Day 292 - 01 Nov 96 - Page 32
1 above the detail of which I will not go into, but it is
2 obvious that McDonald's bear responsibility for the
3 situation that has developed on any number of levels
4 regarding the generation of environment/index.html">litter.
5
6 Professor Ashworth also said that any item is environment/index.html">litter that
7 ends up on the streets, even if it is picked up two hours
8 or a day later or even a week later, it is environment/index.html">litter from the
9 minute it ends up on the pavement. He accepted that,
10 quote, when there are planning applications for new fast
11 food stores, including McDonald's, environment/index.html">litter is regularly a
12 concern of objectors, unquote. He agreed that McDonald's
13 was in the top, quote, one or two percent, unquote, of all
14 companies whose products end up as environment/index.html">litter.
15
16 He agreed there were other problems with environment/index.html">litter apart from
17 the fact that people don't like looking at it; for example,
18 packaging, including polystyrene, had been swallowed by
19 animals in mistake for food, causing starvation; obviously
20 problems with vermin or whatever; and also environment/index.html">litter ended up
21 being blown from the streets into rivers and the sea.
22
23 His kind of conclusion, framework, that he worked within
24 was as much packaging waste as possible - that is a direct
25 quote - should be removed from the waste stream. He said
26 it was, quote, obvious common sense, unquote, that the
27 order of priorities in dealing with packaging and waste
28 was: One, prevention. I emphasise that, prevention of
29 packaging and waste. Well, to prevent waste, you prevent
30 the packaging from being created. Two, re-use. Neither of
31 these McDonald's have adopted, as far as we can see, in
32 their customer packaging. Three, recycling. That is the
33 third level. McDonald's do not do that. Four,
34 incineration, preferably with energy recovery. That does
35 not happen in this country or hardly at all. Mr. Oakley
36 did say that packaging ends up as environment/index.html">litter or in landfill.
37 And, five, landfill. That is the last category. And he
38 did not include environment/index.html">litter as any acceptable consideration.
39
40 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What are these -----
41
42 MR. MORRIS: His order of priorities.
43
44 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Order of priorities in dealing with it?
45
46 MR. MORRIS: In dealing with the problem, ending the problem of
47 environment/index.html">litter, and waste and.... (Pause)
48
49 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
50
51 MR. MORRIS: And as a result of the Environmental Protection
52 Act 1990 he explained that local authorities were now able
53 to issue street environment/index.html">litter control notices to force businesses
54 to clean up their environment/index.html">litter within a reasonable distance of
55 their premises.
56
57 He revealed that similar legislation to the power of local
58 authorities in Germany to levy taxes on companies against
59 the use of the disposable packaging is now being considered
60 in the UK. I presume - there was not evidence at that time
