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

Prev Next Index