SkipHireMagazine.co.uk » Environmental News

Enviroman

Louise — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 08:37:53 +0000

Thinking Outside of the [Cardboard] Box!

After a busy three days at the RWM show with The Skip I thought I would take time this month to reflect on the recurring theme of the questions asked during the show. Unfortunately for the Environment Agency many of those questions started like “The EA have told me…….are they right?” I could fill in the gap with a dozen questions, most of which were about my old favourites the Duty of Care and exemptions. It never ceases to surprise me that the Agency don’t spend more time training officers on the real basics, or is it that there is an underlying dislike of exemptions and a leaning towards permits for every activity? Ignorance is bliss. Or is that officers don’t get into the regulations in detail these days, unlike sad people like myself with nothing better to do. Many officers that I deal with are very knowledgeable but this sort of stuff is so basic that I’m still shocked to see requirements incorrectly quoted without getting the exemption listing out and discussing it with the site operator over a coffee. After all exemptions are perfectly legal and not loopholes, as I have said many times in the past.

Cardboard quandary!

One of our guests at the show explained that he had a permit and was storing bales of cardboard on permeable ground within the permit boundary for his transfer station. The inspecting Agency officer insisted that the cardboard should be stored on an impermeable hardstanding in accordance with the permit conditions. Sadly no one was there to shout “EXEMPTIONS”. Cardboard storage and baling is also covered by several exemptions, which can be carried out within the permit boundary and do not have to be the same operator as the permit either, as follows:

Exemption T4.- Preparatory treatment i.e. baling, sorting, shredding, pulverising, densifying, crushing or compacting of non-hazardous paper and cardboard. The waste can be stored prior to treatment (15,000 tonne limit [indoors] for up to 12 months) and is subject to limits on throughput per 7 days’ treatment i.e. 500 tonnes outdoors and 3,000 tonnes indoors. Treatment and storage must be at a secure place. The waste must be unmixed if from more than one category in the table so paper and cardboard can be mixed. If the cardboard is stored outdoors it must be in baled form or in a container and the outdoor storage limit is 1,000 tonnes for 12 months as long as the waste is in an enclosure designed to prevent the escape of litter. The waste codes permitted are:

03 03 07 mechanically separated rejects from pulping of waste paper and cardboard

03 03 08 wastes from sorting of paper and cardboard destined for recycling

15 01 01 paper and cardboard packaging [from commerce/industry]

19 12 01 paper and cardboard [from waste transfer etc. sites]

20 01 01 paper and cardboard [municipal waste]

So no mention of a concrete hardstanding then. I’ve read the Agency guidance note on this exemption which can be found at the link below and found that it was accurate. It’s a shame the guidance notes hadn’t been read by the inspector.

T4 guidance link: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/permitting/116183.aspx

Exemptions S1 & S2.- The storage exemptions that link with T4 are S1 and S2. S1 allows the storage of 15 01 01 and 20 01 01 in containers up to 400 cubic metres [max. 20 containers for up to 12 months] prior to recovery elsewhere. S2 allows the storage of up to 15,000 tonnes of the 5 codes referred to in T4, for 12 months pending recovery elsewhere as long as it is baled, in a container or indoors. The reference to container in S2 makes S1 pointless though. The 1,000 tonne limit on external storage in T4 is duplicated for S2. There are some wastes that have to be stored on an impermeable pavement but not cardboard and paper. If you are baling on your site you will only need the T4 as the storage and treatment is all within the exemption.

Continuing Competence

Many people asked about technical competence requirements at the show and were thinking of taking their continuing competence test. I had the pleasure of taking and thankfully passing my test for the treatment and transfer COTCs in September which was trial by 26 multiple choice questions. It may sound straightforward but before undertaking the test I thought I would try the mock test on the WAMITAB web site, which is available on the following link:

http://www.wamitab.org.uk/useruploads/files/continuing%20competence%20v3.htm

Out of the twenty questions I have to take issue with at least 8 of them for being either confusing, poorly worded and/or not directly relevant to day to day operations. The same was true of the actual test, with some questions relating to legal matters that have no bearing on the competence of the operator in daily operations. If we are to have a continuing test please make it 26 questions that test an operator’s general knowledge rather than asking the maximum level of fine in a magistrates court, which if not known is not going to lead to a breach of permit conditions. I urge you all to take the practice test and e-mail me or call with your views (and score if you’re not shy) as I intend to put those views to WAMITAB shortly.

Please let me know of your regulatory howlers and issues and I’ll hopefully set the record straight. Many thanks to everyone who visited us at the show and made the three days pass quickly.

Marco Muia BSc (Hons) MSc MCIWM is the Director of Oaktree Environmental Limited. He specialises in all aspects of waste planning and regulation consultancy. He also holds the level 4 COTCs for Hazardous Waste Treatment and Transfer. You can contact Marco on 01606 558833 if you have any questions about this article or e-mail him at marco@oaktree-environmental.co.uk

THE GARBAGE GURU

Dave — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 11:31:10 +0000

WHERE’S MY TAX BREAK?

TIP 1. WRITE TO YOUR MP ABOUT CARBON OFFSETTING…
I believe that all of us in the recycling sector should be writing to our MPs and complaining about the lack of incentives we get for our recycling efforts.
Take my document shredding company, A2 Shred Ltd, for example. We recycled fifty tonnes of office paper which we then sold on to a paper merchant. At the same time, my 2.7 litre diesel car is taxed at 189gm per kilometer!
Surely we recyclers should get a vehicle tax break on wagons and cars which are actually being used to contribute towards the greening of our country and planet! Many other industry sectors receive tax breaks as an incentive to act in an environmentally responsible manner. Isn’t it time that industries like ours were all given a bit of relief in recognition of the work we’re actually doing? Why should a skip lorry on it’s way to a transfer station, where most of its contents will be recycled and saved from landfill, pay the same tax as the lorry in front which is taking over-packaged, unnecessary items to an unethical company, adding to the global problem rather than working to improve it like us?
Enough is enough, I say. Time to make a noise about it. If enough of us write to our MPs, we just might get a result. Let’s make those politicians work for their money… OUR money!
TIP 2. Nifty thrifty home made sprinkler systems
Waste Transfer Stations can get incredibly dusty in no time at all, so why not consider fitting a home made sprinkler system?
You can make your own recycled sprinkler system by using reclaimed, redundant fire sprinkler pipework, which is readily available from demolition jobs.
Carl Belford from Belford Brothers Skip Hire, Stoke-on-Trent, has recently done this very successfully.
You can reach Carl on 01782 544 868.
TIP 3. Cash in on electrical waste
When getting rid of IT Waste, WEEEE or old computers etc, check out this web site: www.recycle.co.uk. There could be a market for that pile of old computers that is ££££££s more than the scrap value.
TIP 4. Keep the noise down!
My ears are still banging from when I was playing in a rock band many years ago…
If you have a transfer station, be sure your staff have adequate hearing protection in picking stations or when working with trommels or vibrating screens.
TIP 5. Free Training
Level 2 Waste Management courses are grant-aided in some regions. Liverpool, Wigan and other UK districts are earmarked for training money from the Government. Contact me for more information…
TIP 6. Protect your fuel supplies
The price of diesel is going to go through the roof shortly. This will make it an even bigger target for thieves – both external and internal!
A good way to prevent theft is to contact www.johnhoggtechnicalservices.co.uk, as they can supply an invisible or visible dye. Staff can then be ‘advised of it’s presence’. Prevention is often cheaper than cure!

DUTY OF SCARE!

Dave — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:26:06 +0000

Just when you thought it was safe to pick up that skip, along comes yet another change in the legislation which is badged as an additional effort to tackle waste crime. Yes, more red tape, which at first reading will not have much effect on illegal activities, which continue in spite of all current systems of licensing and registration. Fly tippers and operators involved in serious offences do not normally follow the paperwork trail that reputable operators are burdened with.
There is mounting evidence that the landfill tax is a contributing factor as our legislative drive to reduce waste going to landfill conflicts with its aims and objectives. Prohibiting waste from landfill is a sensible aim but we need somewhere for the segregated wastes that cannot be recycled, especially inert wastes and fines, to be deposited. This problem is significant for all waste operations and is regularly reported in the numerous journals, including The Skip. The ENDS Report May 2008 edition again noted several landfill avoidance prosecutions, such as depositing non-inert fines from a transfer operation to inert only exempt sites, fly tipping construction and demolition wastes and operating ‘exempt’ sites illegally.
One operation reported on the Environment Agency’s web site on 11 June 2008 was successfully prosecuted with the two defendants receiving custodial sentences of 14 and 22 months. The case is worth noting (http:www.environment-agency.gov.uk/news/2062931) as the defendants went to great lengths to appear legitimate, which has implications for carriers using such sites. How do you know the site you are using has a valid exemption? Traditionally, obtaining a copy of someone’s licence or exemption is sufficient proof that they have an approved operation. Not so anymore! Even if a site does have a licence or exemption the Agency are now chasing carriers that have legitimately used sites that have later been found to be non-compliant. How far should duty of care checks go? Should we be doing the Agency’s job for them? The simple answer is a resounding NO! Most waste operators are not qualified to audit waste sites and it is the job of the regulator that charges for the issue of permits and exemptions to do that job. Come on Defra, if you want to reduce so called environmental crime put some more resources into tackling it where it is most needed – i.e. on the ground.
The current system of using landfill or increasingly rare Paragraph 9 and 19 exemptions has to be addressed before any serious review of carrier registration or the duty of care takes place. The exemption review is well underway and I hope that Defra take on board the industry’s comments and also take a proportionate approach on inert landfill which would reduce the over reliance on exemptions that often stretch the boundaries of the legislation.
Now that rant is out of the way I shall concentrate on the title subject at hand. On 13 June 2008 Defra announced its second consultation on the controls on the handling, transfer and transport of waste, in the form of The Waste Controls (England and Wales) Regulations 2009 which if all goes according to plan will come into force in April 2009. The previous consultation closed on 6 march 2007 and the current one concentrates and consolidates the responses from the first one. The proposed regulations are the first major review of the Duty of Care and Carrier Registration since it came in to force over 16 years ago. Precisely what effect it will have on the legitimate waste industry is debatable as the main focus is on illegal operators, thereby increasing costs for the legitimate ones.
I shall concentrate on the effect on carriers this month and look at the duty of care in detail next month. The new regulations themselves are not very detailed and much will be left to guidance, which can be revised more easily than the legislation. The main proposals discussed are as follows:
1. Revoke existing regulations for carrier registration and the duty of care.
2. Impose a new duty for the Agency to make periodic inspections of all registered carriers of, and dealers and brokers in controlled waste.
3. Registration will be for one year rather than three, with various options proposed for renewal, such as a ‘tax disc’ based system which could be renewed easily and displayed on each vehicle. This will be an additional burden for larger waste operators with many vehicles or service companies with hundreds of vans but would enable carrier registrations to be checked instantly. The discs will be non-transferable i.e. new vehicle = new disc (at a cost of <£5 each).
4 Splitting carriers into lower and upper tiers, with the cost of registration for lower tier carriers (charities, farmers, waste producers etc.) at a one off £30 charge. Most waste carriers will face a £60 application fee and annual renewal of £45, which is not significantly greater but the process must be robust enough to ensure registrations do not accidentally lapse, which is addressed in the consultation document.
5. Waste producers may also have to register if they carry their own waste normally and regularly, although no detailed definitions of ‘normally and regularly’ have been proposed.
6. Change to revocation powers to enable more prosecutions to be taken into account when revoking a carrier’s registration. The increase in the list of prescribed offences could be done via guidance rather than legislation.
7. Proof of non-corporate carrier identity may be required i.e. copy of passport, driving licence, utility bill, bank statement etc. before a registration certificate or disc can be issued.
8. Possibility of new offence of failing to display proof of registration and issue of fixed penalty notices for more offences.
9. Raising the maximum level of fines for carrier offences to reflect the maximum for other offences (£50,000 in the magistrates court and unlimited in the Crown Court).
10. New proposals for seizure and disposal of vehicles.
In summary, the carrier registration changes will probably make the system more manageable for the industry as long as the Agency’s IT system can cope and enforcers take a proportionate approach to offences. Responses to the consultation should be sent by 8 September 2008 and I will be making a response on behalf of many colleagues in the industry, so if you have any comments to add please feel free to e-mail me or respond directly. The consultation can be viewed at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/waste controls/index.htm.
Marco Muia BSc (Hons) MSc MCIWM is the Director of Oaktree Environmental Limited. He specialises in all aspects of waste planning and regulation consultancy. He also holds the level 4 COTCs for Hazardous Waste Treatment and Transfer. You can contact Marco on 01606 558833 if you have any questions about this article or e-mail him at enviroman@theskip.net

RETURN OF THE EA-PRIL FOOLS

Dave — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:13:36 +0000

Last month I wrote about the new Environmental Permitting (EP) regime which comes into force on 6 April 2008, the same day as Site Waste Management Plans and the new electronic submission system for planning applications via the Planning Portal. Let’s not forget good old landfill tax which will be £32.00 per tonne for active waste. So it’s all change, as we normally expect at this time of year, but what of the 2008/9 charging scheme? Yes, once again we are at the end of March and the Agency still hasn’t finalised the scheme, leaving applicants in limbo. Their motto ‘creating a better place’ obviously doesn’t extend to my least favourite website as there is no news of the charging scheme. So all we can do is take a look at the charges in the now closed consultation and compare them with the 2007/8 scheme:

Given that fixed permits will soon be the norm rather than the exception it is no surprise that the Agency has not proposed to reduce the fees according to the level of work involved. Over the last year or so we have heard about Agency budget cuts and staff reductions. Yet on 21 February this year an Agency press release welcomed a beneficial funding announcement and Dame Barbara Young stated “While the remainder of our budget allocation has also marginally increased, we face a number of large new duties, challenges and inflationary pressures which will need us to prioritise rigorously what we can best do to protect and enhance the environment.”
Compare the statement with the other news on their web site, which states: “Implementing a new integrated permitting regime in April – this streamlines more than 40 pieces of legislation into one regime which makes us quicker, more effective and simpler to do business with. This will include more online interactive services.”
Forgive me for prattling on again but doesn’t all that mean that there will be less work involved in issuing licences and exemptions rather than an increase in costs for that part of the waste sector. Once again the waste sector appears to be subsidising other activities. We can only guess what will happen when or if EP OPRA comes in for waste licensing in 2008/9 which will remain for 2009/10 for bespoke permits, with lower charges for fixed permits. Whether this will truly be the case is debatable as the Agency still has to source cash for its activities. Why not scrap licensing charges altogether and fund the function from the landfill tax rather than have the money disappear into the treasury.
Fans of Al Murray (aka The Pub Landlord) will be familiar with the sayings “Where would we be without rules… France” and “where would we be if there were too many rules… Germany”.
We could apply this train of thought to the UK; “Where would we be if we were the only ones enforcing European legislation… UK”.
So let’s hope that the permitting centre in Sheffield gets stuck in and issues licences and exemptions as quickly as we can prepare them. It can take less than an hour to prepare and submit an exemption renewal (if there are no changes) so why will it cost £426 from 6/4/06 for the Agency to do their bit and send a letter saying ‘it’s renewed’? Is the permitting centre staffed by expensive lawyers? Surely the actual costs of renewing and occasionally visiting exempt sites is not that high. Many exemptions we deal with don’t get a visit from the Agency, which I know can be a good thing depending on which region you are in.
So my wish from April 2007 is for effective permitting, consistency and transparency… who’s the April fool now? Envirofool doesn’t sound too good though. See you all next month with an analysis of how the new environmental permitting regime has taken off.
Marco Muia BSc (Hons) MSc MCIWM is the Director of Oaktree Environmental Limited. He specialises in all aspects of waste regulation consultancy and is a WAMITAB accredited assessor for the COTCs in waste transfer, treatment and inert landfill.
He also holds the level 4 COTCs for Hazardous Waste Treatment and Transfer. You can contact Marco on 01606 558833 if you have any questions about this article or e-mail him at enviroman@theskip.net

E P PHONE HOME!

Dave — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:20:47 +0000

By Marco Muia – aka “Enviroman”
The new Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 (SI No. 3538) have landed and judging by the lack of fanfare and publicity surrounding their final release we could all be forgiven for thinking that someone in Defra was hiding something. I would have expected the final release of such an important consolidation of dozens of Regulations to be accompanied by a serious amount of publicity in the waste industry press. How wrong I was and found out in early February (by accident) that they were actually made on 13 December 2007 (in force on 6 April 2008). They will provide a framework for the control of all existing sites which have exemptions, licenses and PPC permits in England and Wales.
The Regulations consolidate and replace numerous previous instruments and implement the following EC Directives:
i. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (Schedule 7)
ii. The Waste Framework Directive (Schedule 9)
iii. The Landfill Directive (Schedule 10)
iv. End of Life Vehicles Directive (Schedule 11)
v. Waste Electronic Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (Schedule 12)
vi. Waste Incineration Directive (Schedule 13)
vii. The Solvents Emission Directive (Schedule 14)
viii. The Large Combustion Plants Directive (Schedule 15)
ix. The Asbestos Directive (Schedule 16)
x. The Titanium Dioxide Directive (Schedule 17)
xi. The Petrol Vapour Recovery Directive (Schedule 18)
The change appears to be business as usual with, as expected, a number of tweaks, including:
Single Permits
If a site has one operator for multiple activities a single permit can cover all activities and will be enforced by a single regulator. Such sites are likely to have a single permit, even where the activities are not immediately adjacent to one another. This will not apply to crushers which will remain a Part B local authority activity.
Exclusions
Some other regimes are still excluded from the new system, including permissions under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, discharge consents, agricultural waste disposal authorisations and the disposal or recovery of some sludges.
Existing Licenses
Existing licenses will transfer to the new regime in which the operator is the permit holder. So sites which have a different operator and licence holder will have to transfer the permit to the existing operator. The only delay to this provision would be where an existing application for a new licence, transfer, modification or surrender has not been dealt with by 6 April 2008. In such cases the licence will become a permit after any appeal deadline has elapsed, for example, a modification issued on 1 June 2008 would become a permit under the new regime on 1 December 2008. The regulator for your sites will still be the Environment Agency. If you have more than one licence on your site the Agency can consolidate the permits into a single one as long as the licence holders are the same legal person. Determination periods for applications remain pretty much the same, not that they have ever mattered to the Agency.
Variations
It will be possible to vary i.e. extend or reduce a licence area which removes the need to apply for extra licenses when you expand your site. To reduce a permit site area will require a partial surrender application.
Standard Rules
From April 2008 operators will be able to apply to operate under a set of standard rules which apply to their industry sector, which is essentially the same as the system of standard permits that has recently been introduced. Site specific permits will become a rarity.
Operator Competence
When assessing an application the regulator must consider operator competence, which includes management systems, technical competence, compliance record and financial competence. The COTC is still a valid qualification. Other schemes are encouraged and we shall have to wait and see which, if any, become the dominant method of demonstrating competence. My biggest worry is the removal of the two years’ grace period before you need to have the COTC. The Agency may still follow the system of Agency assessment but the charge is rumoured to be around £1,000.
Compliance Assessment, Enforcement and Review
Risk based regulation is the theme here, which is the way things have been going for a while. Risk based regulation also means ‘we can’t afford to be on site all the time and need a cheaper system’. This is still good news for operators who don’t want to see their regulator very often but it does lead to more intensive inspection (audits) when they do arrive.
Permit reviews are required under the new regime, although there is no set period for such a review.
Charging
It looks like the dreaded EP OPRA will not be coming in for waste transfer station charges for another year.
Landfills
Inert landfills are no longer a Part A PPC activity but precisely how much difference this will make is anyone’s guess. I will be covering the matter in a month or so once the EP system has bedded in.
That’s it for now! There is a lot of guidance available on the following link should you have trouble sleeping, happy reading. Questions to The Skip if you have any.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/epp/guidance.htm

Marco Muia BSc (Hons) MSc MCIWM is the Director of Oaktree Environmental Limited. He specialises in all aspects of waste regulation consultancy and is a WAMITAB accredited assessor for the COTCs in waste transfer, treatment and inert landfill.
He also holds the level 4 COTCs for Hazardous Waste Treatment and Transfer. You can contact Marco on 01606 558833 if you have any questions about this article or e-mail him at enviroman@theskip.net

“IT’S INERT GUV… HONEST!”

Dave — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:00:42 +0000

By Marco Muia aka “Enviroman”
Here goes another year in the wacky world of waste. We are in for a busy year again with lots of legislative changes, but one old issue just won’t go away. Despite having a shutdown over the Christmas break whilst the construction industry closes down and skip sales slow down for a week or so, you get back to the yard and that great stockpile of screened soil is still there looking for a home and probably the only thing on site that stubbornly refuses to move, despite your best efforts. I have had a number of reader enquiries recently regarding problems with screened soil and the fact that in some areas the EA deem it unsuitable for exempt or inert sites? I have covered this issue before with regard to fines from trommels processing mixed waste and have summarised below the current situation and answers to the questions asked.
What is inert waste?
Strictly speaking inert waste is defined in Regulation 7(4) of the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002, as follows:
“(4) Waste is inert waste if -
(a) it does not undergo any significant physical, chemical or biological transformations;
(b) it does not dissolve, burn or otherwise physically or chemically react, biodegrade or adversely affect other matter with which it comes into contact in a way likely to give rise to environmental pollution or harm to human health; and
(c) its total leachability and pollutant content and the ecotoxicity of its leachate are insignificant and, in particular, do not endanger the quality of any surface water or groundwater.”
In other words “very restricted”! Operators of inert waste landfills must ensure that their site only accepts inert waste which meets the waste acceptance criteria (WAC) or inert wastes which do not need testing, which are defined by their EWC codes (below). Any that are not listed must pass the WAC test. For more details on WAC just type “wac” into Google and it will direct you to the correct EA website page.
European Waste Code = 10 11 03
Description = Waste glass based fibrous materials
European Waste Code = 15 01 07
Description = Glass packaging
European Waste Code = 17 01 01
Description = Concrete
European Waste Code = 17 01 02
Description = Bricks
European Waste Code = 17 01 03
Description = Tiles and ceramics
European Waste Code = 17 02 02, 20 01 02
Description = Glass
European Waste Code = 17 05 04, 20 02 02
Description = Soil and stones (excluding topsoil and peat)
The WAC test only needs to be carried out if your inert waste is to be accepted at a landfill which is licensed to take it. The regulations do not apply to “the use of suitable inert waste for redevelopment, restoration and filling-in work or for construction purposes”. In other words the use of inert wastes for exempt operations is acceptable subject to the material being fit for use and fitting in with the exemption criteria, most of which I have covered in previous articles. Furthermore the wastes deposited at exempt sites have to be suitable for the end use and not necessarily inert. This is a matter between you and the exempt operator and of course subject to scrutiny by the Agency.
Recovered soils are probably the biggest problem facing the industry today or at least the one with no immediate solution. The Environment Agency and WRAP have been working on a soil protocol but there has been little news on the outcome. In the mean time if you are dealing with clean excavated soil there should not be a problem with its re-use or deposit in exempt or licensed sites, however, it must meet the relevant conditions for that exemption. The problem occurs where the Agency still deem the screened material to be waste even if builders and other users are queuing up to use the final product. This issue will only finally be sorted when we have a soil protocol or case law on the matter. There is nothing to stop you drafting a soil protocol if you wish to do so. The Agency are unlikely to agree its contents but the document could be useful in the event of enforcement action.
Screened soils from transfer stations are a wholly different scenario. Screening mixed construction and demolition waste often creates a soil like material we best know as fines and which is commonly described as inert when it may in fact be non-hazardous or depending upon the analysis, even hazardous (mainly because the eco-toxicity test is very strict). The only answer is that the matter needs to be considered on a site by site basis i.e. is your waste acceptable at the site you wish to take it to and what requirements do you need to meet. It may be that your waste is not inert but that the destination site can take it as cover, for example. Agreeing the analysis requirements before you send samples to the lab is important. I have seen many jobs held up because the Agency or destination site wanted more analysis carried out.
It is important that loads are not cross contaminated and also to have a clear indication of what you want to do with your soils. Our biggest problem is the Agency’s lack of consistency on the matter with some geographical areas receiving more attention than others. I would be grateful to hear how your screened soils are viewed by your local Agency officer as I am compiling a case file for soil protocols.
Finally, I apologise for not covering the EA’s fees and charges proposals as promised but the last few articles have arisen from requests within the industry which are more pressing. If you have any subjects or legislation for future articles please let us know by getting in touch with The Skip.