex amending provisions with multiple levels e.g. reg. 5(4)(a)(ii)(aa), and is explained above, under the heading [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Complex_.285-level_deep.29_amending_provisions.2C_duplicate_update_tasks_and_incorrect_hyperlinks|Complex (5-level deep) amending provisions, duplicate update tasks and incorrect hyperlinks]].
+==Website preview issues==
+===Missing F-note references for multiple omissions of words within a provision===
-==Issues with the way that amendments are displayed in the website preview==
+Where the same amending provision makes more than one omission of words to the same provision, on check-in the F-note reference sometimes only shows against the first omission, the others just show the three dots for the omission. This is fixed by checking the provision back out and then in again.
 ===Missing annotation even though there is an F-note reference===
@@ Line 177: / Line 220: @@
 If your annotation does not appear in the website preview even though the F-note is there, check whether the general container tagging (i.e. <code>ukl:Commentaries</code> <code>ukl:/Commentaries</code> or <code>leg:Commentaries</code> <code>/leg:Commentaries</code>) for the commentaries has been added after the provision tagging and if it is missing you can add it in manually before doing your amendment and the annotation should appear. If the tagging is not available to add in the Element List you may need to add it manually.
-If the container tagging for the annotation is present, but the annotation is still not appearing even though the F-note reference is there, this may be to do with the tagging structure where F-note reference is located.
+If the container tagging for the annotation is present, but the annotation is still not appearing even though the F-note reference is there, this may be to do with the tagging structure where the F-note reference is located.
 Sometimes the annotation may not appear if the F-note reference is located in the second set of <code>ukl:Division</code> tagging of an Annex provision. If you insert an additional F-note reference in the first set of <code>ukl:Division</code> tags of the Annex provision, you may be able to get the annotation to appear in the preview.  This isn't ideal, but at least it makes the annotation appear on the front end.
@@ Line 221: / Line 264: @@
   [[File:REUL_43.png|900px]]
-===Text displaying below rather than next to the provision number (Annexes)===
+===Missing images in the website preview===
-If the text of a provision is displayed below rather than next to the provision number, this may be caused by a blank <code>ukl:Title</code> tag, which can simply be removed from the XML and the text should display next to the provision number:
- [[File:REUL_44.png|900px]]
+Images that have been tagged within <ukl:Span> elements may be missing from the website preview, i.e.:
-The blank <code>ukl:Title</code> tagging shown in the XML above was removed to make the provision text appear next to the provision number:
+<ukl:P><br>
+<ukl:Text><br>
+<span style = "color:red;"><ukl:Span></span><br>
+<ukl:Image ResourceRef="r00001" Height="auto" Width="auto"/><br>
+<span style = "color:red;"></ukl:Span></span><br>
+</ukl:Text><br>
+</ukl:P><br>
- [[File:REUL_45.png|900px]]
+Removing the red highlighted tags should resolve this issue and the images should then appear in the website preview.
 ===Sub-provision numbering doesn't fit before text of the sub-provision===
@@ Line 238: / Line 285: @@
 This is a front-end presentation issue and has been logged in the EU issues spreadsheet.
+===Unnumbered paragraph text ranged too far left and wrapped around preceding text===
+In this document, when Art. 8 came to be updated on 31.12.2020, the update editor noticed that the unnumbered paragraph at the end of Art. 8(1) was ranged too far left wrapped around the preceding text in Art. 8(1)(c)(ii).
+Art. 8(1)(c) had originally been tagged like this:
+ [[File: REUL_58.png|900px]]
+This issue was resolved by retagging Art. 8(1)(c)(i)(ii) as <code>ukl:P4s</code> and moving them into the same <code>ukl:P3para</code> as Art. 8(1)(c). The unnumbered paragraph text was then just included after the closing Art. 8(1)(c) <code>ukl:P3</code> tag within <code>ukl:Text</code> tags:
+ [[File: REUL_59.png|900px]]
+https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2012/1151/article/8/2020-12-31
+===Opening square bracket jumping to appear before Article number===
+There is currently an issue when the words of an unnumbered sub-paragraph at the beginning of an Article are substituted, the opening bracket for the substitution jumps to appear before the Article number. In this example, after the amendment to substitute the words in the first paragraph in this Article were substituted, the data looked like this:
+ [[File: REUL_jumping_bracket_1.png|900px]]
+However, when the provision was checked back in, the opening bracket for the substitution of words jumped to appear before the Article number, even though this was not a whole Article substitution:
+ [[File: REUL_jumping_bracket_2.png|900px]]
+We can use a workaround by inserting a hard space character entity <code>&amp;#160;</code> before the bracket. Place the cursor between the opening <code>ukl:Text</code> tag and the opening <code>ukl:Substitution</code> tag and paste in the entity <code>&amp;#160;</code>. <strong>Note</strong>: you should copy and paste the entity from here in one go - it won't work if you enter the characters individually from your keyboard. You won't be able to see this entity once you have pasted it in, there will just be a space:
+ [[File: REUL_jumping_bracket_3.png|900px]]
+When it gets checked back in, the opening bracket should now stay in the correct location:
+ [[File: REUL_jumping_bracket_4.png|900px]]
+This issue has been logged in the EU issues spreadsheet as “Bracket positioning: revision is made in the first sub-provision - check in routine assumes if the revision starts on the first text node of the provision it should include the provision number” and logged with TSO.
+===Annexes: text displaying below rather than next to the provision number===
+If the text of a provision is displayed below rather than next to the provision number, this may be caused by a blank <code>ukl:Title</code> tag, which can simply be removed from the XML and the text should display next to the provision number:
+ [[File:REUL_44.png|900px]]
+The blank <code>ukl:Title</code> tagging shown in the XML above was removed to make the provision text appear next to the provision number:
+ [[File:REUL_45.png|900px]]
+===Annexes: provision numbers appear centred and above the provision text, rather than left-aligned and on same level===
+See [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Example_of_the_insertion_of_a_new_Annex|Example of the insertion of a new Annex]].
 ==Previous EU amendments==
@@ Line 247: / Line 350: @@
   Substituted by Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/797 of 17 June 2020 amending Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 as regards requirements for animal by-products and derived products originating from, and returning to, the Union following refusal of entry by a third country (Text with EEA relevance).
-We can leave these annotations as they are, but when we apply new amendments (from 31.12.2020), we will use our usual [[Editorial_Update/Annotation_Conventions|annotation style]]. See also [[Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Annotations_in_REUL|Annotations in REUL]] for REUL -specific annotation issues.
+We can leave these annotations as they are, but when we apply new amendments (from 31.12.2020), we will use our usual [[Editorial_Update/Annotation_Conventions|annotation style]]. See also [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#ANNOTATIONS_IN_REUL|Annotations in REUL]] for REUL -specific annotation issues.
 ===EU amendment brackets===
 Do not remove EU F-notes and X-notes and their amendment brackets for higher level amendments or corrections that subsume the provision you are working on. We only remove the brackets where the whole element is superseded by a new amendment (e.g. if a previously inserted provision is now substituted the F-note and brackets for the insertion are now no longer needed).
+===Warning messages appearing for previous EU on EU omissions===
+Sometimes previous EU on EU amendments for omissions of words that look like this “[F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .]” may get changed to look like this “F1 <span style = "color:red;">‘No commentary item can be found for this reference’</span> ...” when we check out a provision and check it back in again. If this occurs, you will need to check the provision back out and you will see that the commentary reference, brackets and dotty line have been replaced by two commentary references and three dots:
+ [[File: REUL_warning_message_4.png|900px]]
+Remove the second, empty, commentary reference tag:
+ [[File: REUL_warning_message_5.png|900px]]
+See, for example:
+Original amendment in an Annex:
+ [[File: REUL _warning_message.png|900px]]
+Amendment after Annex checked out and back in again:
+ [[File: REUL_warning_message_3.png|900px]]
+Corrected version after empty commentary ref tag removed:
+ [[File: REUL_warning_message_2.png|900px]]
+Note that <strong>if you are checking out a higher level provision, this may occur anywhere in that higher level provision</strong>, so when you preview the amendment you will need to scroll through the whole provision to check that there are none of these red warning messages.
+<strong>Update April 2024:</strong> this issue was fixed in Editorial Release 121, so we should no longer get these red warning messages in this scenario.
 =CARRYING OUT REUL UPDATE=
@@ Line 257: / Line 390: @@
 ==Things to look out for==
+Here is a summary of the main things you need to look out for whilst carrying out REUL update. It's also a good idea to make sure that you are also aware of all the [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#REUL_UPDATE_ISSUES|REUL update issues]] detailed above before you start an REUL update task.
 {| class="wikitable" style="background-color:#f2f2f2;"
-|style="padding: 20px" | 1. <strong>Incomplete task details shown in the Resource Manager</strong> (e.g. “Repeal Annex 2” when task is to repeal Annex 2 point 3). You will need to  <strong>always have the TOES open and refer to it closely</strong> to make sure that you carry out the task correctly – see [[Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#REUL_update_issues|REUL update issues]].
+|style="padding: 20px" | 1. <strong>Incomplete task details shown in the Resource Manager</strong> (e.g. “Repeal Annex 2” when task is to repeal Annex 2 point 3). You will need to  <strong>always have the TOES open and refer to it closely</strong> to make sure that you carry out the task correctly – see [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#REUL_UPDATE_ISSUES|REUL update issues]].
-. <strong>Manual intervention is often necessary</strong> when you carry out the amendment, due to the way that REUL has been tagged and the tagging structures in amending and amended provisions is often different, see [[Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Structure_and_tagging|Structure and tagging]]. Also be mindful that the <strong>amended provision or sub-provision may contain one or more unnumbered paragraphs</strong> and so you may need to delete these separately after having carried out your main amendment using the addition/substitute/repeal actions in XMetaL.
+. <strong>Manual intervention is often necessary</strong> when you carry out the amendment, due to the way that REUL has been tagged and the tagging structures in amending and amended provisions is often different, see [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Structure_and_tagging|Structure and tagging]]. Also be mindful that the <strong>amended provision or sub-provision may contain one or more unnumbered paragraphs</strong> and so you may need to delete these separately after having carried out your main amendment using the addition/substitute/repeal actions in XMetaL.
-. <strong>Look out for errors in annotations generated by the Editorial System</strong> – roman numerals, incomplete provision details, see [[Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Annotations_in_REUL|Annotations in REUL]].
+. <strong>Look out for errors in annotations generated by the Editorial System in XMetaL</strong> – roman numerals, incomplete provision details, see [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#ANNOTATIONS_IN_REUL|Annotations in REUL]].
@@ Line 275: / Line 409: @@
-. <strong>Powers to make subordinate legislation</strong>: be aware that your amendment may insert a new power to make secondary legislation into an EU document and you should remember to flag this in XMetaL in the usual way.  We should have added a Comment for Editor in the TOES which says "Contains power", but these are sometimes missed.
+. <strong>[[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Powers_to_make_subordinate_legislation|Powers to make subordinate legislation</strong>]]: be aware that your amendment may insert a new power to make secondary legislation into an EU document and you should remember to [[Editorial_Update/XMetaL_and_XML_tagging#ConfersPower_Attribute|flag this in XMetaL in the usual way]].  We should have added a Comment for Editor in the TOES which says "Contains power", but these are sometimes missed.
+. <strong>[[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Binding_words_assumed_to_be_repealed_as_part_of_the_repeal_of_the_final_Article_of_an_EU_Regulation|Binding words assumed to be repealed as part of the repeal of the final Article of an EU Regulation</strong>]]: if the final Article of an EU Regulation gets repealed, the drafters may consider that it is unnecessary for them to separately make another provision specifically repealing the binding words and we need to remember to manually repeal the binding words in the Signature using the same task and amend the annotation, as detailed [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Binding_words_assumed_to_be_repealed_as_part_of_the_repeal_of_the_final_Article_of_an_EU_Regulation|below]]. Also look out for [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Incorrectly_recorded_effects_against_final_Article_rather_than_the_Signature_element_.28amendments_to_binding_words.29|Incorrectly recorded effects against final Article rather than the Signature element (amendments to binding words)]], where amendments to the Signature element (usually to the binding words), have been recorded against the final Article rather than the Signature element (where the affected words are actually located).
+<!--8. <strong>Previous EU on EU omissions getting altered when we check a provision in</strong>: sometimes previous EU on EU omissions that look like this “[F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .]” may get changed to look like this “F1 <span style = "color:red;">‘No commentary item can be found for this reference’</span> ...” when we check out a provision and check it back in again. See [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Warning_messages_generated_for_previous_EU_on_EU_omissions|below]] for details of how to fix this.-->
 |}
 ===Structure and tagging===
@@ Line 289: / Line 428: @@
 You should use the <strong>element list</strong> in XMetaL where you need to insert new element tagging, for example when inserting a new whole provision.  Please <strong>do not copy and paste tagging from elsewhere</strong> in the document to re-use.  Existing tagging contains metadata (attributes) which will cause problems in the document if duplicated.  <strong>It is good practice to use the element list</strong>.
-===Incorrectly recorded effects===
+====Skeleton tagging for a P1Group====
+An empty P1group in an Article looks like this in REUL:
+ [[File: REUL_skeleton.png|900px]]
+If you need to retag an amendment, you can copy and paste the skeleton tagging structures from here and populate with amendment text as appropriate:
+<strong>P1Group</strong>
+<ukl:P1group xmlns:ukl="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/namespaces/legislation"><ukl:Title></ukl:Title><ukl:P1><ukl:Pnumber></ukl:Pnumber><ukl:P1para><ukl:P2><ukl:Pnumber PuncAfter="."></ukl:Pnumber><ukl:P2para><ukl:Text><?xm-replace_text Type new ukl:Text here ?></ukl:Text><ukl:P3><ukl:Pnumber PuncBefore="(" PuncAfter=")"></ukl:Pnumber><ukl:P3para><ukl:Text><?xm-replace_text Type new ukl:Text here ?></ukl:Text><ukl:P4><ukl:Pnumber PuncBefore="(" PuncAfter=")"></ukl:Pnumber><ukl:P4para><ukl:Text><?xm-replace_text Type new ukl:Text here ?></ukl:Text></ukl:P4para></ukl:P4></ukl:P3para></ukl:P3></ukl:P2para></ukl:P2></ukl:P1para></ukl:P1></ukl:P1group>
+<strong>P2</strong>
+<ukl:P2 xmlns:ukl="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/namespaces/legislation"><ukl:Pnumber PuncAfter="."></ukl:Pnumber><ukl:P2para><ukl:Text><?xm-replace_text Type new ukl:Text here ?></ukl:Text><ukl:P3><ukl:Pnumber PuncBefore="(" PuncAfter=")"></ukl:Pnumber><ukl:P3para><ukl:Text><?xm-replace_text Type new ukl:Text here ?></ukl:Text><ukl:P4><ukl:Pnumber PuncBefore="(" PuncAfter=")"></ukl:Pnumber><ukl:P4para><ukl:Text><?xm-replace_text Type new ukl:Text here ?></ukl:Text></ukl:P4para></ukl:P4></ukl:P3para></ukl:P3></ukl:P2para></ukl:P2>
+<strong>P3</strong>
+<ukl:P3 xmlns:ukl="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/namespaces/legislation"><ukl:Pnumber PuncBefore="(" PuncAfter=")"></ukl:Pnumber><ukl:P3para><ukl:Text><?xm-replace_text Type new ukl:Text here ?></ukl:Text><ukl:P4><ukl:Pnumber PuncBefore="(" PuncAfter=")"></ukl:Pnumber><ukl:P4para><ukl:Text><?xm-replace_text Type new ukl:Text here ?></ukl:Text></ukl:P4para></ukl:P4></ukl:P3para></ukl:P3>
+<strong>P4</strong>
+<ukl:P4 xmlns:ukl="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/namespaces/legislation"><ukl:Pnumber PuncBefore="(" PuncAfter=")"></ukl:Pnumber><ukl:P4para><ukl:Text><?xm-replace_text Type new ukl:Text here ?></ukl:Text></ukl:P4para></ukl:P4>
+===Powers to make subordinate legislation===
+Please check whether your amendment inserts a new power to make secondary legislation into an EU document and remember to [[Editorial_Update/XMetaL_and_XML_tagging#ConfersPower_Attribute|flag this in XMetaL in the usual way]].  We should have added a Comment for Editor in the TOES which says "Contains power", but these are sometimes missed.
+For example, [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/335/regulation/10#regulation-10-5 S.I. 2019/335, reg. 10(5)] inserts a new [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2012/648/article/1#article-1-6 Art. 1(6)] into the retained Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 which gives the Treasury power to make regulations and therefore Art. 1 needs to be flagged as a power-conferring provision.
+===Binding words===
+====Incorrectly recorded effects against final Article rather than the Signature element (amendments to binding words)====
 Beware of incorrectly recorded "omitted" or "words omitted" effects in TOES which should really be against the Signature element because their intention id to remove the <strong>binding words</strong> ("This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.").  The drafter frequently claims these words are in the final paragraph of the last Article, but they are not.  They are in the Signature element.  We can either correct TOES or insert an F-note in the last Article and then open the Main Body, carry out a repeal on the relevant Signature text and move the F-note.  We should then leave a note for Reviewer to correct TOES later.
@@ Line 303: / Line 477: @@
 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2010/206/signature
-===Powers to make subordinate legislation===
+====Binding words assumed to be repealed as part of the repeal (or substitution) of the final Article of an EU Regulation====
+The drafters sometimes treat the binding words (“This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.”), which appear in the Signature element in the xml for retained EU Regulations on leg.gov, as belonging to the main body of the document.
+As such, they have often assumed that the binding words belong to the final Article of the EU Regulation (which usually deals with “Entry into force”, similar to our commencement provisions).  Often they may refer to the binding words as a sentence within, after, or following the final Article.  If they have repealed or substituted that final Article, they may consider that it is unnecessary for them to separately make another provision specifically repealing the binding words.
+For example, when EUR 2014/537, Title 4 Ch. 4 was repealed, separate provision for repealing the binding words was not made. However, as Title 4 Ch. 4 contained the final Article, Art. 44, which was followed by the binding words (and since those words are now meaningless in the Regulation’s new context as retained EU law within the corpus of domestic UK legislation) a manual repeal of the binding words in the Signature using the Title 4 Ch. 4 repeal task was carried out and the annotation was altered to read:
+https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2014/537/title/IV/chapter/IV
+ Title 4 Ch. 4 (including binding words) omitted (31.12.2020) by virtue of The Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/177), regs. 2, 104; 2020 c. 1, Sch. 5 para. 1(1)
+https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2014/537/signature
+Note that, in addition to containing the binding words, the Signature element may also contain the actual signature text itself, for example:
+ [[File: REUL signature 1.png|900px]]
+If you need to omit the binding words from the Signature element, make sure that you leave the signature text intact:
+ [[File: REUL signature 2.png|900px]]
+https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2019/1241/signature/2020-12-31
+See also EUR 2019/2238, where the final Article was <strong>substituted</strong> on 31/12/2021:
+https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2019/2238/article/14/2021-12-31
+The binding words were also omitted by virtue of this amendment:
+https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2019/2238/signature/2021-12-31
+See also [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#How_to_repeal_the_binding_words_in_the_Signature|How to repeal the binding words in the Signature]].
+==Applying “Exceptions from duty to publish” effects that come from Ministerial Directions==
+If you see the type of effect “excepted from duty to publish” or “words excepted from duty to publish” in your update task, you should carry out a repeal of the relevant whole provision, sub-provision or words. See for example [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2014/537/article/5/2020-12-31#article-5-3 EUR 2014/537, Art. 5(3)].
+Annotation format:
+ Art. 5(3) excepted from duty to publish (31.12.2020) by The Exception from the Duty to Publish (Department for Business and Trade) (No. 1) Direction 2023 (No. 1), Sch.
+We only publish pdfs of Ministerial Directions on the website, but the editorial system should still create the links to the pdf of your affecting Ministerial Direction in the annotation.
+If for any reason you need to fix these links because they don't link to the right document, check the link attributes. In the <code>ukl:Citation</code> tagging the Class should be “UnitedKingdomMinisterialDirection” and type of document in the URI should be “ukmd”:
+[[File: REUL_MD1.png|500px]]
+In the <code>ukl:CitationSubRef</code> tagging, the type of document in the URI should also be “ukmd”:
+[[File: REUL_MD2.png|500px]]
+Note that the affecting provision in a Minsterial Direction may be a Schedule, or a direction (dir.) (see [[Preparation_Tasks/Record_Effects#Provisions_in_Directions | Record Effects - Provisions in Directions]]).
+===How to deal with conflicting amendments where there is an exception from duty to publish===
+In EUR 2014/537, Art. 24(3), there is also an example of a conflict between an EU Exit SI effect and an exception from duty to publish where the EU Exit SI omits words in Art. 24(3). We could justifiably treat the EU Exit SI effect as “beating the air” and mark it as not required.  But, because this is an unusual situation, we have applied the repeal for the exception from duty to publish and then inserted an F-note commentary for the EU Exit SI effect using the following formula:
+ Words in Art. 24(3) <span style = "color:red;">expressed to be omitted</span> (31.12.2020) by virtue of The Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/177), regs. 2, 98(b); 2020 c. 1, Sch. 5 para. 1(1)
+https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2014/537/article/24/2020-12-31#article-24-3
+==Applying “Appointed Day(s)” effects in REUL==
+These effects are usually recorded along with a Suggested Commentary that gets used to construct the annotation, in the format:
+[Provision number]: [Date] specified for the purposes of [specified provision] ...
+They are applied as P-notes, see for example:
+https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2017/625/article/154
+https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2017/625/annex/6
+See also [[Preparation_Tasks/Record_Effects#Exercises_of_power_to_appoint_a_day_or_specify_a_date|Exercises of power to appoint a day or specify a date]] on the Record Effects page.
+==Whole document repeals==
+You should be able to use the [[Editorial_Update/Textual_Amendments/Repeals/Higher_Level_Repeals#Auto_Repeal_function|auto-repeal button]] as you normally would for a whole document repeal.
+When you preview the amendment in the introductory text, you will see that the word “(revoked)” (or “(repealed)” if relevant) should have been added at the end of the title text. There should then be a dotty line preceded by an F-note reference and annotation for the repeal, for example:
+https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eudn/1994/741/introduction
+===Whole document previously wholly repealed (with savings) - subsequent amendment of “as saved” version===
+See, for example:
+https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2004/817/introduction/2022-07-28
-Please check whether your amendment inserts a new power to make secondary legislation into an EU document and remember to flag this in XMetaL in the usual way.  We should have added a Comment for Editor in the TOES which says "Contains power", but these are sometimes missed.
+Annotation format:
-For example, [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/335/regulation/10#regulation-10-5 S.I. 2019/335, reg. 10(5)] inserts a new [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2012/648/article/1#article-1-6 Art. 1(6)] into the retained Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 which gives the Treasury power to make regulations and therefore Art. 1 needs to be flagged as a power-conferring provision.
+<blockquote>Regulation repealed (with savings) (24.12.2006) by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 of 15 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), Arts. 64, 65; and Regulation (as saved) amended (E.) (28.7.2022) by The Rural Development (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022 (S.I. 2022/765), regs. 1(1), 2(2)</blockquote>
 ==Editing the introductory text==
-There is currently an issue with making amendments to the introductory text whereby we are prevented from making any amendments by check-in errors. If you need to make amendments to the introductory text, try checking out the whole document rather than just the introductory text.
+There is currently an issue with making amendments to the introductory text whereby we are prevented from making any amendments by check-in errors. If you need to make amendments to the introductory text, try checking out the whole document rather than just the introductory text (but beware [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Beware_issues_with_checking_out_whole_documents_that_contain_Attachments|issues with checking out the whole document where the document contains provisions tagged Attachments]]).
-===Workaround to add auto-annotations to the introductory text after a whole document has been repealed===
+===Workaround to add auto-annotations to the introductory text after a whole document has been repealed with savings===
 If you need to add auto-annotations to the introductory text after a whole document has been repealed (for example if a repeal has savings but it has been decided that text should not be retained), you should use this workaround:
@@ Line 326: / Line 595: @@
 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2004/883/introduction
+See also [[Editorial_Update/Annotation_Conventions#Repeal_is_with_Savings|Annotation Conventions - repeal is with Savings]] for details on how to amend an annotation for a repeal with savings where there are amendments to the ‘as saved’ version of the legislation at a later PiT.
 ==Editing the main body==
@@ Line 377: / Line 648: @@
 =====Example of the insertion of an Article that needs to be retagged but the sub-provisions don't=====
-See also EUR 2007/834, where the inserted Arts. 38a and 38b contained sub-provisions that were tagged with <code>ukl:P3</code> tagging, <strong>which did not need to be retagged and could be directly copied across</strong> to the amended provision once the rest of the tagging for the newly inserted Articles had been inserted, but the sub-provision numbers were missing opening and closing brackets that need to be added in as described [[Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Sub-provision_numbers_at_P3_level_missing_closing_bracket|here]].
+See also EUR 2007/834, where the inserted Arts. 38a and 38b contained sub-provisions that were tagged with <code>ukl:P3</code> tagging, <strong>which did not need to be retagged and could be directly copied across</strong> to the amended provision once the rest of the tagging for the newly inserted Articles had been inserted, but the sub-provision numbers were missing opening and closing brackets that need to be added in as described [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Sub-provision_numbers_at_P3_level_missing_closing_bracket|here]].
 Inserted <code>ukl:P3Numbers</code> are missing opening and closing brackets:
@@ Line 386: / Line 657: @@
-Note that the amending provision had itself been amended by the "second wave" EU Exit SI 2020/1453, reg. 12(13), and these amendments were [[Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Amendment_text_that_has_itself_been_amended|tidied up]] in the amended provision when the insertion was carried out, which included tidying up the punctuation.
+Note that the amending provision had itself been amended by the "second wave" EU Exit SI 2020/1453, reg. 12(13), and these amendments were [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Amendment_text_that_has_itself_been_amended|tidied up]] in the amended provision when the insertion was carried out, which included tidying up the punctuation.
 Amending provision:
@@ Line 406: / Line 677: @@
 Note that the omitted sub-provisions (3) and (7) in Art. 38b have been completely removed.
-====Example of the insertion of sub-provisions tagged as <ukl:ListItems> in an Article====
+====Example of the insertion of a sub-provision into an Article that needed to be retagged, with an ordered list used for sub-paragraphs beyond the P5 level====
+On 31.12.2020, SI 2018/1403, reg. 26(3) inserted Art. 2.1A into EUR 2014/600:
+ [[File: REUL_50.png|900px]]
+The affecting provision was tagged as follows:
+ [[File: REUL_51.png|900px]]
+The entire sub-provision needed to be retagged in order to fit into the tagging structure of the affected provision:
+ [[File: REUL_52.png|900px]]
+Note how the tagging of sub-paragraphs (aa) and (bb) was changed to a ordered list, as this was the only way to get them to look right on the front end. We need to resort to this once we get past P5 level.
+https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2014/600/article/2/2020-12-31#article-2-1A
+Also note the annotation format for this amendment:
+ <span style = "color:red;">Art. 2.1A</span> inserted (31.12.2020) by The Markets in Financial Instruments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018/1403), regs. 1(3), 26(3) (with savings in S.I. 2019/680, reg. 11); 2020 c. 1, Sch. 5 para. 1(1)
+This style was used because Art. 2.1 and 2.1A are further subdivided, i.e. Art. 2.1A(1), (2), (3), etc.
+====Examples of the insertion of sub-provisions tagged as <ukl:ListItems> in an Article====
+=====Outline of the insertion of a range of sub-provisions that needed to be retagged as <ListItems>=====
 EUR 2007/834, Art. 2 contains a list of definitions, with each definition numbered as a sub-provision of the Article:
@@ Line 429: / Line 726: @@
 Also remember to set the attributes of any [[Editorial_Update/Lists#Editing_Ordered_and_Unordered_Lists.2C_for_example_Definitions|Ordered List]] elements that you insert.
+=====Worked example of the insertion of a range of sub-provisions into an Article that needed to be retagged as <ListItems> and also included “amendment to earlier affecting provision” effects=====
+The amendment used in this example inserts Art. 2(e)-(g) into EUDN 2017/547, and the affecting provision was itself amended before coming into force, so there were also “amendment to earlier affecting provision” effects that needed to be dealt with:
+ [[File: REUL_retagging_example_1.png|900px]]
+The first step was to check the provision out in order to carry out the insertion; you can see that the tagging of the affecting provision was different to that of the affected provision, with the paragraphs and sub-paragraphs tagged as <code>ukl:P3s</code> and <code>ukl:P4s</code>, while the existing paragraphs in the affected provision were tagged as <code>ukl:ListItems</code>:
+<u>Affecting provision</u>
+ [[File: REUL_retagging_example_3.png|900px]]
+<u>Affected provision</u>
+ [[File: REUL_retagging_example_2a.png|900px]]
+It was therefore not possible to carry out the amendment using the usual method of selecting and copying the inserted paragraphs in the affecting provision, because of this difference in tagging structures. Instead, empty tagging was inserted in the correct location in the affected provision using the <strong>Element List</strong>, following the existing tagging structure of the affected provision, and this empty tagging was populated with the contents of the sub-provisions that were being inserted (to generate the brackets and annotation for the amendment, the insertion task was used by selecting the relevant task in the <strong>Task Manager</strong> for the first insertion).
+In this example, the first empty tag to be inserted was a <code>ukl:ListItem</code>, which was inserted after the closing <code>ukl:ListItem</code> tag for paragraph (d) (by placing the cursor to the right of the closing <code>ukl:ListItem</code> tag of (d) (but before the closing “ukl:OrderedList” tag) and double clicking on “ukl:ListItem” in the <strong>Element List</strong>. This inserted a new set of <code>ukl:ListItem</code> tags after paragraph (d):
+ [[File: REUL_retagging_example_4.png|900px]]
+You will immediately see that the paragraph number in this new tagging was initially wrong, and needed to be amended from “(a)” to “(e)” by placing the cursor to the right of “(a)” within the opening <code>ukl:ListItem</code> tag and using the <strong>Attribute Inspector</strong> to change the sub-provision number to “(e)” using the “NumberOverride” attribute:
+ [[File: REUL_retagging_example_6.png|300px]]
+A set of <code>ukl:Para</code> and <code>ukl:Text</code> tags was then inserted into this empty <code>ukl:ListItem</code> tagging (using the <strong>Element List</strong>):
+ [[File: REUL_retagging_example_4a.png|900px]]
+Next, the contents of the <code>ukl:Text</code> tags was deleted (i.e. the words “Type new ukl:Listitem here”) to prepare for the insertion of the contents of paragraph (e) from the affecting provision into this empty text tagging, as described next.
+ [[File: REUL_retagging_example_6a.png|900px]]
+The text from the affecting provision was then copied and, using the relevant task in the <strong>Resource Manager</strong>, the insertion was then carried out in the usual way to generate the amendment brackets and annotation, as described below.
+Contents of paragraph (e) copied from the affecting provision:
+ [[File: REUL_retagging_example_6b.png|900px]]
+The contents of paragraph (e) were inserted into the empty tagging in the affected provision, using the task to generate the amendment brackets and annotation and selecting <strong>Legislation - Textual Amendments - Addition</strong> from the top menu bar:
+ [[File: REUL_retagging_example_6c.png|900px]]
+The next stage was to insert empty <code>ukl:ListItem</code> tagging for sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) into (e).
+To accommodate the <code>ukl:ListItem</code> tagging for sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii), a new <code>ukl:OrderList</code> was inserted <strong>within</strong> the <code>ukl:OrderList</code> for paragraphs (a)-(e), by placing the cursor to the right of the closing <code>ukl:Para</code> tag of paragraph (e) (before its closing <code>ukl:ListItem</code> tag) and double clicking on “ukl:OrderedList” in the <strong>Element List</strong>:
+ [[File: REUL_retagging_example_7.png|900px]]
+This resulted in the following tagging being inserted:
+ [[File: REUL_retagging_example_8.png|900px]]
+The attributes of the <code>ukl:OrderList</code> tagging were set to “roman” and “parens” (by placing the cursor immediately to the right of the opening <code>ukl:OrderList</code> tag to see the attributes for this tagging in the <strong>Attribute Inspector</strong>). This generated the correct sub-paragraph number (i) (and for subsequently inserted sub-paragraphs (i), (ii), etc.):
+ [[File: REUL_retagging_example_9.png|900px]]
+<code>ukl:Para</code> and <code>ukl:Text</code> tagging was then inserted into the new <code>ukl:ListItem</code> tag, and the contents of sub-paragraphs(i) were inserted into this new tagging by straightforward copying and pasting:
+ [[File: REUL_retagging_example_10.png|900px]]
+Next, <code>ukl:ListItem</code> tagging for sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) was inserted and populated in the same way, to end up with:
+ [[File: REUL_retagging_example_11.png|900px]]
+In this example, the next sub-paragraph was omitted in the affecting provision (by an amendment to the affecting provision, which also needed to be applied as an “amendment to earlier affecting provision effect after the insertion had been carried out). This meant that sub-paragraphs (iv) did not need to be included in the insertion, because it was omitted before the insertion of paragraphs (e)-(g) came into force.
+The next sub-provision to be inserted was paragraph (f), so a <code>ukl:ListItem</code> tag was inserted after the closing  <code>ukl:ListItem</code> for paragraph (e) (N.B. taking care not to insert it after the closing  <code>ukl:ListItem</code> for sub-paragraph (iii)). As had been done for paragraph (e), the “NumberOverride” attribute was set to the sub-paragraph number and <code>ukl:Para</code> and <code>ukl:Text</code> tagging was inserted.
+The contents of paragraph (f) also included an amendment to the affecting provision, and the amendment brackets for this earlier amendment needed to be removed from the affected provision (N.B. the details of this earlier amendment were added to the annotation for the insertion of paragraphs (e)-(g) later on).
+From:
+ [[File: REUL_retagging_example_12.png|900px]]
+To:
+ [[File: REUL_retagging_example_13.png|900px]]
+In this way, the tagging and contents of the rest of the sub-provision was inserted and populated. Finally, the closing amendment bracket was moved to the end (note that the opening bracket could not be moved to come before the paragraph number (e), as this is not possible in <code>ukl:ListItems</code>). Note also that the punctuation at the end of paragraph (d) was amended from a full stop to a semicolon and punctuation at the end of paragraph (g) amended to a full stop.
+ [[File: REUL_retagging_example_14.png|900px]]
+In preview:
+ [[File: REUL_retagging_example_15.png|900px]]
+Lastly, the appended commentary for the  “amendment to earlier affecting provision” effect was included in the annotation, using the method described [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Method_for_adding_an_appended_commentary_by_editing_the_annotation|here]].
+ [[File: REUL_retagging_example_16.png|900px]]
+====Example of the substitution of a whole Article====
+In this example of the substitution of a whole Article, the affecting provision was tagged in a different way to the affected provision (in a <code>ukl:Pblock</code> rather than <code>ukl:P1Group</code>), with the <code>ukl:Title</code> and <code>ukl:Number</code> tags appearing in a different order and the paragraphs being located in <code>ukl:P1s</code> rather than <code>ukl:P2s</code>:
+ [[File: REUL_A3.png|1000px]]
+For this reason, it was not possible to carry out a whole provision substitution in the usual way, it could only be done manually. Firstly, the Article heading was substituted using the substitution task to generate the square brackets and annotation:
+ [[File: REUL_A4a.png|1000px]]
+The text of paras. 1 and 2 could be substituted by copying and pasting them, because the tagging structure was already in place for these sub-provisions in the affected provision. This was done by selecting only the content within the <code>ukl:Text</code> tags firstly for para. 1, pasting that into the existing <code>ukl:Text</code> tagging within the affecting provision and then doing the same for para. 2.
+e.g. from this:
+ [[File: REUL_A3ab.png|900px]]
+to this:
+ [[File: REUL_A3aa2.png|900px]]
+Next, the <code>ukl:P2</code> tagging for para. 3 was inserted using the <strong>Element List</strong>, the <code>ukl:Number</code> tagging within this was populated with the number 3 and the full point was added in the <strong>Attribute Inspector</strong>:
+ [[File: REUL_A5.png|400px]]
+The <code>ukl:P2para</code> and <code>ukl:Text</code> tagging were added for para. 3 and the contents of the first sentence of para. 3 was inserted (by copying and pasting it in):
+ [[File: REUL_A5a.png|900px]]
+The <code>ukl:P3</code> tagging for para. 3(a)(b) could both be selected and copied and pasted directly into the affected provision in one go, because the tagging for these sub-provisions was the same in both the affecting and affected document. Note that the sub-provision numbers were missing opening and closing brackets after they were pasted in, so the brackets were added using the Attribute Inspector as described [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Example_of_the_insertion_of_an_Article_that_needs_to_be_retagged_but_the_sub-provisions_don.27t|here]]:
+ [[File: REUL_A6.png|900px]]
+The tagging for para. 4 was then inserted and populated in the same way, also directly inserting sub-paras. (a) and (b) and amending the attributes to include the brackets.
+Next, the closing square bracket was moved to the end of the text in para. 4 (the opening square bracket could remain where it was at the start of the heading).
+Lastly, the amendment brackets for the earlier amendments needed to be removed to tidy up the text, as described [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Appended_commentaries_for_amendments_to_earlier_affecting_legislation|here]], leaving just the amendment brackets for the substitution of Art. 47:
+ [[File: REUL_A13.png|900px]]
+The provision could then be checked in and previewed in the usual way (note that the earlier amendments to the affecting provision also needed to be added as an appended commentary at this stage, as described [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Method_for_adding_an_appended_commentary_by_editing_the_annotation|here]]) .
+====Substitution of Article heading at the same time as substitution of whole Article====
+Where drafters have separately substituted the Article heading at the same time as substituting the whole Article, this should be dealt with by bundling together both effects into a single substitution annotation and using "by virtue of": e.g. "Art. 24 substituted (31.12.2020) by virtue of The Animal Feed (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/654), regs. 1, 109, 110; 2020 c. 1, Sch. 5 para. 1(1)":
+https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2009/767/article/24
 ====Example of the substitution of a sub-provision in an Article====
@@ Line 506: / Line 986: @@
 Remember to add the opening and closing brackets for all the <code>ukl:P3</code> sub-provision numbers that are missing them.
-====Substitution of Article heading at the same time as substitution of whole Article====
-Where drafters have separately substituted the Article heading at the same time as substituting the whole Article, this should be dealt with by bundling together both effects into a single substitution annotation and using "by virtue of": e.g. "Art. 24 substituted (31.12.2020) by virtue of The Animal Feed (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/654), regs. 1, 109, 110; 2020 c. 1, Sch. 5 para. 1(1)":
-https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2009/767/article/24
 ====Amendment text that has itself been amended====
@@ Line 519: / Line 991: @@
 Amendment text that has itself been amended should be tidied up in the target document following insertion/substitution.  If the amendment text contains any amendment brackets, these should be removed and any dotty lined omitted sub-provisions should also be removed (even if this means that the number order is no longer consecutive).  Dotty lines for omissions of words should be removed.  The text should be pristine because the changes happened to the amending provision before it was brought into force.
-For example, the amending provision SI 2019/654 (which inserted a new Art. 28A into EUR 2009/767) was itself amended in several place by SI 2020/1504, reg. 12(21), before coming into force on 31.12.2020:
+For example, the amending provision SI 2019/654 (which inserted a new Art. 28A into EUR 2009/767) was itself amended in several places by SI 2020/1504, reg. 12(21), before coming into force on 31.12.2020:
 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/654/regulation/116
@@ Line 532: / Line 1,004: @@
-See more on [[Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Appended_Commentaries|Appended Commentaries]].
+See more on [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Appended_commentaries_for_amendments_to_earlier_affecting_legislation|Appended Commentaries]].
 ====Powers - remember to check for these and set attributes accordingly====
@@ Line 544: / Line 1,016: @@
 If the auto-repeal button is available, this can be used to carry out a high-level repeal, however <strong>look out for any text remaining after the auto-repeal has been carried out and if necessary remove this manually</strong>.
-If no auto-repeal button is available, you may be able to set the attributes using the [[Editorial_Update/Textual_Amendments/Repeals/Higher_Level_Repeals#Workaround_where_auto_repeal_function_is_not_available|workaround for high level repeals]], in order to carry out the repeal.
+If no auto-repeal button is available, you may be able to set the attributes using the [[Editorial_Update/Textual_Amendments/Repeals/Higher_Level_Repeals#Workaround_where_auto_repeal_function_is_not_available|workaround for high level repeals]], in order to carry out the repeal. This method certainly works with Titles (see example below) and Sections.
-If the auto-repeal button is not available and the workaround is not possible, the repeal will need to be carried out manually. You will need to select suitable tagging to carry out the repeal on in order to generate the F-note for the repeal and a dotty line. When you check the provision back in, look out for three dots being generated instead of a dotty line, and replace with a dotty line if necessary (by checking the provision out again and copying and pasting a dotty line over the three dots).
+If the auto-repeal button is not available and the workaround is not possible, the repeal will need to be carried out manually. You will need to select suitable tagging upon which to carry out the repeal in order to generate the F-note annotation and dotty line. When you check the provision back in, please <strong>check to see what kind of dotty line has been produced and change it, if necessary</strong>.
-You can copy this dotty line:
+Repeals of words (including unnumbered paragraphs within provisions) should be represented by an ellipsis (3 dots: "..."), but repeals of whole provisions and sub-provisions should be represented by the longer block repeal dotty line (see example below).  Where sub-provisions are tagged as list items (rather P2paras or P3paras etc) the editorial tool does not correctly add a block repeal dotty line for their repeal and you should correct this.
+You can copy this <strong>block repeal dotty line</strong>:
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
@@ Line 554: / Line 1,028: @@
 ====Main body - using the batch repeal function====
-It is possible to use the [[Editorial_Update/Textual_Amendments/Repeals/Higher_Level_Repeals#Batch_Repeal_Function|batch repeal function]] to repeal a range of Articles, however, after carrying out the batch repeal remember to make sure that each repealed Article contains the F-note reference for the repeal and, if it is missing, check the provision out and add it in.
+It is possible to use the [[Editorial_Update/Textual_Amendments/Repeals/Higher_Level_Repeals#Batch_Repeal_Function|batch repeal function]] to repeal a range of Articles, however, after carrying out the batch repeal you may have to do some tidying up.  Remember to make sure that each repealed Article contains an F-note reference for the repeal and, if it is missing, check the provision out and add it in.  Also check that all the text has gone in each provision and, if not, check out again and remove it manually, also making sure that the F-note reference is moved to the correct location before the Article number, if necessary.
+e.g. from this:
-====How to repeal a Title====
+ [[File:REUL_26a.png|900px]]
+to this:
+ [[File:REUL_26b.png|900px]]
+====How to repeal a Title or Section====
@@ Line 572: / Line 1,055: @@
-Next, [[Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#How_to_repeal_an_Article|repeal the child provisions (usually Articles]]) within the Title using the same task and make sure they have the following attributes when you place the cursor in
+Next, [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#How_to_repeal_an_Article|repeal the child provisions (usually Articles]]) within the Title using the same task and make sure they have the following attributes when you place the cursor in
 the <code>ukl:P1group</code>:
@@ Line 611: / Line 1,094: @@
-Note that, in this example, the X-note and the amendment brackets for the higher level amendment have been left in, according to our policy on leaving in brackets and annotation references for higher level amendments – see point 4 of [[Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Things_to_look_out_for|Things to look out for]].
+Note that, in this example, the X-note and the amendment brackets for the higher level amendment have been left in, according to our policy on leaving in brackets and annotation references for higher level amendments – see point 4 of [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Things_to_look_out_for|Things to look out for]].
 ====How to repeal a sub-provision tagged as a <ukl:ListItem>====
@@ Line 638: / Line 1,121: @@
 Although repealing the binding words in the Signature usually means that all the text in the Signature is repealed, this should be treated as a straightforward repeal of words, for example:
-https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2009/1099/signature
+https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2009/1099/signature/2020-12-31
+Make sure you leave the actual words of the signature in place, if they are present, for example:
+https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2019/1241/signature/2020-12-31
+See also [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Binding_words_assumed_to_be_repealed_as_part_of_the_repeal_of_the_final_Article_of_an_EU_Regulation|Binding words assumed to be repealed as part of the repeal of the final Article of an EU Regulation]] in “Things to look out for”.
 ===Annotation checks - things to look out for===
-When you carry out your usual annotation checks, also consider the [[Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Annotations_in_REUL|REUL-specific annotation issues]].
+When you carry out your usual annotation checks, also consider the [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#ANNOTATIONS_IN_REUL|REUL-specific annotation issues]].
 ===Timeline - things to look out for===
@@ Line 656: / Line 1,145: @@
 ==Editing Annexes==
-The drafting guidelines give no specific rules about the presentation of Annexes, and, although they are nonetheless meant to have a uniform structure and be
+As with Schedules in UK legislation, Annexes follow the main body in REUL. Similarly, they are tagged within <code>ukl:Schedules</code> and <code>ukl:Schedule</code> tagging. However, the provisions within Annexes are usually tagged very differently to Schedules in UK legislation and they also render differently on the website, which means that headings and provision numbers may not be formatted in the same way as a Schedule would be (see the example of the insertion of a new Annex, [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Example_of_the_insertion_of_a_new_Annex|below]]).
-subdivided in such a way that the content is as clear as possible, the drafters may use any appropriate system of numbering or subdivision. This means that Annexes don't have a consistent structure and format, and, whilst the basic units within Annexes are often referred to as points, this can vary between documents.
+The drafting guidelines give no specific rules about the presentation of Annexes, and, although they are nonetheless meant to have a uniform structure and be subdivided in such a way that the content is as clear as possible, the drafters may use any appropriate system of numbering or subdivision. This means that Annexes don't have a consistent structure and format, and, whilst the basic units within Annexes are often referred to as points, this can vary between documents.
-As Annexes in REUL are formatted very differently to Schedules in UK legislation, with a variety of structures being used, Annexes were tagged using <code>ukl:Division</code> tagging, which are often nested one within another for the sub-provisions within a provisions. This nested <code>ukl:Division</code> structure means that sub-divisions that would not normally be included in the ToC in UK legislation may be included in the ToC in REUL, and this tagging structure can also result in formatting issues such as annotations appearing throughout a whole provision because they are placed below each sub-provision they relate to, rather at the bottom of the whole provision.
+As Annexes in REUL are formatted very differently to Schedules in UK legislation, with a variety of structures being used, provisions within Annexes were tagged using <code>ukl:Division</code> tagging, which are often nested one within another for the sub-provisions within a provisions. This nested <code>ukl:Division</code> structure means that sub-divisions that would not normally be included in the ToC in UK legislation may be included in the ToC in REUL, and this tagging structure can also result in formatting issues such as annotations appearing throughout a whole provision because they are placed below each sub-provision they relate to, rather at the bottom of the whole provision.
 <code>ukl:Division</code> tagging includes the provision number in a set of <code>ukl:Number</code> tags and may or may not contain a heading in <code>ukl:Title</code> tagging (and note that sometimes the <code>ukl:Title</code> tagging can actually contain the first line of the text of the provision). The content is often located within <code>ukl:P</code> and <code>ukl:Text</code> tagging. Sub-provisions may then be tagged as <code>ukl:OrderedLists</code> within <code>ukl:P</code> tagging, for example:
@@ Line 665: / Line 1,155: @@
   [[File:REUL_40.png|900px]]
-A variety of other tagging structures may also be used, however, and we need to closely compare the amending provision tagging with the amended provision, as these are usually different and manual intervention will be needed in most amendments. You should always follow the existing tagging structure of the Annex you are amending if you need to insert or substitute a provision or sub-provision. However, you may find that you need to deviate from the existing tagging structure if you encounter any issues such as provisions not displaying in the preview, as described [[Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Missing_provisions_in_the_website_preview|below]].
+A variety of other tagging structures may also be used, however, and we need to closely compare the amending provision tagging with the amended provision, as these are usually different and manual intervention will be needed in most amendments. You should always follow the existing tagging structure of the Annex you are amending if you need to insert or substitute a provision or sub-provision. However, you may find that you need to deviate from the existing tagging structure if you encounter any issues such as provisions not displaying in the preview, as described [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Missing_provisions_in_the_website_preview|below]].
 It is a good idea to have a look through an Annex before you start editing it, so see how the provisions within the Annex are referred to within the Annex itself and to familiarise yourself with how it has been tagged.
@@ Line 674: / Line 1,164: @@
 ===Annexes - insertions and substitutions===
+====Example of the insertion of a new Annex====
+Annex 1A was inserted into EUR 2012/1151 on 31.12.2020.
+https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2012/1151/annex/1A
+Affecting provision XMetaL view:
+ [[File: REUL_54.png|900px]]
+Affected provision XMetaL view:
+ [[File: REUL_55.png|900px]]
+It was possible to carry out the amendment as a high level insertion, without needing to retag the provisions within the Annex. However, you can see how the tagging is positioned slightly differently in the affecting and affected documents.
+The Annex also looks slightly different in the website preview of the affecting and affected documents, with provision numbers being centred above the provision text (rather than left-aligned and level with the provision text) in the affected document:
+Affecting provision website view:
+ [[File: REUL_56.png|900px]]
+Affected provision website view:
+ [[File: REUL_57.png|900px]]
+As long as the P1s/P1group tagging hierarchy is correct and logical, we don't need to try and resolve this by retagging the Annex, as this is a rendering issue and something that may be resolved by front-end development work in the future.
+====Example of the insertion of a Schedule or Annex where there are none already====
+In order to insert a Schedule or Annex where there are none already, you need to check out the whole document and use the <strong>Element List</strong> to first insert <code>ukl:Schedules</code> tagging, then you will be able to insert the block amendment into this tagging in the usual way.
+In this example, the amendment was to insert Schedules, but the principle is the same. <code>ukl:Schedules</code> tagging was inserted after the Signature and the Schedules were then inserted within this <code>ukl:Schedules</code> tagging:
+https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2014/600/annexes
+You will see that the front-end appearance of these Schedules is based on the appearance of an Annex, so looks slightly different to a normal Schedule. This is how the <code>ukl:P1Groups</code> render in this type of document and we are unable to change the appearance.
 ====Example of the substitution of a whole Annex consisting entirely of forms and tables====
@@ Line 707: / Line 1,237: @@
   [[File:REUL_42.png|900px]]
+===Annexes - repeals===
+When you carry out a high level repeal or the repeal of a whole provision in an Annex, you should end up with a <strong>dotty line and F-note</strong> for the repeal (with the F-note reference usually located before the provision number). It is very likely, due to the tagging structures of Annexes, that you will need to make manual interventions in high level repeals or repeals of whole provisions in Annexes.
-===Annexes - repeals===
+If the auto-repeal button is available, this can be used to carry out the repeal, however <strong>look out for any text remaining after the auto-repeal has been carried out and if necessary remove this manually</strong>. You will need to check all the child provisions after you carry out the repeal to make sure there are no issues such as text or images left behind, dotty lines appearing in the wrong place or being split, or with multiple F-note references, for example:
-When you carry out a high level repeal or the repeal of a whole provision in an Annex, you should end up with a <strong>dotty line and F-note</strong> for the repeal (with the F-note reference usually located before the provision number). It is very likely, due to  tagging structures of Annexes, that you will need to make manual interventions in high level repeals or repeals of whole provisions in Annexes.
+  [[File: REUL_60.png|900px]]
-If the auto-repeal button is available, this can be used to carry out the repeal, however <strong>look out for any text remaining after the auto-repeal has been carried out and if necessary remove this manually</strong>.
-If no auto-repeal button is available, you may be able to set the attributes using the [[Editorial_Update/Textual_Amendments/Repeals/Higher_Level_Repeals#Workaround_where_auto_repeal_function_is_not_available|workaround for high level repeals]], in order to carry out the repeal. Due to the way that Annexes are tagged, the workaround may not be possible within Annexes and it is usually advisable use the manual method described below:
+If no auto-repeal button is available, you <i>may</i> be able to set the attributes using the [[Editorial_Update/Textual_Amendments/Repeals/Higher_Level_Repeals#Workaround_where_auto_repeal_function_is_not_available|workaround for high level repeals]], in order to carry out the repeal.
+It is therefore recommended that you follow the manual method where there is no auto-repeal button for an Annex as described below:
 <u>Manual method for carrying out repeals</u>
@@ Line 759: / Line 1,291: @@
 This has all been replaced by a single dotty line and F-note for the repeal on 31.12.2020.
-In this example, you can also see that the square brackets and X-note from a previous higher level EU amendment have been left in, as described in point 4 of  [[Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Things_to_be_aware_of_and_look_out_for|things to be aware of and look out for]].
+In this example, you can also see that the square brackets and X-note from a previous higher level EU amendment have been left in, as described in point 4 of  [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Things_to_look_out_for|things to look out for]].
 ====Example of a repeal of a Section within an Annex====
@@ Line 773: / Line 1,305: @@
   [[File: REUL_35.png|900px]]
-Also note that this is an example of an amendment that has been carried out fully with (E.W.S. ) included in the annotation, as described [[Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Extent.2FTA.2C_knock_on_effects_and_amendments_to_earlier_affecting_provision_effects |here]].
 ====Example of a repeal "except for..."====
@@ Line 857: / Line 1,386: @@
 ====Repeal of a provision or sub-provision tagged as a <ukl:ListItem>====
-See [[Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#How_to_repeal_a_sub-provision_tagged_as_a_.3Cukl:ListItem.3E|How to repeal a sub-provision tagged as a <ukl:ListItem>]] in the [[Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Editing_the_main_body|Editing the main body]] guidance.
+See [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#How_to_repeal_a_sub-provision_tagged_as_a_.3Cukl:ListItem.3E|How to repeal a sub-provision tagged as a <ukl:ListItem>]] in the [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Editing_the_main_body|Editing the main body]] guidance.
 =====Example of the repeal of a provision tagged as a <ukl:ListItem> including a table=====
@@ Line 870: / Line 1,399: @@
 ===Annotation checks - things to look out for===
-When you carry out your usual annotation checks, also consider the [[Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Annotations_in_REUL|REUL-specific annotation issues]].
+When you carry out your usual annotation checks, also consider the [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Annotations_in_REUL|REUL-specific annotation issues]].
 ===Timeline checks - things to look out for===
@@ Line 908: / Line 1,437: @@
 ====As far as possible treat paragraphs and points in Articles and sub-provisions of whole provisions in Annexes in the same was as we treat sub-provisions in UK legislation====
-Please bear in mind that paragraphs and points in Articles and sub-provisions of whole provisions in Annexes should as far as possible be treated in the same was as we treat sub-provisions in UK legislation.  So, for example, where the drafter describes an amendment as follows:
+Please bear in mind that paragraphs and points in Articles and sub-provisions of whole provisions in Annexes should as far as possible be treated in the same way as we treat sub-provisions in UK legislation.  So, for example, where the drafter describes an amendment as follows:
   In Article 2 … in paragraph 2 … in point (a), for “other Member States” substitute “the public sector body”
@@ Line 925: / Line 1,454: @@
 If you were amending a provision in this Part, you would put brackets around the point number in the annotation e.g. Annex Pt. 6 point (3)(i):
-https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2019/945/annex/part/6
+https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2019/945/annex/part/6/2020-12-31
+This follows how the amended provision was referenced by the drafter in the amending provision:
+https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1593/regulation/51/made
 If you were amending a provision in this Part, you would only use brackets around the sub-provisions in the annotation e.g. Annex Pt. 7 point 4(1)
-https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2019/945/annex/part/7
+https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2019/945/annex/part/7/2020-12-31
+This also follows how the amended provision was referenced by the drafter in the amending provision:
+https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1593/regulation/52/made
 ===Citation of footnotes in annotations===
-See [[Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Working_with_footnotes|Working with footnotes]].
+See [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#WORKING_WITH_FOOTNOTES_IN_REUL|Working with footnotes]].
-==Sections==
+===Sections===
-Sections in REUL are always high level parent provisions.  Although we have recorded the effects against Sections in REUL with the format, e.g., “s. 0002”, references in annotations to a high level Section provision should be written out in full with a capital letter: "Section 2".
+Sections in REUL are almost always high level parent provisions.  Although we have recorded the effects against Sections in REUL with the format, e.g., “s. 0003”, references in annotations to a high level Section provision should be written out in full with a capital letter: "Section 3".
 “Annex 3 Section 3 para. 3a(a) substituted (31.12.2020) by S.I. 2019/640, reg. 19(3)(a) (as substituted by The Food and Feed Hygiene and Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/1504), regs. 1(2), 9(11)(a))”
@@ Line 943: / Line 1,480: @@
 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2004/853/annex/III/section/III
-==Appended Commentaries==
+There may be exceptions, where provisions or sub-provisions have been referred to as sections, and we have therefore used the usual “s.” format for these references within annotations, see for example:
+https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2012/722/annex/I/2021-08-11
+==Amendment to earlier affecting provision and knock-on effect annotations==
+You may see various “amendment to earlier affecting provision” and KO effects in your update task, for example:
+ [[File: REUL_B5a.png|800px]]
+See the sections below for guidance on applying and dealing with the annotations for these two types of effect:
+[[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Appended_commentaries_for_amendments_to_earlier_affecting_legislation|Appended commentaries for amendments to earlier affecting legislation]]
+[[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Knock-on_effect_annotations|Knock-on effect annotations]]
-We will need to use appended commentaries a lot during REUL update.
+===Appended commentaries for amendments to earlier affecting legislation===
+We will need to use appended commentaries a lot during REUL update (as we had to when we did the [[EU_Exit_Update_Guidance_Notes|EU Exit SI update]]).
 Some of these will come through automatically in the system-generated annotation, where the appended commentary field has been used in TOES, for example:
@@ Line 953: / Line 1,508: @@
 • where a “first wave” EU Exit SI’s savings or transitional provisions or its extent provision were amended by a “second wave” SI.
-Others will be needed for citing the details of “second wave” SIs for amendment to earlier affecting provision effects and you will need to edit the annotation yourself, using the method described below:
+Others will be needed for citing the details of “second wave” SIs for amendment to earlier affecting provision effects and you will need to edit the annotation yourself, using the method described below.
-===Method for adding an appended commentary by editing the annotation===
+For further explanation about “first wave”  and “second wave” EU Exit SIs, see the [[EU_Exit_Update_Guidance_Notes#What.E2.80.99s_going_on.3F|EU Exit Update Guidance Notes]].
-<ol><li>Apply the original “first wave” EU Exit amendment.</li>
+====Method for adding an appended commentary by editing the annotation====
-<li>Remove amendment brackets and dotty lines (and repealed sub-provision numbers, etc) from the new text.</li>
-<li>Check in.</li>
-<li>Go to website preview and use the links in the annotation to visit the amending provision.</li>
-<li>Copy the details of the “second wave” EU Exit SI from the annotations in the amending provision.</li>
-<li>Return to the amended provision using the browser back arrow.</li>
-<li>Edit your annotation using the button next to it.</li>
-<li>Add “(as amended by … )” in the appropriate place (i.e. before the reference to 2020 c. 1, Sch. 5 para. 1(1)) and insert your copied text into the annotation.</li></ol>
-====Location of appended commentary for "amendments to earlier affecting provision" effects====
+. Apply your amendment (i.e. the original “first wave” EU Exit amendment). You will see that it contains amendment brackets, dotty lines, etc, from the amendment by the “second wave” EU Exit SI, for example substitutions of the words “IP Completion day” for “Exit day”:
-The appended commentary for amendments to earlier affecting provision effects should come before the appended commentary for the change of exit day to IP comp day (i.e. before "; 2020 c. 1, Sch. 5 para. 1(1)", for example:
+ [[File: REUL_A7.png|900px]]
+. Remove the amendment brackets and dotty lines (and repealed sub-provision numbers, etc) from the amendments by the “second wave” EU Exit SI in the amendment text in the affected provision and check it back in.
+. Go to website preview and use the operative provision link in the annotation to visit the affecting provision:
+ [[File: REUL_A9a.png|900px]]
+In this example, clicking on operative provision link Sch. 35 para. (3)42 takes you to your affecting provision (as amended by the “second wave” EU Exit SI):
+ [[File: REUL_A12a.png|900px]]
+. Copy the details of this “second wave” EU Exit SI from the annotation of the amendment to your affecting provision:
+ [[File: REUL_A10a.png|900px]]
+. Return to the preview of your affected provision using the browser back arrow.
+. Click on the [[Editorial_Update/Annotation_Conventions#Editing_annotations_in_the_website_preview|<strong>Edit</strong> button next to the annotation]] so that you can edit it.
+. Edit the annotation by adding the appended commentary “(as amended by … )” in the appropriate place (if there is a reference to 2020 c. 1, Sch. 5 para. 1(1), it should go before this) and insert your copied text into the annotation (but remove the brackets around the SI number):
+ [[File: REUL_A11a.png|900px]]
+. The Editorial System should add the hyperlinks when you click the <strong>Update</strong> button, and you should be left with your clean, updated provision and correctly hyperlinked annotation:
+ [[File: REUL_A9.png|900px]]
+. Complete the amendment by making sure the update status is “Edit Complete” for both your original amendment (the “first wave” amendment), and the “amendment to earlier affecting provision” amendment (the “second wave” amendment):
+ [[File: REUL_A12.png|900px]]
+=====Location of appended commentary for "amendments to earlier affecting provision" effects=====
+The appended commentary for amendments to earlier affecting provision effects should come before the appended commentary for the change of exit day to IP completion day (i.e. before "; 2020 c. 1, Sch. 5 para. 1(1)", for example:
   Words in Art. 25(3) inserted (31.12.2020) by The REACH etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/758), reg. 1(1), Sch. 1 para. 22 <span style = "color:red;">(as amended by S.I. 2020/1313, regs. 1(3), 6(2))</span>; 2020 c. 1, Sch. 5 para. 1(1)
@@ Line 973: / Line 1,559: @@
 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2006/1907/article/25
-====Simplify multiple amending sub-provisions in the appended commentary====
+=====Simplify multiple amending sub-provisions in the appended commentary=====
 Where an amending provision has been hit by multiple amending sub-provisions, the annotation for the appended commentary should simplify this by citing at the higher "umbrella" provision level. For example, the amending provision SI 2019/654, reg. 116 is hit by several amendments by SI 2020/1504, reg. 12(21)(a), (b)(i)(ii)(iii) and (c).  The appended commentary should bundle those amendments together as "(as amended by S.I. 2020/1504, regs. 1(2), <span style = "color:red;">12(21)</span>)", see:
 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2009/767/article/28A
-====Bundle together multiple appended commentaries====
+=====Bundle together multiple appended commentaries=====
 Where an appended commentary for an amendment to earlier affecting provision effect is needed in addition to an already existing appended commentary for a change to the “first wave” SI’s extent or savings, then both appended commentaries should be bundled together into a single parenthesis to avoid redundancy, for example:
@@ Line 987: / Line 1,573: @@
 If the changes are by different “second wave” amending SIs, the SIs should be cited in numerical order.
-====“Amendment to earlier affecting provision” effects may not be displayed in the update tasks at the same level====
+=====“Amendment to earlier affecting provision” effects may not be displayed in the update tasks at the same level=====
 Please be aware that amendment to earlier affecting provision effects made by “second wave” SIs to an original “first wave” high level amendment may not be displayed in the update tasks at that same high level.  We may have entered these subsequent amendments in TOES as amendments to the child provisions.  You need to remember to mark these child level amendments as applied once you have dealt with the appended commentaries.
+===Knock-on effect annotations===
+For a description of how to deal with KO effects, see [[EU_Exit_Update_Guidance_Notes#Annotations_for_knock-on_amendments|Annotations for knock-on amendments]] in the EU Exit Update Guidance Notes.
+Also bear in mind how we are dealing with [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Extent.2FTA_of_knock_on_effects_and_amendments_to_earlier_affecting_provision_effects|Extent/TA of knock on effects and amendments to earlier affecting provision effects]] in REUL update.
 ==Incorrect hyperlinks==
-See the section on [[Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Complex_.285-level_deep.29_affecting_provisions.2C_duplicate_update_tasks_and_incorrect_hyperlinks|Complex (5-level deep) affecting provisions, duplicate update tasks and incorrect hyperlinks]].
+See the section on [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Complex_.285-level_deep.29_amending_provisions.2C_duplicate_update_tasks_and_incorrect_hyperlinks|Complex (5-level deep) affecting provisions, duplicate update tasks and incorrect hyperlinks]].
+==Citation of REUL as affecting legislation==
+The short title in a KO annotation looks like this:
+<blockquote>Regulation applied (31.12.2020) by <span style = "color:red;">Regulation (EU) No. 625/2017</span>, Art. 143 (as substituted by The Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/1481), regs. 1, 27(3) (with reg. 46))</blockquote>
 =WORKING WITH FOOTNOTES IN REUL=
-We may need to apply amendments to the different types of footnotes in REUL, such as [[Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Hyperlinked_table_footnotes|hyperlinked table footnotes]] and [[Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Other_drafters.27_footnotes|other drafters' footnotes]]. Whilst we are able to amend hyperlinked table footnotes, we cannot edit other drafters' footnotes ourselves, so amendments to these two types of footnote are treated very differently, and they should not be confused.
+We may need to apply amendments to different types of footnotes that are included by drafters in REUL, such as [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Table_footnotes|hyperlinked table footnotes]] and [[Editorial_Update/Retained_EU_Legislation_Update#Other_drafters_footnotes|other drafters footnotes]].
+<strong>Table footnote reference:</strong>
+[[File: Table footnote 1.png]]
+The footnote reference is hyperlinked, linking to the footnote directly below the table:
+[[File: Table footnote 1a.png]]
+<strong>Other drafters footnote reference:</strong>
+[[File: Drafters_footnote_1.png]]
+The footnote reference is hyperlinked, linking to the footnote (sometimes referred to as endnote), which is displayed right at the bottom of the text in the preview:
+[[File: Drafters_footnote_2.png]]
+Whilst we are able to amend table footnotes, we cannot edit other drafters' footnotes ourselves, so amendments to these two types of footnote are treated differently, as described in the next two sections.
-==Hyperlinked table footnotes==
+==Table footnotes==
 These are hyperlinked footnote references within a table that are usually referenced by a letter that link to footnotes directly below the table, for example:
@@ Line 1,015: / Line 1,639: @@
 ===Omitting a table footnote===
-To omit a table footnote reference and the footnote itself, you need to replace both the footnote reference and the text of the footnote itself with three dots.
+To omit a table footnote reference and footnote, you need to replace the footnote reference where it occurs within the table with three dots, replace the text of the footnote at the bottom of the table with three dots, but leave the footnote reference at the start of the footnote text in place.
 It is not possible to carry out a repeal on the <code>ukl:FootnoteRef/</code>, so you need to delete it and manually type in three dots and insert an F-note before the three dots using the repeal task.
@@ Line 1,048: / Line 1,672: @@
-Make sure that you leave the <code>ukl:FootnoteText</code> tagging at the bottom of the table so that the footnote reference still appears at the start of the footnote and do not change the footnote id attribute so that the existing footnotes are left in the same order with all the same references:
+Make sure that you leave the <code>ukl:FootnoteText</code> tagging at the bottom of the table when you omit the footnote text, so that the footnote reference still appears at the start of the footnote.  To make sure that the existing footnotes are left in the same order with all the same references no changes should be made to the footnote id attributes. Once you have omitted the footnote text, you should be left with, for example:
@@ Line 1,063: / Line 1,687: @@
 The amended provision is cited like this in the annotation when the footnote and the footnote reference are both included in the same amendment:
-  <span style = "color:red;">Annex 1 Pt. 1 Table footnote</span> omitted (1.7.2022) by virtue of The Import of Animals and Animal Products and Approved Countries (Amendment) Regulations 2022 (S.I. 2022/735), regs. 1(2), 5(12)(g)(i)
+  <span style = "color:red;">Annex 1 Pt. 1 table footnote</span> omitted (1.7.2022) by virtue of The Import of Animals and Animal Products and Approved Countries (Amendment) Regulations 2022 (S.I. 2022/735), regs. 1(2), 5(12)(g)(i)
 Sometimes, the table footnote reference alone is the target of an amendment, in which case, the amended provision is cited like this in the annotation:
-  <span style = "color:red;">Annex 1 Table footnote reference</span> omitted (31.12.2020) by virtue of The Import of, and Trade in, Animals and Animal Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/1462), regs. 1(3), 68(31)(b)(iii) (with regs. 69-71)
+  <span style = "color:red;">Annex 1 table footnote reference</span> omitted (31.12.2020) by virtue of The Import of, and Trade in, Animals and Animal Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/1462), regs. 1(3), 68(31)(b)(iii) (with regs. 69-71)
@@ Line 1,093: / Line 1,717: @@
   [[File: REUL_table_footnote_9.png|1100px]]
-== Other drafters’ footnotes==
+== Other drafters footnotes==
-These are usually hyperlinked footnote references that are referenced by a number in brackets that link to the footnote that is displayed below the provision and may sometimes be referred to as “endnotes” by drafters, see for example:
+Other drafters footnotes are sometimes referred to as “endnotes” by drafters and are referenced by a number in brackets next to the text that they relate to. The reference number links to the footnote that is displayed at the bottom of the text being previewed. See for example, footnote references (1)-(33) in this Introductory Text:
-https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2006/1013/annex/IV
+https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2018/659/introduction
-We are currently unable to make textual amendments to these drafters’ footnotes and get the amendment and annotation to “stick” when we check the amended provision back in. There is a workaround we can use while we wait for this issue to be fixed by TSO:
-. Replace the  drafters’ footnote with an M-note.
-. Amend the text of the M-note according to the affecting provision and add an Editorial Note at the end of the M-note containing the text that would usually be in the F-note for the amendment, for example:
- “highway” is defined in section 328(1) ... [Editorial note: Words in art. 2(1) footnote omitted (22.12.2022) by virtue of The East Anglia ONE North Offshore Wind Farm (Correction) Order 2022 (S.I. 2022/1398), art. 1(2), Sch.]
-As long as the annotation text is plain with no citation tags when it is checked in, then it will be given hyperlinks in the usual way.
+We are currently unable to make textual amendments to these drafters footnotes and get the amendment and annotation to “stick” when we check the amended provision back in. There is a workaround we can use, which is described [[Editorial_Update/Approach_to_Update,_Specific_Update_Issues_and_Update_Troubleshooting#Making_amendments_to_drafters_footnotes|here]].
 <!--We cannot amend these footnotes ourselves and need to ask TSO to amend them for us. An F-note should be inserted next to the drafters’ footnote reference containing the details of the amendment, then you will need to refer to a Review Editor to ask TSO to carry out the amendment. TSO will amend the text of the footnote and insert the footnote reference in the footnote itself (using the amendment wording in the footnote that you generated). Once they have completed the amendment, the F-note that you originally inserted next to the drafters’ footnote reference should be left in place even though it is a now duplicated, because without it the annotation won't appear in the amended footnote itself.
@@ Line 1,124: / Line 1,740: @@
 Approach, errors and troubleshooting:
-*[[Editorial_Update/Approach_to_Update_-_Some_Basic_Rules_and_Exceptions|Approach to Update - Some Basic Rules and Exceptions]]
+*[[Editorial_Update/Approach_to_Update,_Specific_Update_Issues_and_Update_Troubleshooting#APPROACH_TO_UPDATE_-_SOME_BASIC_RULES_AND_EXCEPTIONS|Approach to Update - Some Basic Rules and Exceptions]]
-*[[Common_Update_Errors|Common Update Errors]]
+*[[Editorial_Update/Approach_to_Update,_Specific_Update_Issues_and_Update_Troubleshooting#SPECIFIC_UPDATE_ISSUES|Specific Update Issues]]
-*[[Editorial_Update/Specific_Update_Issues|Specific Update Issues]]
+*[[Editorial_Update/Approach_to_Update,_Specific_Update_Issues_and_Update_Troubleshooting#UPDATE_TROUBLESHOOTING|Update Troubleshooting]]
-*[[Editorial_Update/Update_Troubleshooting|Update Troubleshooting]]

Difference between revisions of "Editorial Update/Retained EU Legislation Update"

Latest revision as of 08:35, 10 June 2025

OVERVIEW

BEFORE YOU START A REUL UPDATE TASK

No AER task for REUL update

Extent/TA of REUL

EU Exit SIs amending REUL for E.W.S. generally to be treated as whole extent amendments

Extent/TA of knock on effects and amendments to earlier affecting provision effects

Limited extent amendments to REUL

Check TOES for potential issues before you start

REUL UPDATE ISSUES

EU issues spreadsheet

Editorial System Issues

Issues with the way that tasks are displayed

Split tasks

Provision level tasks appearing as high level tasks

The update details pages also may not present the full type of effect information correctly

Using the Task Association Tool (i.e. Assign Tasks button) when you are unable to access the amended provision because the update details preview displays a page not found error

Complex (5-level deep) amending provisions, duplicate update tasks and incorrect hyperlinks

Issues with checking out provisions

Avoid page not found errors when checking out high level amendments because there are too many tasks by deselecting tasks

Beware issues with checking out whole documents that contain Attachments

XMetaL Issues

Affected provision appearing as "A." rather than "Art. 1(2)" in annotations

Wrong hyperlinks to affecting provisions in annotations

Website preview issues

Missing F-note references for multiple omissions of words within a provision

Missing annotation even though there is an F-note reference

Annotations splitting up a provision or not appearing in the expected location

Timeline issues

Missing text in the website preview

Missing images in the website preview

Sub-provision numbering doesn't fit before text of the sub-provision

Unnumbered paragraph text ranged too far left and wrapped around preceding text

Opening square bracket jumping to appear before Article number

Annexes: text displaying below rather than next to the provision number

Annexes: provision numbers appear centred and above the provision text, rather than left-aligned and on same level

Previous EU amendments

EU annotations

EU amendment brackets

Warning messages appearing for previous EU on EU omissions

CARRYING OUT REUL UPDATE

Things to look out for

Structure and tagging

Skeleton tagging for a P1Group

Powers to make subordinate legislation

Binding words

Incorrectly recorded effects against final Article rather than the Signature element (amendments to binding words)

Binding words assumed to be repealed as part of the repeal (or substitution) of the final Article of an EU Regulation

Applying “Exceptions from duty to publish” effects that come from Ministerial Directions

How to deal with conflicting amendments where there is an exception from duty to publish

Applying “Appointed Day(s)” effects in REUL

Whole document repeals

Whole document previously wholly repealed (with savings) - subsequent amendment of “as saved” version

Editing the introductory text

Workaround to add auto-annotations to the introductory text after a whole document has been repealed with savings

Editing the main body

Main body - insertions and substitutions

Example of the insertion of a whole Article

Example of the insertion of an Article that needs to be retagged but the sub-provisions don't

Example of the insertion of a sub-provision into an Article that needed to be retagged, with an ordered list used for sub-paragraphs beyond the P5 level

Examples of the insertion of sub-provisions tagged as <ukl:ListItems> in an Article

Outline of the insertion of a range of sub-provisions that needed to be retagged as <ListItems>

Worked example of the insertion of a range of sub-provisions into an Article that needed to be retagged as <ListItems> and also included “amendment to earlier affecting provision” effects

Example of the substitution of a whole Article

Substitution of Article heading at the same time as substitution of whole Article

Example of the substitution of a sub-provision in an Article

Sub-provision numbers at P3 level missing closing bracket

Amendment text that has itself been amended

Powers - remember to check for these and set attributes accordingly

Main body - repeals

Main body - using the batch repeal function

How to repeal a Title or Section

How to repeal an Article

How to repeal a sub-provision tagged as a <ukl:ListItem>

How to repeal an unnumbered paragraph in an Article

How to repeal the binding words in the Signature

Annotation checks - things to look out for

Timeline - things to look out for

Editing Annexes