...
Bill title | Amendments tested | Notes |
|---|
Employment Rights Bill (House of Commons, As Introduced) | 102 out of 114 amendments applied Scenarios tested: Hybrid substitutions which leave out text and insert paragraphs within a definition Leave out amendments which span the end of a subsection, paragraph or other similar structure Hybrid substitutions which leave out text and inserts sub-paragraphs Substituting amendments which replace the entirety of the content of a Quoted Structure Leave out amendments which remove a word within a defined term inside a definition Amendments which insert lengthy new Schedules
| An amendment to substitute a whole table row failed to apply. This cannot be applied in v.18.0 but will be supported in v.18.1. 4 inserting amendments failed to apply because the wrong starting element had been chosen for the Quoted Structure (for example, 'Content' had been used when 'List' should have been selected). One of the failing amendments inserts a new cross-heading in the middle of a Quoted Structure containing multiple new sections which aren’t grouped under cross-headings. In version 18.0, auto-apply is capable of inserting cross-headings in parts of a bill where cross-headings, Parts, or Chapters already exist. We will consider extending the auto-apply logic to handle this case in future.
|
Renters (Reform) Bill (House of Commons, As Introduced) | 166 out of 176 amendments applied Scenarios tested: Simple textual amendments to text in tables Amendments which change the content of //ref elements (i.e. references) Amendments to definitions Insertion of New Clauses in order of their Sort Code Amendments which change //num elements inside Quoted Structures Amendments to shoulder notes inside Quoted Structures that contain Schedules
| Some amendments failed to apply because they were leaving out the last line of a Quoted Structure immediately before a Schedule cross-heading. We will fix this limitation in a future support release. |
Automated Vehicles (House of Lords, As Introduced) | 53 out of 55 amendments applied Scenarios tested: Insertion of new subsections at the same location in order of Sort Code Insertion of New Clauses in order of Sort Code Amendments which add or remove text within paragraphs within Quoted Structures
| A missing comma after the line reference in one amendment caused it to fail to apply. Fixing this manually and saving the amendment allows Lawmaker to apply this amendment successfully. Another amendment failed to apply because it amended words in a Clause which was left out by another amendment (this is an expected conflict).
|
Football Governance (House of Lords, As Introduced) | 171 out of 199 amendments applied Scenarios tested: Hybrid insert (creation of new text and a new sub-paragraph in a subsection which originally only contained text) Leaving out a string of text up to but not including a piece of punctuation Leaving out text mid-way through a reference (e.g. leaving out "60" in "sections 60 to 62") Inserting text in the middle of a reference Insertion of a new clause before another clause, just after a cross-heading Hybrid insert within a definition Amendments to content of Quoted Structures, including subsections, paragraphs, and inline elements like refs
| Some amendments could be applied after re-wording them (for example, by using the formulation “leave out lines x to y” rather than specifying the last word on a particular line as the starting point for an omission). 10 amendments failed because they were correctly identified as overlapping. 4 amendments contained an unnecessary comma in the amendments instruction which caused those amendments to fail to apply; removing the comma allows them to be applied successfully. One amendment failed to apply because the text string being left out did not match the wording in the bill. One new clause amendment failed to apply due to a missing comma after the reference to the target clause. One amendment failed to apply because of a misplaced <mod> tag within the amendment instruction.
|
Additional Scottish Bill and Amendment testing
Auto-apply was also tested using the following Scottish bills and a selection of lodged amendments:
Bill title | Amendments tested | Notes |
|---|
Bankruptcy and Diligence (Scotland) Bill (As Introduced) | 27 out of 30 applied Scenarios tested: Amendments inserting new cross-headings Hybrid amendments inserting new paragraphs containing Quoted Structures Substitution of subsections Insertion of new clauses at the same location in the bill
| A complex hybrid amendment to leave out the first two subsections and one child paragraph in section 1 and insert new subsections (which should then inherit the remaining child paragraphs) did not apply successfully. We'll aim to fix this in a future support release. One amendment which leaves out a subsection failed to apply because the amendment instruction did not include page and line numbers. Adding these and saving the amendment allows it to be auto-applied successfully. One amendment failed to apply because a full-stop had been included at the end of the Quoted Structure in the amendment instruction. Removing this and saving the amendment allowed the amendment to be applied.
|
Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill (As Introduced) | 196 out of 214 applied In order to check Editor performance in a bill containing a large number of applied amendments, we tested auto-apply using the latest batch of lodged government amendments to this bill. | A high proportion of amendments applied successfully, including those that insert new Parts or other comparable structure. Performance appeared acceptable; the ‘fold’ option on the Editor toolbar  Image Added can be used to improve performance further.
|
PDF testing
PDFs were generated for a range of real and test documents and the outputs compared to PDFs generated with the current version of Lawmaker to identify any unexpected differences.
...
