STANDARDISATION OF CONTAINERS (Hansard, 1 July 1975)

§ Mr. David Lane (Cambridge)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to promote the standardisation of containers. In the afterglow of last Thursday's happy event, on which I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley), I hope that the House will give me leave to bring in this Bill to promote the standardisation of containers. I have in mind domestic containers and not the jumbo cargo-carrying containers that are largely standardised already.

The Bill is a modest contribution to the war on waste. In Britain we have become a throw-away, wasteful society. For various reasons we need to be more careful and, if I may use the word, conservative—"conservative" with a small "c" now, because my Bill has powerful all-party support, for which I am grateful.

Let me make it clear that I am not advocating uniformity, which is dull and undesirable. However, I believe that the variety of containers in use has become excessive. I suspect that that is also the majority view of the public, if my constituency is typical. Last March Cambridge University Survival, which is the university branch of the Conservation Society and Friends of the Earth, published the results of a survey of 600 householders in the city of Cambridge about the scope for glass reclamation in particular. Roughly nine people out of 10 supported the idea of greater standardisation of shapes and sizes of bottles and jugs, to facilitate re-use. They also said that they would not mind if more of the unusual shapes of bottles and jugs were to disappear.

My Bill would apply to other materials —notably plastics and tinplate—as well as glass. The world's limited natural resources are being used up frighteningly fast. Waste must be lessened by re-use and recycling on a larger scale. Greater standardisation will make re-use and recycling a more economic proposition. That is the reasoning behind the Bill, which is directed to one aspect of the problem of waste. It is time that we 1202 paid more attention both inside and outside the House to this whole national problem.

In recent years there has been a proliferation of types, shapes and sizes of container. For example, soft drinks used to be sold only in returnable glass bottles. Now we can get them in non-returnable glass bottles, or in cans, or in one-trip plastic containers. Up to a point this is for the convenience of consumers, who appreciate variety and easy recognition, but does convenience really require not 57 varieties but over 5,000 different types of glass container on the British market? Or is this a case of variety gone crazy?

Among the different materials glass has been specially studied because a glass bottle can be either re-used or recycled —that is, fed back into the production process. I pay tribute to the research done by Friends of the Earth. We may not agree with all that body's conclusions, but it has helped to direct public attention to this and other problems in the whole field of conservation.

We all know that reluctant feeling when we throw away an empty tonic water bottle. It seems perfectly good for re-use, but no one wants it back. Non-returnable bottles are thinner than returnable ones and need less raw material, but returnable bottles can be used for anything from eight to 40 times. It has been estimated that if all glass bottles were returnable, glass waste—which is expensive to dispose of—could be reduced by approximately 7 million tons per annum.

I realise that the economics of all this are open to argument. The costs of collection, transport, sorting and cleaning must be taken into account. However, these costs would undoubtedly be smaller if the varieties of shape and size were fewer. I wonder whether many consumers would be mortally offended if the Scotch whisky bottle they had just drained in London were given a new lease of life with gin made in Lambeth or with rum imported from Jamaica before eventually it found its way, empty again, back to the Highland distillery?

I am not pretending that this is a simple problem with a simple solution. Total costs must be considered and not just energy costs. There are complications as regards cleaning and hygiene. 1203 Some variety is essential and must continue. Legislation varies from country to country, and the export trade is important. Stupid restrictions on glass in particular would means more reliance on plastic and tinplate, which would add further to the import bill. I am not criticising the manufacturers, and especially the glass manufacturers who are anxious to promote rationalisation and have done much research to save energy and raw materials and to increase furnace efficiency.

Nevertheless, even allowing for all the factors that I have mentioned, there surely remains more room for sensible standardisation not only of glass containers but of other types as well. Many consumers would welcome it, and consumer choice in the end must be paramount. My Bill would give reserve powers to the Government to make regulations about types, shapes and sizes. But far better than Government intervention would be speedier progress in the direction of standardisation through the combined thoughts and efforts of consumers, bottlers and material manufacturers. I hope that the Bill will be a stimulus to those thoughts and efforts and to more public discussion and pressure.

The faster we can move towards sensible standardisation the greater will be the scope for re-use and recycling and the smaller will be our national waste. It is with that objective primarily in view that I beg to ask leave to introduce the Bill.

TABLE
Allotted day	Proceedings	Time for conclusion of proceedings
First day	…	…	Amendments to Clauses 1 to 8, new Clauses and new Schedules relating thereto and Amendments to Schedules 1 and 2.	9.30 p.m.
	…	…	Amendments to Clauses 9 to 19 and new Clauses and new Schedules relating thereto.	11.00 p.m.
Second day	…	…	Amendments to Clauses 20 to 22, new Clauses and new Schedules relating thereto and Amendments to Schedule 3.	11.00 p.m.
Third day	…	…	Amendments to Clauses 23 to 30, new Clauses and new Schedules relating thereto, Amendments to Schedules 4 and 5 and any remaining new Clauses and new Schedules.	7.30 p.m.
			Third Reading	11.00 p.m.