Editorial Update/Retained EU Legislation Update
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.
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 and Clare Allison so that the issue can be logged with TSO (or added to an existing story).
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.
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, e.g.:
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 instructions on the Update Troubleshooting page 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).
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 on the Update Troubleshooting page.
Issues with the way that amendments are carried out in XMetaL
Affected provision coming though into F-notes as "A." rather than "Art. 1(2)"
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.
Issues with the way that amendments are displayed in the website preview
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 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/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:
Text displaying below rather than next to the provision number (Annexes)
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:
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.
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).
CARRYING OUT REUL UPDATE
Things to look out for
| 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.
|
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.
Incorrectly recorded effects
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
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.
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.
Workaround to add auto-annotations to the introductory text after a whole document has been repealed
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
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:
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 sub-provisions tagged as <ukl:ListItems> in an Article
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.
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.
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
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:
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.
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).
You can copy this 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 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.
How to repeal a Title
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:
See also:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2006/1907/article/75
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 Things to look out for.
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
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
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 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 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 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.
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. 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:
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 be aware of and 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:
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 here.
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 was 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
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
Citation of footnotes in annotations
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".
“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
Appended commentaries for amendments to earlier affecting legislation
We will need to use appended commentaries a lot during REUL update (as we had to during the EU Exit SI update exercise).
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:
Method for adding an appended commentary by editing the annotation
- Apply the original “first wave” EU Exit amendment.
- Remove amendment brackets and dotty lines (and repealed sub-provision numbers, etc) from the new text.
- Check in.
- Go to website preview and use the links in the annotation to visit the amending provision.
- Copy the details of the “second wave” EU Exit SI from the annotations in the amending provision.
- Return to the amended provision using the browser back arrow.
- Edit your annotation using the button next to it.
- 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.
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 comp 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.
Incorrect hyperlinks
See the section on Complex (5-level deep) affecting provisions, duplicate update tasks and incorrect hyperlinks.
WORKING WITH FOOTNOTES IN REUL
We may need to apply amendments to the different types of footnotes in REUL, such as hyperlinked table footnotes and 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.
Hyperlinked 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 the footnote itself, you need to replace both the footnote reference and the text of the footnote itself with three dots.
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 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:
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
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:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2006/1013/annex/IV
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:
1. Replace the drafters’ footnote with an M-note.
2. 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.
RELATED PAGES
Approach, errors and troubleshooting: