Day 060 - 02 Dec 94 - Page 06

     
     1        A.  Which is no longer used in Sweden.
     2
     3   Q.   Switzerland is a similar situation, is it?
     4        A.  Well, Switzerland is a much limited situation.
     5        I understand it is just one or two stores that are actually
     6        carrying out separation currently.
     7
     8   Q.   I will not ask you about New Zealand.  You do not know of
     9        any country in the world, apart from Germany, where
    10        post-consumer, post-customer waste is being recycled by the
    11        company?
    12        A.  The US have a scheme.  They were, in fact, recycling
    13        foam packaging, but I understand (and Mr. Langert may have
    14        covered this with you), but I understand that that
    15        particular scheme was not viable and was discontinued, not
    16        by McDonald's but by the recycling company.
    17
    18   Q.   Right.  So, what I said is correct then, there is not
    19        any---?
    20        A.  To the best of my knowledge, it is correct.  It may not
         be -- there may be companies that have programmes that I do
    22        not know about.
    23
    24   Q.   Just coming along to Germany, you read the article from The
    25        Guardian, yes, about the German Antirubbish Tax, I think it
    26        was categorised?
    27        A.  Yes.
    28
    29   Q.   Would you want to explain about the situation in your own
    30        words what the controversy or conflict was at that time?
    31        A.  I understand where you are coming from on this, but you
    32        must realise I have no responsibility for Germany.  I do
    33        not see that this article has any relevance to this case.
    34        McDonald's and others, it is not just McDonald's, are
    35        victims of a German policy.  I do not see there is any
    36        difference in this tax to the landfill tax just announced
    37        by the Minister for this country.  I honestly do not see
    38        the relevance that this article has to this particular
    39        case.
    40
    Q.   Could you explain what McDonald's was challenging in
    42        court?  As I understand it, let me have a look -- first
    43        off, what it says in that article, is that accurate, as you
    44        see it?  Before we go on to its relevance, is it a fair
    45        summary of the situation?
    46        A.  I think so, but I cannot be categoric.
    47
    48   Q.   So, is the situation that the local council in Kassel
    49        considers that fast-food companies should be taxed if they
    50        do not use reusables because of the resulting 
    51        responsibilities that the local authority has on collecting 
    52        environment/index.html">litter and recycling the rubbish in general? 
    53        A.  Mr. Morris, I have told you, I do not have any
    54        responsibility for Germany, nor do I see any relevance to
    55        this case.
    56
    57   Q.   Yes, but it is up to the judge to decide if it is relevant.
    58
    59   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I think the answer which is most pertinent is
    60        that he really does not know about Germany.  What you put