Day 075 - 17 Jan 95 - Page 16

     
     1   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  I think you are being asked a broader
     2        question than that.  It may be that part of the question is
     3        whether it is the concern of the Tidy Britain Group to
     4        change patterns of behaviour like a taste for take-away
     5        food.  Take-away is important in this context because when
     6        we come to environment/index.html">litter, apart from other evidence of waste and
     7        recycling, as distinct from other elements of waste and
     8        recycling, it may be that I think I am really concerned
     9        with something like half of McDonald's trade which is
    10        take-away, do you understand?
    11        A.  Yes.
    12
    13   Q.   Is it any business of the TBG to try to change patterns of
    14        eating, for instance, as opposed to what people do with
    15        packaging if they choose to eat take-away?
    16        A.  No.  It is not any part of the Tidy Britain Group's
    17        concern about the way in which people choose to eat.  It is
    18        our concern that if they choose to eat in a particular way
    19        and that involves items of packaging, that they should be
    20        encouraged and enabled to dispose of that in a sensible and
         responsible way.
    22
    23   MR. MORRIS:  There has been a lot of concern, has there not,
    24        historically -- maybe in the last, say, 20 years or so --
    25        about the rise of non-returnable bottles, for example.  Did
    26        the Tidy Britain Group or its predecessor have a position
    27        of encouragement of companies to maintain the returnable
    28        bottle system, where if you got, say, a bottle of drink
    29        when you returned it you got 10 pence or 15 pence back?
    30        Would you see that as a helpful system preferable to
    31        non-returnable bottles, for example?
    32        A.  If we speak within the strict limitations about its
    33        impact on the environment/index.html">litter scene, then clearly anything that
    34        encourages people to dispose of or return their receptacles
    35        in a way that puts it back properly into the waste stream,
    36        then that has to be something that we would welcome.  But
    37        if you want me to address the question in relation to broad
    38        environmental appraisal, then it would need to be assessed
    39        alongside whether or not the total ecobalance that was
    40        being involved in terms of the return of the packaging as
         opposed to the energy etc. involved in cleansing vessels or
    42        bottles, I mean, that is an issue that clearly has to be
    43        addressed, if you want to address it in a broader sense.
    44        But if you speaking strictly in relation to environment/index.html">litter, then
    45        anything which causes people to return or dispose of their
    46        receptacles responsibly is something that we favour.
    47
    48   Q.   Has McDonald's ever had, as far as you know or told you
    49        about, any plans for returnable packaging initiatives?
    50        A.  I have not discussed it with them, no. 
    51 
    52   Q.   Going back to the issue of the source of environment/index.html">litter: 
    53        Mr. Preston was questioned by Mr. Rampton.  I cannot
    54        remember what day that was, but it was on page 34 of that
    55        transcript.  He quoted from a newspaper cutting:  "'It has
    56        been estimated that fast-food emporia are the source of 20
    57        per cent of London's street environment/index.html">litter'.  I do not ask you
    58        about that".  Then he says:  "Then there is what is said to
    59        be a quote from you:  'Litter is certainly the biggest
    60        complaint, admits Preston'."  Then it goes on after that