ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION CONTROL (AMENDMENT) BILL

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION CONTROL (AMENDMENT) BILL: Debate resumed.

6.26 pm

Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Members who have stood up to support this Bill. I am thankful for the support that they have given in their speeches, especially the strong support towards energy labelling.

Let me address some of the questions raised by the Members. I will start with my fellow civil engineer, Ms Lee Bee Wah, on some concerns about whether or not with the tightening of noise limits and the penalties, we will therefore become too stringent with respect to the construction industry. I would like to inform the House and the hon. Member that before we started on this process, we consulted the industry widely. We went through a whole series of consultations with the Singapore Contractors Associations, the Real Estate Association, the Institute of Architects, the Institute of Engineers Singapore, and other bodies.

Everyone that is involved in the construction industry has been consulted, and they all agree that the limits that we have arrived at are actually workable. We have to do this primarily because the number of complaints has been increasing. So the balance that we have reached is quite good between the industry and also the demand from the public. Yet, at the same time, the Member's concern about exemption is a valid one. For some type of construction works, they would require an extended period in terms of the work. For example, as she rightly pointed out, when you have to concrete a large raft foundation, it will go beyond 12 hours or even 24 hours. We will examine the requests on a case-by-case basis. The manner in which we

Column: 812

will implement these noise limits and the penalties will be very judicious, because we understand that we must also help the industry to adjust to these new noise limits.

The Member suggested a task force on a waiver list. What we will do is that we will look at the waivers request on a case-by-case basis, and we will consult the industry, because we cannot assume that the NEA has the expert knowledge on the industry. So we will consult with our colleagues in the BCA and other agencies.

The other point is that these noise limits will come into effect on 1st October 2007. So, for existing projects, they will not be affected. For the new projects, they can therefore factor in the new noise limits and the penalties into their budget. Hence, they can make some adjustments. If we look at the noise limits, it is only during the weekends and public holidays.

There was a request for us to have a blanket freeze during such periods. We thought it was not the right thing to do as far as our construction industry is concerned. So the limits that we have reached is a good balance between the needs of the industry and the public.

The Member also asked whether increasing fines is the only way to go. The number of complaints has gone up. And for those errant contractors or people who produce noise, they must also know that they have to play their part. So, the range of fines is to demonstrate to the public that we are concerned. As I mentioned earlier, we work very closely with the construction industry to make sure they understand the things that they can do. In fact, when we go in to check the noise limits within 150 metres of residential buildings or homes, we work together with the contractor to check the noise level.

Column: 813

I assure the Member that NEA will not be very quick to fine the contractors. We will discuss with them and help them.

Her final point is about the length of offences. The offences are not carried by the company. It is actually site specific. So, not to worry, the company will not be blacklisted.

Mdm Ho was very supportive and had some questions about how we can help to educate the public. I agree with her that once we have passed this Bill, NEA will go out

and, through the various VWOs which we are working together, help educate the public, in terms of selection of appliances. This is also in relation to questions raised by Mdm Cynthia Phua on how do we make the information available as easy as possible. I think the tick system is easily recognisable and it is already in place for many years since 2002. So people are quite familiar with that. When you go to a shop, you can see it is visibly displayed. So they know. It is easy to count - 1 tick, 2 ticks, 3 ticks and 4 ticks. It is quite easy for members of the public.

When will we be able to have everything in place for the energy labelling? We have given the suppliers six months. So from 1st January of next year, the two products - air-conditioners and refrigerators - in the market must be labelled. So there is enough time as far as the suppliers are concerned, in order to do their testing and display the information on their models.

Mdm Ho also raised the question about rebates or incentives. What is more important for us is that we have been working with the suppliers. And since the voluntary labelling scheme has been in place in 2002, most suppliers are aware that they need to do something. And, in fact, we are giving them a six-month

Column: 814

grace period. Really, there is no strong reason for us to incentivise the suppliers.

On the construction noise, Mdm Ho has raised the question of whether or not we can work with the contractors, especially during periods such as the PSLE examinations. First of all, if you look carefully at the noise limit that we have amended, it is really to look into the construction sites which are within 150 metres of homes and residential buildings. So we have lowered it a bit to take this into account, but we cannot possibly have a blanket ban during such periods because it will not good for the industry. But I would like to assure her that NEA receives a lot of calls on noise complaints and will immediately investigate. And that is our responsibility. So I think it is not possible for us to have a blanket ban during such periods.

Let me now move on to the points raised by Mdm Cynthia Phua on the issue of easy information. I have addressed that. She also raised the issue of water consumption which is not part of the Bill. PUB is currently promoting labelling some of the water appliances and is currently voluntary. I am impressed by her knowledge of notebook versus PC. We will not go down to that detailed level of information. What we are doing is labelling across the same type of products among, let us say, for example, refrigerators, what would be the efficiency level? Is it 1 tick or 2 ticks?

But her other point about whether or not we want to extend this beyond, I think we will move slowly. As she has rightly pointed out, household energy consumption is about 18% to 20% and among that, refrigerators and air-conditioners are the guzzlers. So if we can help households to reduce their energy consumption for these two types of appliances which are quite pervasive in Singapore, then I think we would be able to achieve a lot. We will monitor this

Column: 815

very closely. Eventually, if some products come to the market which are becoming more popular, then we will address that. For example, not many homes would have dryers, which are basically energy guzzlers. But once that becomes popular in Singapore - we will look into it and see whether we want to introduce energy labelling for that.

I agree with the Member that we will not want the cost of registration to be excessive. In fact, we have worked out a cost which is quite reasonable. It is not the aim of NEA to profit from this. We will just cover cost, and the registration will be for three years. So I would like to assure the Member that we will continue to help the industry to make sure that we can do this without increasing the costs excessively.

Dr Lim raised a valid question which I thought was also alluded to by Mdm Phua about the impact on households. Due to the popularity of some models, the unit cost for testing is actually quite low. So the question that he raised as to why is it, after so many years of voluntary scheme, not many manufacturers are on board, perhaps it is just inertia. But now, making it mandatory, and after looking at it for the last three years, you realise that it is not that difficult. In fact, some of the models already come with the energy information from where they have been imported. We are quite open. We are not insisting that they all must be tested by a certain company in Singapore. We accept based upon whatever information they can deliver from the suppliers on their side. So we will make it as easy as possible. But we must be able to see a certificate which is internationally recognisable.

The duration, as I mentioned earlier, is for three years and it is renewed after that. As for second-hand goods, I am not sure whether Dr Lim is privy to such thing. But I think the market for such

Column: 816

goods is not that high. It is not cost-effective for you to do labelling for second-hand goods. It is more cost-effective to do it for new products. And what will happen is that the labelling has to be renewed every three years, not for that product, but for that model. Because three years later, for example, we may have more information and therefore, we have to renew that. We do not see a need for labeling of second-hand air-conditioners and refrigerators.

I agree on public education and will start immediately after this. We have to go out and explain, not only to the suppliers but also to the consumers. But Dr Lim raised a very good point about minimum energy, which I thought was also mentioned by Mdm Cynthia Phua on energy consumption. Eventually, that is the way to go. But we will look at energy labelling first as a step and making that mandatory. We will study this. And if, supposing as a result of the information, the less efficient models are weeded out of the market, then there is really no need for us to have a minimum energy performance standard. But we will keep an open option and we will study this as we go along, depending on how the market reacts. Ultimately, the behaviour is what is mentioned by Mdm Phua. We want the public to take a long-term view and buy products which are more energy-efficient and therefore more cost saving on their part. And suppliers will react to that and they will not bring in the less efficient products. So we will continue to monitor this and see whether there is a need for us to introduce minimum energy information.

Dr Lim also mentioned about renewable solar panels. As you know, there is a committee now under the National Research Foundation which is looking into that. There is no prohibition against people putting in solar panels for their water heaters. It is really left to the consumers. But over the longer term, we

Column: 817

will wait for the NRF work on clean energy. If it is viable and it is something that can be done, we will certainly consider that and encourage the public to adopt.

Sir, I think I have addressed most of the concerns.

Mdm Cynthia Phua: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I just like to appeal to the Minister that under energy labelling, although the efficiency tick is easily understandable, the consumption figure would also be relevant. It will give the consumers an informed choice as well.

Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: I agree with her, in terms of energy information. But consumption would depend upon the price of electricity which changes every three months. At the moment, we will move on this energy labelling. But I agree with her that if we can give more information which is relevant to the consumers, we will look into it.
Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.