Editorial Update/Approach to Update, Specific Update Issues and Update Troubleshooting
APPROACH TO UPDATE - SOME BASIC RULES AND EXCEPTIONS
Basic Conventions
The editorial update conventions followed today are basically the same as those that have applied down the decades in the earlier hard-copy and electronic versions of the revised statute book (principally 'Statutes in Force' and the UK Statute Law Database). The general principles governing the editorial task as a whole are set out in the Editorial Principles section of this Wiki, and detailed guidance as to how to deal with specific textual amendments and non-textual effects are set out in the pages within the Editorial Update section. However, it's worth mentioning here a few fundamental points which you should follow in your approach to the editorial update task.
‘The Vigilant Editor’
When consulting amending legislation for effects, you are not required to make an in-depth analysis of the text. But you should edit vigilantly and ensure, at the very least, that the correct Act, section etc. have been cited in TOES. Although you will be working from the information in TOES, its accuracy should not simply be assumed. You should read enough of the affecting legislation online to ensure that the information in the TOES entry is complete and correct, and that you have a full understanding of the amendments that you need to make. This will also help you, for example, to avoid overlooking such wordings as “in both places” or “wherever it occurs” (indicating that multiple identical edits are required), or to spot that two or more distinct sets of words are being substituted by the same affecting provision. If you find any errors in TOES, you should report them for correction.
Follow the Drafter, but . . .
Your task as update editor is to present the plain text of the amended legislation, with authorities for all changes, in the form in which it stands at any moment in time. Complete accuracy is essential, because even minor errors can have unexpected and far-reaching implications. Your aim must be to execute and incorporate all amendments strictly in accordance with amending instructions made by or under the authority of Parliament, without interposing any other interpretation. (But see below as to minor matters of structure, punctuation and typography in which some discretion is permissible in certain circumstances.) Where the application of an amendment causes difficulty, or the result seems awkward, or if it simply ‘doesn't fit’, you should always refer the matter to a Review Editor or Managing Review Editor. The way in which such difficulties are dealt with will depend on the particular circumstances of the case. The difficulty may, for example, be due to a TOES error, or an earlier editorial error (such as a missed effect), in which case the problem may be resolved quite quickly by a corrective procedure. On the other hand, if the difficulty appears to be due to a drafting error, the matter may need to be referred by way of 'Lex Error' procedure to parliament or the relevant department before we can finally resolve it. (See further: Editorial Principles - Errors in Legislation.)
Structure, Layout and Formatting
You should ensure that, as far as possible, the structure, layout and formatting of the text resulting from your editing is consistent with the pre-existing text of the amended section (or relevant part of the Act, or the Act as a whole), including levels of indentation. As a general rule: if it looks wrong, it probably is wrong.
See more detail on the Presentation of Amendments below. See also the XMetaL and XML tagging page, which includes details about Tagging Hierarchies and also how to fixing incorrectly tagged amending provisions.
Conjunctions Between Paragraphs (“and” and “or”)
A very common feature you will come across in legislation is where a series of paragraphs (or other sub-provisions or entries, numbered or un-numbered) within a provision are connected (or separated, depending on how you look at it) by a conjunction, either “and” or “or”. In some cases the conjunction may only appear once, after the penultimate entry. Drafters of amending legislation sometimes treat such conjunctions as if they are part of the entry at the end of which they appear, and sometimes they don't. We take the view that they don’t form part of the entry they follow, which is implicit in the wording of the drafting guidance issued by Parliamentary Counsel.
You should generally proceed on the basis that these conjunctions don’t form part of the entry they follow, unless a contrary approach is clearly intended by the drafter of the amending provision. When considering how to apply an amendment to such a series of paragraphs, it is important to consider how any relevant conjunctions will be affected.
As an example: in a series consisting of paragraphs (a) to (g), the conjunction “or” appears only after para. (f); a new para. (fa) is now being inserted “after paragraph (f)” (and there is no conjunction “or” at the end of the amendment text to be inserted). In this case, you should make sure that the existing “or” is re-located so that it now immediately follows the newly inserted para. (fa) (outside the closing bracket for the amendment text, of course). There are various possible permutations of conjunctions you may come across in such series, but in each case the important thing is, first of all, to understand how the pattern of wording in the existing series works, and then to apply common sense to ensure (if the drafting permits) that the series retains the same logical structure after the amendment or repeal.
Occasionally the drafting of the amending provision may make it impossible to achieve the ‘right’ result without ignoring the drafter’s clear instructions. In these circumstances, or if you’re just not sure how best to approach the amendment in a particular case, you should consult a Review Editor or Managing Review Editor.
See, for example, S.S.I. 2008/153, reg. 2 where, on 14.12.2019, the penultimate definition was omitted and a new definition inserted before the last definition. Whilst not explicitly mentioned by the drafters, the “and” from the end of the definition of “plant passport” (that was being omitted) needed to be moved to the end of the newly inserted definition of “the Plant Health Official Controls Regulations”. Note also that this “and” is itself subsequently the subject of an amendment by S.S.I 2020/466, reg. 6(2)(b) on 31.12.2020, demonstrating that sometimes the drafters treat conjunctions and punctuation as part of the provision and sometimes they don’t and we always need to read their instructions carefully with this in mind.
See also 2022 c. 36, Sch. 4 para. 5(4), where the drafters say “In sub-paragraph (2), omit paragraph (b) (but not the final “and”).” See how this effect was applied during update: 2004 c. 19, Sch. 3 para. 3(2).
Punctuation and Typography
- You should take care to include any new punctuation directed to be included by amending legislation. But where this would result in surplusage, such as two full stops in succession, then the obvious correction should be made (the newly inserted, added or substituted item of punctuation being generally preferred to the old).
- Where new words are added at the beginning of a sentence, the capital letter at the start of the old words should be changed to lower case as appropriate.
- Similarly, where words at the beginning of a sentence are repealed, the first word in the remaining part of the sentence should be changed to start with a capital letter as appropriate.
- Where words are added “at the end” of a provision, or a substitution is made of text “to the end”, and the new text contains no terminal punctuation (such as a semicolon or full stop), it should be assumed that the existing terminal punctuation is to be retained and the added or substituted text is to be located immediately before it. See, for example, the insertion of S.I. 2020/568, reg. 4B(2)(d) by S.I. 2021/498, reg. 8 where, despite saying "at the end insert", the intention was that the insertion should be made between the last word and the terminal full stop of reg. 4B(2)(c), so that the full stop remains at the end of the new last sub-provision. See the updated provision S.I. 2020/568, reg. 4B(2)(d).
- In a similar vein, sometimes a new sub-provision is added at the end of an existing provision or sub-provision (or a list item is added to a list), such that the terminal punctuation immediately preceding the added sub-provision is no longer correct (usually an existing full stop should now become a comma or semicolon). Drafters will not always provide explicitly for that existing punctuation to be changed. In these circumstances, provided that it is a clear case, it is permissible to change the existing terminal punctuation as appropriate so as to be consistent with the existing pattern in the provision or sub-provision. The drafter can be regarded as having intended the result by necessary inference. See, for example, the insertion of S.I. 2020/568, reg. 4B(2)(d) where a semicolon at the end of the previous sub-provision was explicitly included in the insertion. This may not always be the case, however, and editors should always read drafter's instructions in context with an eye out for this potential issue.
- Where words in a sub-provision are renumbered as paragraphs or sub-paragraphs, and the insertion of a new em dash (i.e. “—”) to start the indent hasn't been included in the amendment, you should add one. See, for example 1951 c. 65, s. 46(3) (where words in subsection (3) have been renumbered as sub-paragraph (a)) or 2006 c. 32, Sch. 1A para. 7 (where words in the paragraph have been renumbered as sub-paragraph (a)).
SPECIFIC UPDATE ISSUES
| This section gives advice about the presentation of amendments on the website and editorial issues you may encounter whilst carrying out amendments. For advice on how to deal with errors and warning messages that stop you carrying out your update task, see See Update Troubleshooting, below. |
Specific Update Issues - contents of this section
| If you can't find what you are looking for in this section, see the ‘How to’ guides that are specific to carrying out Insertions, Substitutions and Repeals. |
The main headings in this section are listed below, for a full list of contents in this section, including sub-headings, see the Table of Contents at the top of the page.
Editorial Update - some general reminders
Please watch out for older provisions containing references to fines which specify actual amounts of money
Blanket amendments to do with fines on conviction of offences “triable either way” by indictment or summarily were made respectively by virtue of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (c. 45), s. 32(1) and by virtue of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43), s. 32(2):
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/45/section/32/1991-02-01
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43/section/32/1991-02-01
Given the wording, it's moot whether these blanket amendments should be applied textually or non-textually (although it’s probably more helpful to our users to apply them textually), but either way – whether as mods or substitutions of words – these blanket amendments were not all caught by Statues In Force (SIF) at the time because they didn’t have the resources or the technology to catch them all. Since SIF is the source of our primary legislation basedate data this means that these errors have remained on legislation.gov.uk.
Note that the equivalent changes for Scotland and NI re fines “of any amount” are done respectively by Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (c. 21), s. 193A; and The Fines and Penalties (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 (S.I. 1984/703 (N.I.)), art. 3 and re “the prescribed sum” by Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (c. 21), s. 289B; and The Fines and Penalties (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 (S.I. 1984/703 (N.I.)), art. 4.
| We therefore need to look out for provisions in Acts from 1980 or before which specify fines in terms of actual amounts of money and, and let Richard know if you spot one, so he can check if these blankets amendments should be applied. See, for example: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/72/section/1 |
There are two more notorious old blanket amendments you should also be aware of, which also relate to fines and which changed references to sums of money to levels on the standard scale and which also may not all have been caught in SIF. These were made by virtue of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c. 48) , ss. 35, 37, 38, 46 (with s. 47), in relation to England and Wales, and by virtue of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (c. 21), ss. 289E-289H (as inserted by Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c. 48), s. 54), in relation to Scotland. They are both very complex amendments, involving several criteria and a chain of reasoning to determine the exact editorial action required (abolition of enhanced penalties to leave a single maximum fine, increases of the sums involved and conversion of amounts to levels on the standard scale):
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/48/part/III/1991-02-01
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/21/part/II/crossheading/jurisdiction/1991-02-01
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/48/section/54/1991-02-01
And the equivalent NI amendment to the ones made by Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c. 48) , ss. 35, 37, 38, 46 (with s. 47) and Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (c. 21), ss. 289E-289H (i.e. the abolition of enhanced penalties to leave a single maximum fine, increases of the sums involved and conversion of amounts to levels on the standard scale) is done by The Fines and Penalties (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 (S.I. 1984/703 (N.I.)), arts. 5-10.
| Please also be on the look-out for, and let Richard know about, provisions in Acts from 1982 or before where maximum fines for summary offences are specified in terms of actual sums of money rather than a level on the standard scale. |
Here are some examples:
SIF caught these amendments in 1980 c. 66, s. 46:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/46
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/46/enacted
But SIF missed these amendments in 1980 c. 66, s. 131, so we corrected this later:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/131
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/131/enacted
SIF caught these amendments in 1937 c. 37, s. 31:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/37/section/31/1991-02-01
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/37/section/31/enacted
Blanket amendment by The Treaty of Lisbon (Changes in Terminology) Order 2011 (S.I. 2011/1043)
See the Blanket Amendments page for more details: Blanket amendment by The Treaty of Lisbon (Changes in Terminology) Order 2011 (S.I. 2011/1043).
Don't forget to check the TOES for your update task
See the Update Editor Checklist for full details of the checks you need to make. In particular, remember to check the “Comments for Editor” for any notes made by the Record Effects editor, especially if your amendment text contains power, as detailed below.
Setting the Confers Power attribute for inserted/substituted provisions that contain power
Where the words “contains power” or “confers power” appear in the “Comments for Editor” column in the TOES in respect of newly inserted or substituted provisions remember to set the Confers Power attribute to "true" for the whole provision in the Attribute inspector for that provision – see ConfersPower Attribute.
Using the Editorial System
This is explained on the Starting Update Tasks page.
Using the Task Association Tool
| Note: if you need to use the Task Association Tool, make sure that you have checked your auto annotations before starting your textual amendments (see below). |
If the way an effect has been described in TOES does not match the URL on legislation.gov.uk, then the editorial system simply can’t find the provision that needs to be updated. Even though the effect has been recorded correctly (e.g. against a rule), the URL for it on legislation.gov.uk is incorrect, or not as we would expect (e.g. it is addressed as an article on legislation.gov.uk rather than a rule) and the provision cannot be identified. In this situation, you will not be able to check out the amended provision.
A warning message will appear on the Update Details page:
Provision not identified in data. Please use the Assign Tasks to another Provision utility to associate the tasks with an existing provision
There will be a button underneath which reads Assign Tasks to Another Provision:
The Assign Task to another Provision button will open up a version of the Table of Contents from which you can select the provision that you need to update. Once the task has been assigned to a provision you will be able to ‘check out’ for update as normal:
Once this association has been made it will be retained for future amendments, so if you come to amend the same provision again later you won’t need to go through this process again. If you make a mistake and choose the wrong provision then it is possible to Remove Assigned Tasks and start again.
Assigning a task to a higher level
The assign tasks button can be used to assign a task to a higher level if your amendment is appearing as a provision-level amendment but needs to be carried out at a higher level (for example, where a provision is being renumbered to a provision number that doesn't yet exist in the document).
Do not assign the task to the top-level (the whole document), because that will give you a Page Not Found error when trying to access the provision-level page in the browser (and then you can’t get back to the assign task button). You can assign the task to any level up to ‘Main Body’ or ‘Schedules’ and still successfully access the provision-level page, check-out and see the task in the Resource Manager.
Please note that when you re-assign the task to a higher level, the amendment doesn’t appear on either the provision-level page or the higher-level (ToC) page, but when you check-out from the provision-level page the task will appear in the Resource Manager.
Auto Annotations and the Task Association Tool
Auto annotations are applied when the system creates the PiT being worked on. Once you have done your task association for an auto annotation, you need to reset that PiT and start it again in order for the auto annotation to apply. This means you MUST do any auto annotations FIRST, reset the PiT in order to get the auto annotations to apply automatically and then do the textual amendments afterwards, if you carry out the textual amendments first you will lose the update work when you reset.
Presentation of revised legislation and issues to look out for when carrying out amendments
What amendments look like on the website
On the website, insertions and substitutions are signified by square brackets, and repeals are signified by a row of dots (a short row of three dots for a repeal of words or a full line of dots—also referred to as a “dotty line”—for a repeal of a whole provision). Where the text has been substituted or repealed for a limited extent or for specified purposes only, the text is retained within square brackets and substituted text is displayed alongside the retained text (also within its own set of square brackets).
See more about square brackets below.
Each textual amendment is annotated with an “F-note”, and a sequential reference for that F-note is displayed in bold superscript at the beginning of the amendment, which links to the annotation for the amendment.
Annotations are used in revised legislation on legislation.gov.uk to give authority for amendments or other effects on that legislation and to convey editorial information. They appear at the foot of the relevant provision or under the associated heading if relating to a higher-level division of the legislation such as a Part, Schedule, etc. Annotations are categorised by annotation type, such as F-notes for textual amendments and C-notes for non-textual effects. For a detailed description of annotation types and what they contain see Annotation Conventions. Annotations giving authority for an amendment or other effect on the legislation may contain one or more hyperlinks to the affecting legislation. The annotations will provide separate links to the whole amending Act and to each affecting provision cited. In annotations created after 2003 the operative provision will be in bold text.
Other reference markers throughout the text may relate to drafters footnotes, which also need to be taken into account if they are impacted by an amendment. Care should be taken to make sure that drafters footnote references are not split from the text they relate to when making an amendment, as explained here.
For examples of what different types of amendment should look like, please see the individual Editorial Update ‘How to’ Guides.
For textual amendments, the Editorial System automatically inserts the square brackets or row of dots plus the F-note reference and annotation as relevant when an amendment is carried out, and for non-textual effects an annotation is inserted. The update editor's role is to thoroughly check that the amendment has been carried out correctly by checking the amendment in XMetaL and in the website preview, and if necessary carry out any edits to make sure that:
- everything is in the right place
- nothing is missing
- nothing has been left behind from the previous version of the provision that shouldn't be there
- everything works as it should (i.e. hyperlinks, timeline)
It is also important to be aware of the impact that an amendment might have on any previous amendments i.e. existing square brackets from previous amendments in the affected provision (also any previous higher level amendments that may have involved the affected provision).
| IMPORTANT: the update editor must always preview an amendment on the website, where the timeline should also be checked to make sure that the Point in Time (PiT) has been created correctly. |
The Update Editor Checklist summarises all the checks that the Update Editor should make whilst carrying out Editorial Update, and can be accessed directly from the Editorial System via the Checklist button.
Spacing before and after amendments
For insertions, substitutions and repeals of words, there should usually be a space before and after the amended text, but be aware that you may need to close up space where punctuation follows amended text, or insert a space where words are omitted:
- Where words are inserted or substituted with a punctuation mark at the beginning of the inserted or substituted words, there should be a space immediately before the opening square brackets of the inserted or substituted words. If punctuation immediately follows the inserted or substituted words, there should be no space between the punctuation and the closing square bracket of the inserted substituted words:
Existing text [, inserted or substituted words], existing text.
Note that the Editorial System automatically inserts a space after the closing square brackets when an amendment is carried out, but where this leaves a space before an item of punctuation, the space should be closed up, i.e.
“under [Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Sentencing Code] ,”
should be changed to:
“under [Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Sentencing Code],”
- Where a comma is omitted, include a space before the three dots. In this example, the comma after the word “and” was omitted:
“means and F10... whether directly”
Square brackets
When you preview an amendment you need to make sure that, where your amendment involves square brackets, they are correctly positioned. You should also make sure that square brackets from any previous amendments are still in the right place after your amendment. You may need to carry out edits to remove square brackets left behind from previous amendments (but be aware that square brackets from higher level amendments can be ignored), or move opening and closing square brackets to the correct location after an amendment has been carried out, as detailed below:
Square brackets from an earlier higher level amendment appearing in preview at provision level
If you are inserting or substituting a whole provision within a range of provisions or a higher level provision (e.g. Chapter, Part or Schedule) that was itself previously inserted or substituted, the square brackets for this earlier higher level amendment will appear in your amended provision when you preview it. You should not try to remove these brackets from your provision; they are coming from a higher level can be ignored. see for example:
When s. 61NA is inserted into the previously inserted Ch. 10 of Pt. 2 of 2003 c. 1, you can see two sets of square brackets around s. 61NA, one for the previous higher level insertion of Pt. 2 Ch. 10, and the other for the insertion of s. 61NA itself. Annotations for both amendments are displayed at the bottom of the provision.
Also note that when a range of provisions is inserted, when viewed from the parent level, there should be one set of square brackets around the whole range of provisions and each provision will have an annotation for the insertion, see for example the insertion of 45A-45H in 2010 c. 4:
Each provision gets its own set of square brackets for the insertion when viewed on its own:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/4/section/45A/2017-11-16
Substitution of words at the beginning of a provision: opening square bracket jumps to appear before provision number
If the opening square bracket for a substitution of words at the start of provision jumps to appear before the provision number (i.e. where all the words in a paragraph are being substituted, or where the provision only consists of a sum), and we want it to stay before the first word of the substituted words (or sum), we can use a workaround by inserting a hard space entity   before the bracket. Place the cursor between the opening ukl:Text tag and the opening ukl:Substitution tag and paste in the entity  . This is described in more detail the REUL page (although this issue can occur in all types of legislation where the same workaround can also be used), see:
Opening square bracket jumping to appear before Article number.
Removing square brackets when a previously inserted or substituted provision is repealed
If a provision that was previously inserted or substituted is repealed, the square brackets and F-note reference for that previous amendment should be removed when the provision is repealed.
For example, when this provision was omitted, the amendment brackets and F-note reference for the previous insertion of the provision were removed, leaving just the dotty line and the F-note reference for the repeal:
From:
To:
https://legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/959/regulation/39ZA/2015-04-01
EXCEPTION: if a provision is repealed within a higher level provision such as a Schedule, Part or Chapter that has previously been inserted or substituted, the brackets and F-note from that high level amendment will still be present when you preview the amendment. See an example of this on the Provision Level Repeals page.
Relocation of closing square bracket after the repeal of a sub-provision
If the last sub-provision within a provision is repealed, and this provision was previously part of an insertion, the closing bracket for the insertion needs to be relocated to the end of the dotty line for the sub-provision repeal.
For example, after reg. 5B(5) was repealed (using the method described on the Provision Level Repeals page), the closing bracket for the insertion of reg. 5B was initially located just after the sub-provision number:
F9(5)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The closing bracket needed to be moved to the end of the dotty line:
F9(5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .]
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/684/regulation/5B/2020-09-14#regulation-5B-5
Relocation of closing square bracket when a new sub-provision is inserted at the end of a previously inserted provision
| See also: Provision Level Insertions - Carrying out an insertion of a sub-provision in XMetaL |
If a new sub-provision is inserted at the end of a provision that was previously inserted, the closing bracket for the previous insertion of the provision needs to be moved to the end of the new sub-provision once it has been inserted.
For example, immediately after the insertion of reg. 1A(3)-(5), the square bracket for the previous insertion of reg. 1A was still located at the end of reg. 1A(2):
| [F1Infringement proceedings
1A.—(1) This regulation and regulations 1B to 1D are without prejudice to the duties of the Community design court under the provisions of Article 89(1)(a) to (c) of the Community Design Regulation. (2) [F2Subject to paragraphs (3) to (5), in an action] for infringement of a Community design all such relief by way of damages, injunctions, accounts or otherwise is available to the holder of the Community design as is available in respect of the infringement of any other property right.] [F3(3) In an action for the infringement of the right in a registered Community design damages shall not be awarded against a person who proves that at the date of the infringement they were not aware, and had no reasonable ground for supposing, that the design was registered. (4) For the purpose of paragraph (3), a person shall not be deemed to have been aware or to have had reasonable grounds for supposing that the design was registered by reason only of the marking of a product with— (a) the word “registered” or any abbreviation of that word, or (b) any word or words expressing or implying that the design applied to, or incorporated in, the product has been registered, unless the number of the design accompanied the word or words or the abbreviation in question. (5) In an action for the infringement of an unregistered Community design, damages shall not be awarded against a person who proves that at the date of the infringement that they were not aware, and had no reason to believe, that the design to which the action relates was protected as an unregistered Community design.] |
The closing bracket for the insertion of reg. 1A needed to be moved to the end of reg. 1A(5):
| [F1Infringement proceedings
1A.—(1) This regulation and regulations 1B to 1D are without prejudice to the duties of the Community design court under the provisions of Article 89(1)(a) to (c) of the Community Design Regulation. (2) [F2Subject to paragraphs (3) to (5), in an action] for infringement of a Community design all such relief by way of damages, injunctions, accounts or otherwise is available to the holder of the Community design as is available in respect of the infringement of any other property right. [F3(3) In an action for the infringement of the right in a registered Community design damages shall not be awarded against a person who proves that at the date of the infringement they were not aware, and had no reasonable ground for supposing, that the design was registered. (4) For the purpose of paragraph (3), a person shall not be deemed to have been aware or to have had reasonable grounds for supposing that the design was registered by reason only of the marking of a product with— (a) the word “registered” or any abbreviation of that word, or (b) any word or words expressing or implying that the design applied to, or incorporated in, the product has been registered, unless the number of the design accompanied the word or words or the abbreviation in question. (5) In an action for the infringement of an unregistered Community design, damages shall not be awarded against a person who proves that at the date of the infringement that they were not aware, and had no reason to believe, that the design to which the action relates was protected as an unregistered Community design.]] |
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2339/regulation/1A/2014-10-01
Closing square bracket for an amendment slipping to the end of the provision on check in
Sometimes the closing bracket for an amendment may ‘slip’ to the end of the provision on check in. Note that this can happen for previous amendments, not only the amendment you have just carried out. It is always worth investigating if you see a couple of closing square brackets at the end of a provision to check that they are in the correct place.
If you do discover that a closing bracket has slipped to the wrong position, move the closing bracket back to the correct position by checking the provision back out and editing it in XMetaL.
Closing square bracket and annotation errors when applying the effect “sum substituted”
Look out for the following issues when you substitute a sum (type of effect “sum substituted”):
1. Closing square bracket jumps forward a space and ends up one character longer than the sum you are substituting (and may be butted up against the next character).
2. Punctuation that should appear after the closing square brackets jumps inside the closing square bracket, for example:
[F3£3,782, ]in
This should be fixed by moving any punctuation that appears inside the closing square bracket back outside and closing up (or inserting) a space before or after the closing bracket, as appropriate:
[F3£3,782], in
Also look out for a bug in the way the annotation gets generated, with the affected provision being capitalised when it should start with lower case:
Sum in Reg. 105(1)(a) substituted (6.3.2025) by The Education (Student Fees, Awards and Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 (S.I. 2025/162), reg. 1(b), Sch. 2 (with reg. 2(2)(c)(4))
should say:
Sum in reg. 105(1)(a) substituted (6.3.2025) by The Education (Student Fees, Awards and Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 (S.I. 2025/162), reg. 1(b), Sch. 2 (with reg. 2(2)(c)(4))
‘Tidying up’ amendment text: fixing incorrectly tagged amending provisions and removing unwanted tagging
Sometimes there may be incorrect tagging in amending provisions which needs to be fixed to match the structure of the affected provision in order to carry out the amendment: see XMetaL and XML tagging - Fixing incorrectly tagged amending provisions.
Sometimes there may be be other tagging within text or provisions that you are inserting or substituting that it is undesirable to keep in the amended provision, as it is not needed there and may cause formatting errors and issues in the future if text containing that tagging is subsequently amended.
Remove drafters footnotes in amending text
When you carry out an insertion or a substitution, make sure that you remove any drafters footnotes in the amending text (by removing the footnote references), otherwise these references will appear in the preview as ‘No commentary item can be found for this reference’ because there is no corresponding commentary in the amended legislation.
Note: the footnote reference used in the amendment text may already exist in your affected document. If this is the case, and the drafters footnote reference is left in the amendment text, it will link to the wrong footnote text. Although it may appear that everything is OK when you preview your amendment because there is no ‘No commentary item can be found for this reference’ message, the footnote will link to the wrong footnote text so will still need to be removed.
See also Specific Update Issues - Drafters footnotes for further editorial update guidance related to drafters footnotes.
Non Breaking Space Characters in amending text
Look out for Non Breaking Space characters within the ukl:number tagging of a higher level provision (i.e. Schedule, Part, Chapter, etc.) when you are carrying out a higher level insertion or substitution. If these characters are added to an amended provision, they can cause errors when you try to check the amended provision back in (or if a High Level Repeal needs to be carried out on the amended legislation in the future, they can cause it to fail meaning that the update needs to be reset).
You should therefore remove any Non Breaking Space characters from the ukl:number tagging that your amendment may have added to the amended provision by highlighting the ukl:Character/ tagging and deleting them (you can just select the tag and press the space bar):
Remember to leave a space where you have removed the Non Breaking Space character:
See also Removing unwanted tagging.
Removing internal links that don't work in amendment text
Sometimes there may be internal links within your amendment text that don't work once they are imported into your affected document.
See, for example, the amendment in 2023 c. 30 Sch. 13 para. 2 to insert s. 1(3ZA) into 1979 c. 2:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/30/schedule/13/paragraph/2
Although the internal link to 2023 c. 30, Pt. 2 in the amendment text works fine here in the affecting document (which is linking to itself), when the amendment was made, the internal links to 2023 c. 30, Pt. 2 only came through with the link attribute “Ref: Part 2”, so the link didn’t didn’t go anywhere. The solution was to remove the ukl:InternalLink tagging from around the words “Part 2” in XMetaL, using the following method:
1. Place your cursor within the ukl:InternalLink tagging:
2. Select Edit - Remove Tags from top menu bar:
Note that you can also use the keyboard shortcut “Ctrl + Shift + D” to remove the tagging.
See the completed amendment here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/2/section/1#section-1-3ZA
See more on removing unwanted tagging here.
| NOTE: If your amendment text contains a large number of these internal links and it is too time-consuming to remove them all, they may be left in. It just means the links won't go anywhere in the amended document. |
Correction slip tagging
To remove this tagging, click on the opening ? to select the red text, and you can just delete it using the “Delete” key on your keyboard.
Processing instructions with type = “amends”
For old amending documents used for amendments done on SLD, there may be processing instructions with type = “amends”. These were used to link affected docs to affecting docs for the purposes of the annotations (when we used to add curly brackets round the operative provisions). These can be removed if they occur in your amendment text.
Cleaning up amendment text for “amendment to earlier affecting provision” effects
Don't forget to clean up the amendment text and add an appended commentary to the annotation when applying an “amendment to earlier affecting provision” effect where the original amendment has been amended before coming into force.
This is described here: EU Exit Update Guidance Notes - "Amendment to earlier affecting provision" effects and their annotations.
For more general guidance about applying “amendment to earlier affecting provision” effects, see the Amendment to Earlier Affecting Provison page.
Text of a provision missing or appearing where it shouldn't in the preview
Missing text in the website preview
Sometimes there is an issue in secondary UK legislation when there is no text before sub-sub-provisions and the content does not get displayed on the website preview. We get round this by adding a ukl:Text tag containing an em dash (i.e.“—”) before the sub-sub-provisions.
Text left intact in website preview after auto repeal
Check Explanatory Note when wholly revoking secondary legislation using auto repeal - has EN been partially dotty lined?
There is currently a bug in the auto repeal facility which means that sometimes the Explanatory Note (EN) is left intact and still appears at the end of the revoked SI and sometimes the EN gets dotty lined and no longer appears at the end of the revoked SI. We have asked TSO to fix this so that in future all ENs will get dotty lined when the SI gets revoked and therefore will not appear at the end of the revoked SI. In the meantime, until that fix is released, if the EN remains intact you do not need to dotty line it. It's not substantive legal text so we can justify it remaining in place. If the text of the EN remains intact but there is an F-note reference for the revocation in the EN title, you should remove the F-note reference. Please also check that the auto repeal hasn't partially revoked the EN, and dotty lined bits of it (e.g. where there are numbered paras in the EN) as this looks awful. If the EN has been partially dotty lined please check it out and add the text back in before submitting for review or publishing.
Schedules
Treating italic headings in Schedules as cross-headings
See, for example:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/3/schedule/2/paragraph/59
Issues with inserting Schedule paragraphs as ukl:P1s within existing ukl:P1Groups
When Schedule paragraphs share a P1Group, it won't be possible to check out an individual paragraph without getting a “Page Not Found” Error”. The solution to this is covered in the Update Troubleshooting section:
Missing annotation for an F-note reference in the website preview of a Schedule
If you preview your amendment and click on the F-note reference and it doesn't go anywhere because the annotation text is missing, this may be due to the way the Schedule has been tagged.
For example, in this Schedule, none of the annotations were appearing for the F-note references within the table in Schedule 3, because it had been tagged within a P1Group:
The solution was to move the title and text into the tabular tagging (and remove the P1Group tagging):
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/3231/schedule/3/2023-03-31
Note: the solution will depend on your tagging scenario, so may be different to this example.
Related topic: Missing annotation even though there is an F-note reference in REUL.
Annotations
Annotation text
| See also: Annotation Conventions |
Make sure that hyperlinks, including any KOs, have generated correctly in annotations
| See also: XMetaL and XML tagging - Fixing Hyperlinks |
Where the hyperlinks for some or all affecting provisions in an annotation are not appearing, this is quickly solved by checking the fragment out, copying the annotation from the Preview and pasting that over the annotation in the commentary tagging in XMetaL. This leaves just text with no ukl:Citation or ukl:CitationSubref tags. When you check the fragment back in, the system will see that it has no links and will add them in for you. For more detail see XMetaL and XML Tagging - Fixing Hyperlinks.
Make sure annotations for KO amendments have had the original affecting document hyperlinked
This is described here: Annotations for knock-on amendments (note that although this section relates to EU Exit documents, the principles are the same for any KO annotation; so where that section mentions “first wave” EU Exit SI, this would be the original affecting document for non-EU exit documents).
Also see this example, where the non-textual amendments auto-annotations have been generated, but the hyperlink to the affecting provision (S.I. 2000/2793) has not been made:
As editors we should pick up on this and use the edit/update buttons against those notes (as they appear in the website preview) which will automatically add the missing hyperlinks in:
BEWARE: when using the edit annotation functionality, of creating broken links for citations which cite two sub-provisions at the same level, for example “s. 1(3)(4)” or “s. 1(2)(a)(b)”. This will need some additional work in the attributes in the ukl:CitationSubref tag in XMetaL to make the link work properly (see XMetaL and XML Tagging - Fixing hyperlinks).
Operative provisions
Remember that hyperlinks for operative provisions in annotations should be bold. You can edit this by setting the Operative attribute to "true" within the Attribute Inspector in XMetaL.
For more detail see XMetaL and XML Tagging - Operative Attribute.
Remove initial capitals of certain provisions in annotations where type of effect is “Sum substituted”
The system will generate an annotation “Sum in Reg. 3 substituted by” etc, this should be corrected to “Sum in reg. 3 substituted by” etc.
Incorrectly generated references to provisions in annotations
Look out for annotations which wrongly state, eg. “Reg. 23A 23B inserted” – these are generated incorrectly and should be changed to “Regs. 23A, 23B inserted”. Similarly annotations reading “Sch. 4, Sch. 5” should be corrected to read “Schs. 4, 5”. See Annotation Conventions - Standard Abbreviations.
"(revoked)" or "(repealed)" appearing after affecting document title in an annotation
Sometimes, if an item of affecting legislation has been revoked before its effects were applied in update, the word "(revoked)" may follow the affecting document title in annotations when the document's effects are applied during update, and this should be removed when you check the annotations. Also look out for duplication of the year that also needs to be removed, for example:
Regulations revoked (31.12.2020) by The Misappropriation (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (revoked) 2020 (S.I. 2020/1468), regs. 1(2), 38(d); S.I. 2020/1514, reg. 23(2)
was changed to:
Regulations revoked (31.12.2020) by The Misappropriation (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/1468), regs. 1(2), 38(d); S.I. 2020/1514, reg. 23(2)
Amending the annotation for subsequent PiTs where an amendment is being brought further into force over time
In the case of incremental amendments, if wording in the system-generated annotation needs changing at the first PiT, note that the original wording will appear again in the annotation as the relevant provision comes further/fully into force so will need changing again.
Annotation references (also known as footnote references)
All annotations have a reference number and the nature of the information contained in the annotation is conveyed by the annotation letter at the start of the reference number.
See the Annotation Conventions page for more information about the different types of annotation.
Footnote references appearing in the WRONG location
Look out for footnote references slipping to the wrong position after check-in, or a new F-note being inserted in the wrong location when a non-textual effect is auto-applied and fails to overwrite the existing annotation (also known as “hanging F-notes”, for an example of this see below).
Note that slipped footnote references might not even be related to the amendment being carried out, as in this example where M-note references slipped to the wrong position after non-textual effects were applied to the Introductory Text:
Original position:
"Slipped" position:
See more on drafters footnotes slipping to the start of the preamble, below.
Issue with “Hanging F-note”: further commencement annotation fails to overwrite existing F-note annotation
| Related reading: Applying partially in force amendments which are then brought further into force over time |
When an amendment which is already partially in force is brought further into force by a commencement order this should result in an auto annotation task which overwrites the existing annotation (which contained the previous commencement details) with a new annotation which contains the new commencement details (i.e. the additional data stored in the IFCO columns in TOES for the new commencement order).
However, sometimes (for various reasons, for example as here because the amendment was done initially as a manual amendment) the auto annotation task fails to overwrite the existing annotation and instead leaves the existing annotation intact and inserts a new F-note reference for the new version of the annotation. This means we are left with two versions of the annotation: (1) the old version of the annotation which is linked to the amendment brackets (or repeal comref) in the text; and (2) the new version of the annotation which is linked to a "hanging F-note" reference at higher level parent number (e.g. Schedule or Part number etc), whole provision number or sub-provision number level. The example below is from 2014 anaw 4, s. 182(1)(d) where a substitution of words has been brought further into force. You can see (ringed in red) a new F1 comref has been inserted at sub-provision (1)(d) level and this points to the new further commencement annotation. The old F2 amendment bracket refs however (ringed in yellow) have not been overwritten and still point to the old version of the annotation (crossed through in yellow). We want the amendment bracket refs to point to the new annotation.
We need to fix this by making the amendment brackets (or repeal comref, as the case may be) point instead to the new annotation.
Method:
1. Check out the affected provision in XMetaL. In this example you can see that the original amendment is a manual amendment and has a different key-id from the new further commencement annotation. That is why the new annotation did not overwrite the old annotation.
2. Find the new version of the further commencement annotation (usually the last <commentaries> tagging at the bottom of the page).
3. Place your cursor in the <commentary> tagging and view its attributes using the attribute inspector.
4. Copy the Commentary id number.
5. Go to the opening amendment bracket for the relevant amendment, place your cursor in the bracket and view its attributes.
6. Paste the new commentary id number over the value next to the CommentaryRef attribute. The amendment will now point to the new annotation.
7. Now find the "hanging F-note" reference (i.e. the commentary ref inserted by the auto annotation task at either provision or sub-provision number level) and delete it. This will remove the "hanging F-note".
8. Check the fragment back in.
There is a slightly different but related issue whereby, even though the auto annotation task has correctly replaced the old version of the annotation with the new version, it has in addition added an unnecessary new F-note comref at parent, provision or sub-provision number level. In the example below an additional F-note ref has been placed at Sch. 2 number level even though the annotation is about an omitted entry further down in the Table. Both the new comref and the amendment brackets point to the correct new version of the annotation:
In this case, we do not need to play about with CommentaryRef ids. We just need to remove the unwanted new comref which is sitting in the Schedule number tagging:
This leaves us with just the amendment brackets pointing to the annotation and therefore only the appropriate F-note refs showing in the text:
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 for an F-note reference in website preview
This usually occurs in Schedules (also Appendices in REUL), as described above.
Drafters footnotes
See also Glossary - drafters footnotes for more information about what we refer to as “drafters footnotes” in the Wiki.
Drafters footnotes that appear in amending text should be removed
Drafters footnotes that appear in amending text should be removed, as described here:
Remove drafters footnotes in amending text.
Taking into account drafters footnotes when inserting words into secondary legislation
Do not insert words between a drafters footnote reference and the words that they relate to, for example:
The words “or the Upper Tribunal” were inserted after the footnote reference M1, to make sure that the footnote reference stayed with the words it relates to (Social Security Commissioners).
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/606/schedule/3/paragraph/3
Amend drafters footnotes that appear as F-notes in secondary legislation
If you see any drafters footnotes appearing as F-notes, you should amend the attributes to make them appear as M-notes UNLESS they are in amendment text, in which case they should be removed by deleting the F-note references.
Making amendments to drafters footnotes
We are currently unable to make textual amendments to drafters footnotes that are tagged with ukl:Footnote tagging (i.e. footnote reference with a number in square brackets) 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 in XMetaL. The drafters footnote will be tagged with ukl:FootnoteRef tagging like this:
You can delete this reference and insert an M-note reference in its place:
2. Then manually amend the text of the M-note you have inserted according to the affecting provision (use square brackets from your keyboard around any substituted or inserted text), 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.]
Except percussion caps specifically designed for use in toys, without prejudice to the provisions of the [Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations 2005]. [Editorial Note: Words in Sch. 3 footnote substituted (26.4.2005) by The Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2005/1082), reg. 1(1), Sch. 5 para. 39 (with reg. 3)]
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1995/204/schedule/3/paragraph/10/2005-04-26
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.
Note: Use square brackets from your keyboard to surround
Drafters footnotes slipping to start of preamble
| Beware – there is a bug in the editorial system when applying non-textual auto-annotations to a preamble. When the edit is applied, the system seems to be moving any drafters footnotes that appear as M-note references to the beginning of the sentence containing that M-note reference. At the moment, this bug has only been noticed in SIs, but editors should check for this issue in all non-textual amendments to the introductory text (i.e. whole document level) in all legislation and report any other instances. |
See, for example:
Before amendment applied:
After amendment applied:
If this happens in your update task, you need to check out the Introductory text in XMetaL and move the M-notes back to where they should be (using the previous PiT as a guide). For example:
From this...
To this...
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/3330/introduction
Issues with I-notes
For more guidance related to I-notes, see Applying “coming into force” effects.
Duplicate I-notes where there are multiple provisions within one P1Group
Look out for the same I-note being duplicated in multiple provisions, where several provisions share one set of P1Group tags (i.e. multiple P1s within one set of P1Group tags), as in this example where regs. 5-7 all shared the same P1Group as reg. 4, so the I-note for reg. 4 also appeared in regs. 5-7:
To resolve this, you should add a new ukl:P1group for each P1 using the Element List, leaving the ukl:Title tagging empty, and move the relevant ukl:P1 tagging and contents for the relevant paragraph into its new ukl:P1group
You should end up with only one I-note in each provision:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2022/1118/body/2024-01-01
Note that retagging of provisions into separate ukl:P1groups should only be carried out in the first PiT when you are checking the I-notes - if your update task has gone past the first PiT, you will need to go back to the first PiT to carry out any retagging, otherwise you will create problems in the timeline.
Remove the duplication of the words “in force” in I-notes
Eg. “Reg. 4 in force at 31.12.2020 in force on IP completion day (in accordance with 2020 c. 1, Sch. 5 para. 1(1)), see reg. 1”
The second “in force” should be deleted.
Add I-notes to provisions inserted before a document is commenced and ensure that provisions substituted prior to commencement retain their I-note
Where a provision is inserted before into a document before that document is commenced (as occurred in EU Exit SIs before they were commenced on IP completion day), then you will need to manually add an I-note for that provision, for example:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/758/regulation/4A
Note: when you insert an I-note, place the I-note reference before the provision number in XMetaL.
Where a provision is substituted prior to commencement, you should make sure that it retains its I-note, for example:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/530/regulation/130
Timeline of changes
The Timeline of Changes enables users to see how revised legislation has changed or could change over time by providing access to points in time where changes occurred. The dates on the timeline are known as “Points in Time” or “PiTs”.
The first date on the timeline will usually show the provision in the form in which it was enacted or made, or in the form in which it had effect at the relevant basedate (1 January 2006 for Northern Ireland legislation or 1 February 1991 for all other revised legislation) if that was later. That date will be based on the earliest date on which that provision was in force to any extent or for any purpose (or the basedate if that was later). In the case of higher levels of provisions such as Parts, Chapters, etc. the first date on the timeline will be no later than the earliest in force date of any provision beneath it.
A new date is added to the timeline whenever the text is amended. Dates added as a result of an amendment or other effect will be based on the earliest date at which that effect came into force to any extent or for any purpose. Once a new date is added to the timeline for a new amendment, the new amended version of the text will supersede the previous dated version and appear as the current version.
NOTE that the commencement of any provision of an item of legislation may be determined by the commencement provision of that item of legislation or it may be left to be determined subsequently (usually by a Statutory Instrument called a “Commencement Order”). In the latter case, we say that the provision is “prospective”. Instead of a new date being added to the timeline, the word “prospective” will appear.
The timeline shown at individual provision level (e.g. section) will include only the dates of changes that occurred to that provision. Timelines at higher levels (e.g. Act or Part) will include all the dates of changes that occurred to any provision that comes under that heading as well as any changes that have occurred to that level specifically, e.g. words in the Part title have been substituted. This means that there may be many more dates on a timeline at higher levels than within individual provisions.
See also Editorial Principles - Commencement,Editorial Update - Applying “coming into force” effects and Update Troubleshooting - Using the Timeline Resolver.
Dealing with timeline and coming into force issues
See Using the Timeline Resolver to resolve timeline issues and errors in stop dates in the data.
Prospective provision being brought into force is still showing as prospective – how to set the start date
If your amendment involves bringing a provision into force at the PiT you are working on, but the provision is still showing as prospective when you preview it on the website, you should check the provision out in XMetaL, and:
- Select 'View' – 'Attribute Inspector' in XMetaL – this will open a new window where you can add in the start date. The field is called 'restrictstartdate'.
- Make sure your cursor is positioned immediately after the P1group (if the provision contains a heading) and just after the P1 open tag (if there is no heading).
- Enter the start date into the restrictstartdate field e.g. 2012-04-06. The status field (entry under the restrictstartdate) will say 'prospective'. Delete the word prospective from there too.
- Check your document back in.
- If you get a 500 error ensure that you have added the correct date in the correct format. Note you will only be able to add a date in here that coincides with the date of the Point in Time you are working on. If you try to add a later or earlier date you will get a 500 error.
Inserting a provision into a parent level that is not yet in force (or is only partially in force)
Make sure child provisions revoked before coming into force look prospective
This is described here: Child provisions revoked immediately before IP completion day should look prospective and their I-notes should be removed.
Using the Timeline Resolver to resolve timeline issues and errors in stop dates in the data
| Related reading: Point in Time Issues |
The Timeline Resolver fixes issues where the metadata for a provision has become out of sync with the data itself. The metadata includes the start dates, end dates, alt dates and valid dates (including any Match Attributes or Statuses). The option to Resolve Timeline appears directly below the timeline:
Note: the Timeline Resolver will only appear in the preview if the update or correction task is allocated to you or you are logged in as admin.
There are a number of scenarios where you can use the Timeline Resolver to fix issues, as described below.
Beware of start date issue when inserting a parent and children into a high level grandparent fragment
| WARNING: There is currently an issue with inserting a parent and children into a high level grandparent fragment. The start date is not getting properly added to the inserted parent and then on check in it’s not calculating the empty child start dates correctly because of that. The workaround is either:
1. Ensure the high level grandparent you check out to do your insertion has had its timeline resolved beforehand to add the current PiT or ensure that start date is added after check out (if the grandparent has the wrong date that’s part of the problem); or 2. Make sure the inserted parent has the correct restrict start date before check in; that should then ensure the system calculates the child start dates properly. |
Scenario 1: Point in Time is missing/disappears from the timeline
A relatively common issue that you might have seen is when you are viewing a Point in Time (PiT) in the preview, then you navigate back to an earlier PiT and the one you were on originally disappears from the timeline. The PiT you were on originally is still in the data, it’s just that the PiT you have moved to doesn’t ‘know’ about it - there is no information in that PiT about the later PiT so it doesn’t appear on the timeline. In this scenario if you select Resolve Timeline (without selecting any date options), the routine will go through and refresh all the metadata and the missing PiT on the timeline will reappear.
Scenario 2: Incorrect Stop Dates causing issues with amendments not ‘sticking’ or checking back in
Occasionally you may experience an error checking update back in, either you get an error on check in or check in appears to work but when you check the preview/ XML the amendment did not save. This is sometimes caused by incorrect stop dates in the metadata data. If you go to the preview and select Resolve Timeline (without selecting any date options) then the routine will fix the stop dates as it refreshes the metadata.
Note: you should Resolve Timeline at both the provision level and the level of the immediate ‘parent’ heading.
Scenario 3: Corrections – Add in a new Point in Time for a provision where the PiT already exists in other provisions OR remove a redundant PiT
The corrections tool as it stands does not allow us to insert a new PiT for a provision where that PiT already exists in the legislation. If you click on the Insert Date option, the dropdown menu will list the PiTs that exist for the document. Ensure you are viewing the provision for which you would like to insert the PiT, select the date and then select Resolve Timeline to add the version onto the timeline. This version will be a copy of the version which came immediately before it and you will be able to check it out to amend it straight away.
Note: You should also ensure the PiT added exists for the parent and add it in there too if necessary.
Example: To create a new version of s. 1 for a missed amendment that came into force on 19-11-2019. Open s. 1 in preview, select the date from the dropdown menu and then select Resolve Timeline:
The new PiT will appear on the timeline and can be edited straight away from the update or corrections task:
The Remove date option can be used to remove a version of a provision, if for example we later find that it is not needed due to a ToEs error.
Please note that if the PiT you wish to add does not exist in the legislation already then the only way to add an entirely new PiT is through Legislation Corrections. Similarly, if the PiT to be removed means that PiT is redundant for the whole document then you will need to raise a correction to ensure that all traces of the PiT are removed from all levels of the document.
Scenario 4: Corrections - Remove a date where only one PiT exists to create a wholly prospective provision or add a date to a provision which is no longer prospective
Occasionally, we need to correct the start dates on legislation data e.g. we discover a provision should have been brought into force and it hasn’t been or we find a provision has been incorrectly brought into force. The Timeline Resolver can be used to fix the data. If the Timeline Resolver is used to remove the only existing PiT the provision will be set to prospective. Similarly, an existing prospective version can be made into an in force PiT by choosing a date from the insert PiT options on the Timeline Resolver.
Scenario 5: Incorrect Stop Date appearing on Timeline
Incorrect stop date on the timeline due to error in original data. Timeline originally looked like this:
Selecting Resolve Timeline removes the stop date from the timeline but adds a new unnecessary PiT as at the stop date, in this case 1/3/1991:
The unnecessary PiT can be removed using the Remove Date box. Select 1/3/1991 from the drop down box and then select Resolve Timeline to remove the PiT:
Final result:
Note: if you are not sure whether the stop date is an error in the original data, check with a Review Editor before you start to resolve the timeline.
Scenario 6: Incorrect Start Date appearing on Timeline
Sometimes, when we insert a new whole provision, instead of getting as its start date the date of the PiT you are working in, it may incorrectly be given the earlier restrict start date of the parent provision into which it has been inserted. You should always check the start date of your newly inserted provision by viewing the timeline in the website preview and, if it is incorrect, you should correct it. You can correct the timeline using the Timeline Resolver.
For example, when S.I. 2007/1711, regs. 23A, 23B were inserted on 5.2.2008, an incorrect start date (12.7.2007, the commencement date for the Pt. 5 parent provision) was added to the timeline for reg. 23B. This was missed during update and review and so was still incorrectly showing in the timeline when the provision came to be edited again on 31.12.2020:
Note: this also resulted in a "Page not found" error when PiT 12.7.2007 was selected on the timeline.
To amend this, the correct start date was selected from the Insert date dropdown box and the Resolve Timeline button was clicked:
The Timeline Resolver added the correct start date of 5.2.2008 to the timeline:
The incorrect start date of 12.7.2007 then needed to be removed from the timeline by selecting it from the Remove date dropdown box and clicking the Resolve Timeline button:
The incorrect start date of 12.7.2007 was removed:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/1711/regulation/23B/2020-12-31
First use the timeline resolver to insert the correct start date:
Next remove the incorrect start date:
You should be left with the timeline showing the correct start date:
-->
Approach to ‘awkward’ amendments
| See also: Annotation Conventions - ‘Awkward’ Amendments |
This section gives guidance on the approach to take in situations where it may not be possible to carry out an amendment in the usual way, or where special consideration needs to be taken about how to carry out the amendment, for example when several amendments are hitting the same text at the same time, or where text is being amended that we are unable to edit.
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions
There are a series of instruments called “Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions” (see for example, The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (S.I. 2016/362)) which are unusual in being split into two parts, the first of which contains regulations and the second contains directions. There are two signatures in these documents, one that comes after the regulations (which will be an image) and the second at the end of the directions (in the usual signature element).
The provisions in these documents should include the Part number when they get recorded in TOES (e.g. “Pt. 01 reg. 001” or “Pt. 02 dir. 008(02)”), to ensure that the hyperlinks that get generated in annotation link to the right place. During update we will need to check and, if necessary, correct any hyperlinks that don't work.
Directions are cited as “dir.” in annotations. See for example dir. 8 in Pt. 2 for an example of an amendment by a direction in Pt. 2 of another S.I. and also an example of an I-note:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/part/2/regulation/8
Words in dir. 8(2) inserted (E.) (4.7.2020) by The Electric Scooter Trials and Traffic Signs (Coronavirus) Regulations and General Directions 2020 (S.I. 2020/663), dirs. 1(2), 2(2)
I1 Dir. 8 in force at 22.4.2016, see dir. 1(b)
Also note that old documents will need to be updated (rather than just revoking them without historic versions) because the old ones are saved when they get revoked so that a sign put up under the old S.I. is treated as conforming to the new S.I., so people need to see what the old requirements were, for example:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/part/1/regulation/14
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/part/2/regulation/13
Situations where we can't carry out an amendment in the usual way or where manual intervention is required
See also Manual Amendments.
Updating Tables of Contents
Textual amendments to the main table of contents of an item of legislation are not made during editorial update, as the table of contents is dynamically generated. These effects are recorded in TOES, but should have been marked N in the “Applied to database” column with a Note saying 'This amendment not applied to legislation.gov.uk'. The table of contents for this legislation will be dynamically updated when its provisions are revised'. If you encounter an amendment to a table of contents during editorial update, you should check with a Review Editor as a TOES correction may be necessary. Note that amendments to tables of contents elsewhere in the legislation other than the main table of contents (e.g. to a table of contents at the top of Part 2 of a Schedule) will have to be applied as textual amendments.
Amendments to the title of an item of legislation
In the past, amendments to the title of an item of legislation used to be recorded as “title amended”, because we were unable to amend the top level “dc title” ourselves, and needed to get TSO to help us with this. Now, however, we can record the effect as normal, for example, “words substituted” against the affected provision “Title” and carry out the amendment as a normal textual amendment and the dc title will also automatically get updated.
See, for example, the substitution of words in the title of S.I. 2013/3116 on 31/12/2020:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3116/introduction/2020-12-31
Note the wording of the annotation for this amendment, which reads:
Words in Title substituted (31.12.2020) by The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/632), regs. 1(3), 190(2); 2020 c. 1, Sch. 5 para. 1(1)
When the Title is amended during update, the editorial system also automatically updates the dc:title element in the xml (this is the title in the metadata that is shown above the timeline on legislation.gov.uk) from PiT 15.8.2020 onwards so it says:
“The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Qualifying Provisions) ( No. 2) Order 2013”
instead of:
“The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Qualifying EU Provisions) (No. 2) Order 2013”
This enables users to search for the document under both titles. Please check that this automatic change has taken place by toggling between the new and old PiTs on the timeline.
See also:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/828/introduction/2020-08-15
For an example of an omission of words in the title of an item of legislation (note the omission will be marked with three dots in the dc title).
You may still see the type of effect as “title amended” for older documents where the effects were recorded before this change came about. In this case, carry out the amendment and amend the wording of the annotation, as appropriate e.g. “Words in Title omitted” and double check that the dc title has also been updated with your amendment.
Amendments to the appearance of words
An amendment may make a change to the appearance of a word or words, without otherwise inserting or substituting the text. For example, S.I. 2005/1766, Sch. 2 para. 2 amends S.I. 2003/1417, Sch. 4 in the following way:
In Form K, the word “or” where it appears between the words “registered estate” and “registered charge dated” shall be in italics.
See how this amendment was applied here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/1417/schedule/4/2005-10-24
See XMetal and XML tagging for guidance on the appropriate tagging to use in such a situation.
Amendments to the text of drafters footnotes
We are currently unable to make textual amendments to 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.
Amendments to definitions
Inserting definitions and paragraphs within definitions
Definitions are often tagged as ‘ordered lists’ or ‘unordered lists’ and this means that amendments to definitions such as insertions of whole paragraphs or sub-paragraphs within definitions need to be treated as insertions of words (not insertions of provisions).
See an example of inserting multiple list items as part of the same task on the Lists page.
See an example of inserting sub-entries within an existing list on the Lists page.
Repealing a definition
For the same reason, treat the repeal of a definition as a repeal of words. For more detail, see Repealing a Definition on the Lists page.
When a whole definition (which is a list item) is omitted, make sure that any sub-paragraphs are removed
Where a whole definition which is a list item has sub-paragraphs (a), (b) etc, make sure after checking back in that any sub-paragraphs have been removed and, if not, check it out again and delete them manually, for example:
Check the provision out again in XMetaL:
Highlight and delete the <ukl:OrderedList> tagging that contains the sub-paragraphs that need to be removed:
You should be left with the three dots and the F-note reference for the omission within the <ukl:Text> and <ukl:Para> tags inside the <ukl:ListItem> tagging as follows:
In preview:
Unequal substitutions
See Provision Level Substitutions - Unequal substitution of sub-provisions and Higher Level Substitutions - Unequal substitutions of whole provisions.
Sub-provisions substituted for words
See Provision Level Substitutions - Sub-provisions substituted for words.
Multiple, conflicting or duplicate amendments
Two amendments hitting the same provision at the same time
Where two amendments hit the same provision at exactly the same time (and the wording of those amendments causes us no difficulties), then the amendment which was made later (i.e. the one in the later numbered document) will prevail over the one made by the earlier numbered document. The drafter is presumed to know about the earlier amendment and to have deliberately overwritten it, so we effectively apply both amendments in the order in which they were made and that leaves the later one in place since we cannot make more than one version on one date. Both effects should then be marked as applied during update.
See, for example, S.I. 2019/170, reg. 2(32)(a)(ii) which is substituted by S.I. 2020/1388, reg. 20(2)(k)(i) on 31.12.2020 immediately before IP completion day. That same reg. 2(32)(a)(ii) was also substituted on 31.12.2020 immediately before IP completion day by an earlier amending document, S.I. 2019/1220, reg. 5(2)(d)(i)(aa). Working on the basis that we apply the effects in the order they were made this earlier effect does not appear in the affected provision because it gets immediately substituted in its turn by S.I. 2020/1388, reg. 20(2)(k)(i). It is, however, marked as applied.
For another example, see SI 2005/1803, reg. 6(2), which was hit by two different amendments on 31.12.2020:
SI 2019/696, Sch. 9 para. 4(3)(b)
(b) for “that national standard” substitute “ S ”
and 2020 c. 29, Sch. 4 para. 2(a).
(a) in paragraph (2), for the words from “voluntary” to “the product” substitute “standard (“S”) which— (a) is a voluntary national standard of the United Kingdom or a standard adopted by an international standardising body, and (b) meets the conditions in paragraph (2A),the product”
The later (i.e. 2020 Act) amendment was applied, as the drafters are assumed to have known about the earlier amendment and to have drafted an amendment that makes the amendment by SI 2019/696 obsolete. Since both amendments come into force at exactly the same time, the 2020 Act prevails and the 2019 SI “beats the air” (although it is also marked as applied).
See also the scenario described in the next section though, where multiple substitutions affect the same set of words in the same provision at one PiT, where the amendments do all need to be carried out, but in a specific order.
Multiple insertions of provisions with the same number
We do get genuine instances (admittedly usually resulting from drafting errors), where two provisions with the same number get inserted. We should raise a lex error for these situations. In the meantime we have to account for it in update and we should refer this to TSO to look at the URLs of each provision for us to make sure they work as expected from the ToC.
Multiple substitutions affecting the same set of words in the same provision at one PiT
Two amendments are made to the same set of words in 2006 c.14, s. 57(3)(a)(4) by 2012 c. 7, s. 172(4)(5)(b) and s. 173(2)(a)(i)(iii) on 1/4/2013.
Commencement information: s. 172(4)(5)(b) comes into force immediately before the coming into force of section 173 (by S.I. 2013/671, art. 2(2)) and s. 173(2)(a)(i)(iii) comes into force on 1/4/2013 (by S.I. 2013/671, art. 2(3))
The amendments by s. 172(4)(5)(b) have to be done first, otherwise some or all of the amendments by s. 173 will not work.
S. 172(4)(5)(b) state:
“(4) In subsection (3)(a) of that section, for “section 54(3)” substitute “section 54(4)”. (5) In subsection (4) of that section— … (b) for “section 54(4)(a) to (c)” substitute “section 54(4)(a) or (c)”.”
And then s. 173(2)(a)(i)(iii) substitute two sets of words including those substituted words:
“(2) … (a) in section 57 of that Act (as amended by section 172 of this Act)— (i) in subsection (3)(a), for “the persons mentioned in section 54(4)” substitute “another NHS foundation trust, an NHS trust established under section 25 or the Secretary of State”, … (iii) in subsection (4), for “any of the bodies mentioned in section 54(4)(a) or (c)” substitute “another NHS foundation trust or an NHS trust established under section 25””
But in the commencement information, “immediately” means without anything coming in between, so the drafter really wants to get to the amendments by s. 173 straight away but they have to do the amendments by s. 172(4)(5)(b) first.
Therefore, during update, the amendments by s. 172(4)(5)(b) were marked as applied and a note was added for the reviewer explaining why they’re invisible. Then the amendments by s. 173(2)(a)(i)(iii) were applied and the F-notes were changed for the amendments by s. 173(2)(a)(i)(iii) to mention s. 172(4) and (5)(b) (as appropriate) and S.I. 2013/671, art. 2(2).
Final result: See F8 and F11 in s. 57(3)(4): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/41/section/57/2013-04-01
Insertion and substitution of the same provision at one PiT
See also SSI 2009/85, where Pt. 3A gets inserted on 31.12.2020 "immediately before IP completion day", but then gets substituted straight away on IP completion day, by the same affecting document, so the substituted version is the one that prevails:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2009/85/part/3A
The annotation reflects both the insertion and subsequent substitution of Pt. 3A:
Pt. 3A inserted and immediately substituted (31.12.2020) by The Aquaculture and Fisheries (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2020 (S.S.I. 2020/393), regs. 1(2)(3), 2(4), 3(5)
Revocation and re-enactment of amendments (identical or near identical amendments being made by new affecting document)
Previous identical (or near identical) amendments have already been made at a previous PiT
You may notice that identical or almost identical amendments as have already been made to your affected document are being made by a new affecting document. In this case, you should check the EN and/or EM to see what’s going on and look for a provision which revokes the previous amending document. Very often, the drafters have revoked the previous affecting document and are re-enacting its amendments. In this situation, we should re-do the amendments over the top of the existing amendments (to completely replace the existing amendments), and use the edit annotation function in the website preview of the new annotation to add mention of the provision that revokes the earlier affecting, for example:
F14 Words in reg. 5 inserted (N.I) (1.4.2023) by The Occupational Pension Schemes (Master Trusts) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2023 (S.R. 2023/59), regs. 1, 31(2)(a), 33
Previous identical (or near identical) amendments have not yet been made (affecting document is revoked before they come into force)
Look out for the scenario where an affecting document gets revoked before it comes into force by a document that makes the same amendments as the document it is revoking. This often happens when the previous document is defective in some way, and the new document is issued to correct errors in the previous document.
See for example SI 2023/1266, which was due to come into force on 1/1/2024 and make amendments to SI 2021/77, but got revoked before coming into force by SI 2023/1393 on 31/12/2023, which was due to make those identical amendments to SI 2021/77 (but on the earlier date):
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2023/1266
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2023/1393
If this revocation and re-enactment of effects doesn't get picked up when the effects are recorded, you might see two identical sets of amendments coming through in your update task. The effects by the document that gets revoked before coming into force will not be applied (i.e. marked as “Edit not required” in the update task) and need to be corrected in the TOES by the Reviewer to mark the effects with an N and Note to say that the document was revoked before coming into force.
Inserting a provision or sub-provision that was previously repealed
If a provision or sub-provision is repealed or revoked and then a new provision or sub-provision with the same number is inserted at a later PiT, this should be carried out as a substitution of the existing provision/sub-provision, but the annotation should still read “inserted”. Do not insert as a new whole provision or sub-provision, as we will end up with duplicates.
Examples:
EUR 2019/424, Art. 8 omitted on 31/12/2020:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2019/424/article/8/2020-12-31
Art. 8 re-inserted on 1/10/2021:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2019/424/article/8/2021-10-01
1992 c. 40, section 73(6)(7) omitted on 1/10/2005:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/40/section/73/2005-10-01
Section 73(6)(7) re-inserted on 29/6/2008:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/40/section/73/2017-05-01
If you go back and forth on the timelines, you can see that the amendments were carried out on the existing provision or sub-provisions.
See also:
See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/2996/schedule/4/paragraph/76/2016-04-01 (provision was omitted at previous PiT 1/4/2015 and is now inserted again).
Revival of a previously repealed/revoked provision
If a repealed/revoked provision is revived, we would have to copy the xml from the version previous to the dotty lined version and make a new version from the date it got revived. This can be done using “Download Amending Document” functionality in XMetaL and entering the editorial.legislation.gov.uk url for the provision in the dialog box, but instead of including /enacted/data.xml?view=edit or /made/data.xml?view=edit at the end of the URL to pick up the original version of the provision, you need instead to enter the start date of the relevant version you wish to copy: e.g. /2021-04-01/data.xml?view=edit
If this doesn't work then you should leave a note for the reviewer to ask them to do it for you via corrections after review is complete.
Two “identical” revocations at the same PiT
If you have two revocations at the same PiT that appear to be identical, check whether they are being made for specified purposes, as in this example where, on closer inspection, the revocation of Sch. 1 para. 156(2) was being made by one document for specified purposes and by another document for all remaining purposes. The revocation was carried out in full and the details merged into one annotation:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/56/schedule/1/paragraph/156/2010-04-01
Affecting provisions:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/4/section/1181/2010-04-01
1181 Repeals and revocations
(1) Schedule 3 (repeals and revocations, including of spent enactments) has effect.
(2) The repeals and revocations specified in Part 2 of Schedule 3 have effect for corporation tax purposes only.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/8/section/378/2010-04-01
378 Repeals and revocations
(1) Schedule 10 (repeals and revocations, including of spent enactments and including repeals for purposes connected with other tax law rewrite Acts) has effect.
(2) If—
(a) CTA 2010 repeals or revokes a provision and the repeal or revocation is for corporation tax purposes only (see section 1181(2) of that Act), and
(b) this Act also repeals or revokes the provision, the repeal or revocation of the provision by this Act is for all purposes other than corporation tax purposes.
“Double” repeal of a word brought into force at different times and for different extents
On 1.4.2011, the word “and” at the end of 2005 c.5 s. 806(5)(c) was repealed for E. by 2008 c. 23, Sch. 1 para. 18(3)(a) and Sch. 4. Then on 6.4.2016, the word “and” was repealed for W. by Sch. 1 para. 18(3)(a) and Sch. 4:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/5/section/806#section-806-5-c
Note: the commencement of the omission of the word “and” in Sch. 1 para. 18 was brought into force for W. on 6.4.2016 and the repeal by Sch. 4 was not brought into force until 1.12.2017, however it was treated as fully repealed from 6.4.2016.
When amendments cannot be carried out because the amendment to introduce the target material is not yet in force
If you come across an effect to a provision that you cannot find in the affected legislation, it may be that that material is introduced by another amendment that is not yet in force.
Any effects which cannot be applied because of this need to be recorded in the conditional commencement spreadsheet and the effects set to N with a Note to explain why the amendment is not yet made.
Update editor:
- If material being hit does not appear in the affected legislation, research outstanding effects against that legislation (through downloading the TOES or checking on leg.gov to see what is yet to be applied).
- Identify the effect that introduces the material you are trying to amend and check the affecting provision is, indeed, prosp.
- At this point you have no option other than to tick off the edit as complete (even though it isn’t), but please put a note to the reviewer detailing:
- the effect that is yet to be brought into force
- reminding the reviewer to set the effect to effect not needed and N in the TOES, with a note
- reminding the reviewer to add the effect to the conditional spreadsheet, e.g.
‘Insertion of s 98(8A) by 1989 c 42 Sch 11 para 56 is still prosp. Reviewer – please set to N with note and add to conditional commencement spreadsheet’
Reviewer:
When you come across a note as detailed above, set the effect to not needed and at effects review stage add a note, e.g.
And then send Catherine and Janine the details so the effect can be added to the conditional commencement spreadsheet. The prosp effect will then be checked periodically and when it comes into force the outstanding amendment reactivated with the relevant date (for details see example below).
Example – conditional commencement spreadsheet
The applied (with mods.) effects to S.I. 1989/2405 (N.I.), ss. 208ZA, 208ZB by S.I. 2021/716, reg. 37A at PiT 4.1.2024 could not be carried out because the insertion of ss. 208ZA, 208ZB by 2016 c. 2 (N.I.), s. 1(1) was still prosp:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/716/regulation/37A
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/nia/2016/2/section/1
The details of these applied (with mods.) effects were marked as not needed (for now!) and added to the conditional commencement spreadsheet as follows:
Catherine and Janine check these conditional commencements periodically. When 2016 c. 2 (N.I.), s. 1(1) comes into force (which in turn brings the insertion of ss. 208ZA, 208ZB into force when the CER tasks are completed), we will do a TOES correction to insert that date as the IF Date for the applied (mods.) effects by S.I. 2021/716, reg. 37A. We will also include a note in the comments to editor to change the in force date in the annotation to 4.1.2024 (the date reg. 37A comes into force). The applied (mods.) effects will then appear in update at the same PiT as the insertion of ss. 208ZA, 208ZB.
If the affected legislation has not been updated beyond the date in force of the inserted provisions, then these tasks will appear in update as normal. However, if the affected legislation has been updated beyond the date in force of the inserted provisions, we will apply these amendments via a correction task and add a ‘Y’ to TOES for any relevant effects.
Pre-consolidation amendments
Pre-consolidation amendments may be marked with a Comment for Editor "Pre-consolidation amendment - affected provision may be repealed on the same date, in which case simply mark this effect as applied. Consult RLH if in doubt". If the affected provision is indeed repealed on the same date as the pre-consolidation amendment, the pre-consolidation amendment task does not need to be carried out and the effect can be marked as "Y".
For example, amendment of 2003 c. 44, s.143 by 2020 c. 9, Sch. 2 para. 57(2). Because this provision is consolidated into the new Sentencing Act 2020 c. 17 (a new consolidation Act which gathers together lots of provisions about sentencing from earlier Acts in one place to make the law easier to comprehend) the insertion of s. 143(2A) and the insertions/substitutions of words made by 2020 c. 9 occur to it immediately before it gets consolidated and repealed so that the provision is in the correct state to be included in the new Sentencing Act. So, the pre-consolidation effects were marked as applied and s. 143 was repealed in the usual way:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/9/schedule/2/paragraph/57/enacted
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/9/schedule/2/paragraph/57/2020-12-01
https://editorial.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/143
UPDATE TROUBLESHOOTING
| This section gives advice on dealing with error and warning messages in the Editorial System, and other issues that prevent you progressing with your update task. For advice about editorial update issues more generally, see the Specific Update Issues above. |
Update Troubleshooting - contents of this section
The main headings in this section are listed below, for a full list of contents in this section, including sub-headings, see the Table of Contents at the top of the page.
| Unable to start the update task | “Conflicting Updates” error message - recast identifiers |
| Missing amendment details on the Update Details page | Missing textual amendment details |
| Missing task details for non-textual amendments | |
| Unable to check out your affected provision | Provision not identified in the data: using the Task Association Tool to assign tasks to another provision |
| “Page Not Found” error when you open your amended provision | |
| “Internal error” message when trying to check out a high level provision | |
| Errors launching XMetaL | Resetting Workspace in XMetaL |
| Unable to open the amending document in XMetaL |
Amending document has now been repealed and you can’t access the amending provision in XMetaL |
| Unable to check your affected provision back in | “500 error” message - Refresh Fragment Set |
| “500 error” message when trying to check back in after inserting a 'non-textual' annotation |
Unable to start the update task
If there is an error message when you click on the green Start Task button, you should ask a Review Editor with admin access to reset and reallocate your update task. They may need to carry out a TOES correction to refresh the rdf.
“Conflicting Updates” error message - recast identifiers
Note that we also have the “Recast Identifiers” option available on the Update Overview page when we get a “Conflicting Updates” error message. In this scenario, we can first try to recast the identifiers by clicking the link and if this doesn’t resolve the error we should get TSO to fix it.
Missing amendment details on the Update Details page
Missing textual amendment details
If your amendment details are not displayed on the Update Details page, try refreshing the amendment catch by selecting the Refresh Amendment Cache button on the Update Overview page to refresh the amendment details and get them to display.
Missing task details for non-textual amendments
Occasionally, there will be amendments listed under Auto Annotations on the Update Overview page, but if you click on the Details button, the task details are missing:
To find the task details, open the High Level Amendments table of contents from the Update Overview page
Then click on the relevant provision on the left hand side of the screen, for example to see whole Act non-textual task details, click on "Introductory Text":
Unable to check out your affected provision
Provision not identified in the data: using the Task Association Tool to assign tasks to another provision
Occasionally, you will not be able to check out the amended provision because the system has not been able to identify it in the data.
In this situation, you can use the Task Association Tool to resolve the issue, as described here.
“Page Not Found” Error when you try to open or check out your amended provision
Error in the effects
The most likely cause of a “Page Not Found” error when you open your amended provision is an error in the effects. There are two things you can most usefully check to verify this:
- Read the affecting provision and make sure that it is referring to your document and the provision you are trying to work on. If this is wrong, seek advice from a reviewer as we may need to reset the document and correct this before you carry on.
- Find the affected provision on legislation.gov.uk and make sure that the URL for the affected provision is the same on legislation.gov.uk and in the effects spreadsheet. If there is a discrepancy here you may need to edit the URL or use the Table of Content to access the provision for update.
An issue has occurred when creating the Point in Time you are working on
If all the affected provisions in the Point in Time you are working on have this issue then it is likely this is the cause. In the first instance try resetting that Point in Time (talk to your review editor if you don't know how to do this).
This occurs most commonly with Schedule paragraphs, but can also occur elsewhere. If paragraphs in a Schedule have been tagged as uklP1Groups, each paragraph should have it's own set of uklP1Group tags. If a new paragraph has been inserted as a ukl:P1 into an existing ukl:P1Group (and doesn't have its own set of uklP1Group tags), you will get a page not found error when you try to check it out. To resolve this, you should add a new ukl:P1group using the Element List, leaving the ukl:Title tagging empty, and move the relevant ukl:P1 tagging and contents for the relevant paragraph into that new ukl:P1group.
See, for example:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1189/schedule/paragraph/10C
Note that retagging of provisions into separate ukl:P1groups should only be carried out in the first PiT when you are checking the I-notes - if your update task has gone past the first PiT, you will need to go back to the first PiT to carry out any retagging, otherwise you will create problems in the timeline.
“Internal error” message when trying to check out a high level provision
If there are a lot of update tasks listed on the high level update details page, you may get an “Internal error” message when you try and check out your high level provision. This should be resolved by using the check boxes in the list of update tasks to restrict the number of tasks to only include those applicable to the provision being checked out. The default is for all the tasks to be selected, you need to uncheck the boxes so you only have the ones selected that you need for your particular high level update task:
Errors launching XMetaL
Resetting Workspace in XMetaL
The message in the screenshot below indicates XMetaL is not finding the XMetal components it needs to load the item:
If you get an error message like this (or another error message while working in XMetaL) it may indicate that the workspace needs to be cleared or reset.
To do this, use the following steps:
1. Close down XMetal completely.
2. Open XMetal whilst holding down the CTRL key on the keyboard.
3. Keep the CTRL key held down until this message appears (in XMetaL 5.0): "Do you want to skip opening the last session's workspace?" (note that the message may be different in other versions of XMetaL, see images below).
In XMetaL 5.0:
In XMetaL 7.0, the message says that the whole workspace will be reset and the default configuration will be restored (you will need to set up the workspace again to your configuration):
4. Click "Yes" if you want to proceed.
5. Then re-open the checked out document.
6. You may need to open the resource manager once the document loads (View > Resource Manager).
Unable to open the amending document in XMetaL
From time to time the information held in the task in XMetaL is incorrect and it won’t be possible to automatically open your amending document in XMetaL. You will need to open the amending document manually.
Amending document has now been repealed and you can’t access the amending provision in XMetaL
If your amending document has been repealed and you can't access the amending provision in XMetaL, you can open the document on legislation.gov.uk and use the timeline to navigate back to before the provision was repealed.
To download the amending provision in XMetaL:
- Select Legislation > Download Amending Document from the menu in XMetaL. This will bring up a box containing an example URL, in this format:
https://editorial.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/631/article/3/2/g/data.xml?view=edit
You can edit this URL to refer to your amending document;
- Locate your amending document on legislation.gov.uk and make sure you are at the PiT before the document was repealed. Copy the legislation type, year, number, provision AND DATE of the document from the URL on legislation.gov.uk;
- Paste this information over the example provided in the window so it will look something like this:
https://editorial.legisation.gov.uk/ADD IN YOUR DOCUMENT DETAILS/data.xml?view=edit
- Select ok to open the document.
Unable to check your affected provision back in
“500 error” message - Refresh Fragment Set
If you get a “500 error” message when you are checking in a provision, the first thing you should try is to refresh the fragment set which can be done using the “Refresh Fragment Set” option under the “Help and Support” section of the Update Overview page:
Click on “Refresh Fragments”:
If this doesn't resolve the error, consult a review editor to investigate further, and, if necessary, refer it to TSO.
“500 error” message when trying to check back in after inserting a 'non-textual' annotation
- In this scenario the system should set the 'restrictstartdate' (i.e. the start date of the Point in Time you are creating) on the provision for you automatically but this does not seem to be happening in all cases.
- Select 'View' – 'Attribute Inspector' in XMetaL – this will open a new window where you can add in the start date. The field is called 'restrictstartdate'.
- Make sure your cursor is positioned immediately after the P1group (if the provision contains a heading) and just after the P1 open tag (if there is no heading). In the case of the introductory text your cursor needs to be placed immediately after the 'primaryprelims' tag.
- Enter the start date into the restrictstartdate field e.g. 2012-04-06.
- If you get another 500 error ensure that you have added the correct date in the correct format. Note you will only be able to add a date in here that coincides with the date of the Point in Time you are working on. If you try to add a later or earlier date you will get a 500 error.
RELATED PAGES
See the Editorial Update Table of Contents for a complete list of Editorial Update pages.
For concepts and principles relating to how we revise legislation, see Revising Legislation and Editorial Principles.