CONTAINER AND PACKAGING CONTROL BILL (Hansard, 3 April 1973)

§ Mr. Patrick Cormack (Cannock)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower the Secretary of State to regulate the use of materials for containers and packaging; and for connected purposes. This Bill is in some ways reminiscent of the Unit Pricing Bill which I introduced last year in that it has as one of its aims the affording of extra protection to the housewife in her struggle against inflation and to get better value for money. I hope that the Government will feel as sympathetic to this Bill as they did to my last one. It comes at an opportune moment in that only yesterday the Consumers Union published the results of a survey on packaging which shows that some 94 per cent. of housewives would prefer less extravagant packaging and lower prices and that 85 per cent. indicated a willingness to place their household refuse in separate containers for glass, metal, paper, plastic and food waste if that could lead to a saving or to some stabilisation in rates. No wonder there is general concern because, as a recent article in the Daily Mail put it, the most expensive mouth to feed in Britain today is the dustbin.

The Bill would give the Secretary of State a chance to contain the dustbin's appetite and in the process to strike one of the most effective blows for those who treasure our remaining rural and urban delights and who see them daily violated by the trash-can legacy of the pleasure seekers or unwillingly despoiled by the frenzied frustration of those who are charged with the daunting task of dealing with the nation's rubbish.

That some discipline is necessary is obvious to anyone who walks a trolley round a supermarket or a dog through the countryside. The shelves are glossy with elaborate packages which inflate the prices of the products they contain, and all too often have a hedgerow afterlife that is nasty, brutish and prolonged.

We are dealing with an enormous problem. Almost a million tons of plastics were used last year plus 750 million paper bags, 10,000 million cans and 375 million aerosols. In 1972 industry spent £1,035 million on packaging, of which some £650 230 million went straight into dustbins and on to rubbish heaps. Once there, responsibility for its removal rests with the local authorities, who four years ago were spending £66 million a year on collection and disposal. It is reckoned that by 1980 each householder will produce 32 lbs. of refuse a week.

It is not only the weight which causes difficulties, but the volume. Without a doubt the largest increase in volume has resulted from the more extensive packaging of goods. An official report put the percentage of packaging in household refuse at 60 per cent. by volume and said that it would rise to 75 per cent. by 1980.

What happens to it all? At the moment about 80 per cent. of all our rubbish goes straight into holes in the ground, under controlled conditions. Incineration accounts for very little. It is an expensive alternative. As an increasing amount of packaging is formed of indestructible plastic, it will never be broken down by the agencies of time and decay. It will lie there for ever, a needless and ugly blight upon future generations— A plastic bottle is a bane for ever: its ugliness increases. It will never pass into nothingness. All this is done in the name of convenience which manufacturers seem to put next to godliness and which, after all, is rather more profitable.

I do not advocate a return to the paper bag era or to the unwrapped and the unhygienic. I seek moderation in all things. Is it necessary that a sauce bottle should be contained in a box which has a picture of that very bottle on the outside? It is sheer waste. Is it necessary for shoe laces to be contained in a hygienic plastic bubble when they could be handed over the counter as shoe laces? Is it necessary that eyeshade in a tiny container should be in a large box with plastic and other materials inside not contributing to the product at all? As for the aerosol, so many products which could equally well be sold in bottles are put into aerosol containers, and the average price of the container alone is about 8p. Is it essential that a certain brand of cologne should have a third of its price accounted for by packaging?

231 Cannot we call a halt also to the expensive laziness which lies behind the non-returnable bottle, and can we allow our dairies to go over to the plastic bottle? There is a threat that within a few years every bottle of milk will be a plastic bottle. The Friends of the Earth have conducted a survey showing that in one year alone 11,680 million bottles will require to be disposed of. That is enough to build six columns to the moon—not the kind of serious contribution to the space race that we should make. Alternatively, there could be enough in a fortnight to encircle the earth three times with the wretched things.

I appreciate that the Bill has its limitations. But its very flexibility would give the Secretary of State, without assuming Draconian powers, the ability to say, "Hold. Enough", and to examine and advise.

Whether our watchword is anti-inflation or anti-pollution, we cannot afford to do nothing. T. S. Elliot once said of the twentieth century that its only memorial would be the asphalt road and a thousand lost golf balls. Even worse would be a thousand empty Coke cans.

For the sake of the housewife of today and the rambler of tomorrow and, above all, to show that we are conscious that the problem must be tackled sooner rather than later, I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill.