I completely agree. Yes, of course draft legislation is subject to what-if analysis, but I think you nail on the head the reasons why this is often inadequate or fails to deal with a last-minute change.
In my own specialist area, the classic example of such special-interest amendment is s.301 CDPA 1988:
301. The provisions of Schedule 6 have effect for conferring on trustees for the benefit of the Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street, London, a right to a royalty in respect of the public performance, commercial publication, broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service of the play "Peter Pan" by Sir James Matthew Barrie, or of any adaptation of that work, notwithstanding that copyright in the work expired on 31st December 1987.
How it happened. It's hard to criticise anyone's motivation here, but really, this is not how we make law.
no subject
In my own specialist area, the classic example of such special-interest amendment is s.301 CDPA 1988:
301. The provisions of Schedule 6 have effect for conferring on trustees for the benefit of the Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street, London, a right to a royalty in respect of the public performance, commercial publication, broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service of the play "Peter Pan" by Sir James Matthew Barrie, or of any adaptation of that work, notwithstanding that copyright in the work expired on 31st December 1987.
How it happened. It's hard to criticise anyone's motivation here, but really, this is not how we make law.