Day 005 - 04 Jul 94 - Page 46


     
     1        recycled  ... (reading to the words) ... or incinerated".
 
     2        Would you agree with that objective as a general standard
              to achieve?
     3        A.  As a target, is that what you are saying?  Do I think
              that is a good target?
     4
         Q.   Yes.
     5        A.  But I think it is a target.  I will have to see how
              technology allows us to actually accomplish it.
     6
         Q.   Then under the amendments it says over the page, the third
     7        amendment:  "A hierarchy of priorities in policy on
              packaging and packaging waste, the descending order of
     8        priorities is prevention, reuse, recycling, incineration
               ... (reading to the words) ... disposal by way of
     9        landfill".  Would you agree with that proposal as a
              target?
    10        A.  Would I agree with it?  I am not so sure it would be
              my particular order of things, given technology today, but
    11        over the long run, certainly prevention, i.e. if that
              means reduction, I suppose, I would put that first, and my
    12        company's work in reducing its solid waste stream are
              absolutely exemplary.  We have taken a huge proportion out
    13        already and we will do more.
 
    14   Q.   So would you say that prevention is your No.1 target in
              any event, whatever the European community wants?
    15        A.  As technology allows us to prevent the use of what we
              have now and go to something which is more efficient,
    16        better, But I think that has to be sensible.  If we
              cannot, then falling back on energy recovery, recycling,
    17        using a second or third or fourth time have also got to
              have parts to play in it, sure.
    18
         Q.   Would you say that the last part "disposal by way of
    19        landfill", would you say that is the worst option?
              A.  No.  I do not think it is the worst option.  I do not
    20        think it is intended to be best to worst.  It is talking
              about priorities.  If you can do something first, let us
    21        try and prevent it; if you can do something second, let us
              try and use it.  If we have no other option, fall back on
    22        some kind of other disposal.
 
    23   Q.   So you do not think that the Tidy Brian Group is
              supporting a hierarchy of priorities as stated there,
    24        where prevention is the first priority, through to reuse,
              recycling, incineration and finally disposal as the lowest
    25        priority.
  
    26   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  But I think that is, save for the use of the 
              word "priorities", is that not what Mr. Preston said?  You 
    27        try and prevent waste; as second best to that, you try and
              reuse it; the third best to that, you try to recycle it
    28        and the last of the options is to dispose by way of
              landfill.
    29
         MR. MORRIS:  Yes.  Would you consider whether it was the law or
    30        not the law, that there are alternatives for McDonald's
              Corporation in its approach to packaging?  I will give you

Prev Next Index