NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT AGENCY BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 1.50 pm

The Minister of State for the Environment (Dr Balaji Sadasivan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Objective

Sir, the Government intends to establish a new statutory board, the National Environment Agency (NEA) by integrating the Environmental Public Health Division and the Environmental Policy and Management of the Ministry of the Environment, and the Meteorological Service Department of the Ministry of Transport. The Bill before the House provides the legislative framework for the formation of NEA.

Rationale for the formation of NEA

The rationale for the formation of NEA is that the scope and responsibility of the Ministry have expanded over the years. There are new environmental and public health issues facing Singapore, and these have grown both in magnitude and complexity. Our challenge is to improve our environmental performance in the short to medium terms. At the same time, it is to enhance our environmental sustainability over the long term.

There are issues such as the limited land for solid waste disposal, the problem of emerging infectious diseases around the world, problems of trans-boundary pollution, energy conservation, and the growing list of international conventions on the environment that we now have to adhere to. All these have diverse policy and operational implications. Many of these issues have now become more pressing, and in the future they will become more important as our population and our economy continue to grow.

Sir, the proposed restructuring will result in a leaner, more policy-focused Ministry. The processes in the Ministry will be more streamlined, and the Agency will become more operation-focused. The division of responsibility between policy formulation and operational implementation will allow the Ministry to focus on setting strategic policy directions and addressing key policy concerns more effectively.

The NEA, on the other hand, can direct its effort towards the effective implementation and operation of policies, and in ensuring a quality living environment for Singaporeans. This delineation of focus will allow ENV to better tackle existing as well as emerging environmental challenges.

Sir, under the NEA, the Environmental Policy and Management Division will continue to play a major role in protecting and sustaining our environment. It will continue to implement programmes to monitor, reduce and prevent environmental pollution. More importantly, it will also spearhead new initiatives to deliver environmental performance and enhance sustainable development. Its key goals will be to minimise waste generation and maximise recycling and resource conservation.

The Environmental Public Health Division will meanwhile continue to maintain a high standard of public health through comprehensive disease surveillance, and improve measures to promote food hygiene, vector research and control, and environmental sanitation. It will also continue to play a lead role in enhancing our living environment through programmes such as the Hawker Centres Upgrading Programme (HUP) and the Clean Public Toilet Programme.

Sir, the formation of the NEA will also allow us to better harness the complementary expertise in these agencies, by bringing on board the Meteorological Service Department (MSD). This will help us in areas of climate change and trans-boundary haze pollution. The technical competencies of MSD will complement the competencies that are currently found in the ENV departments.

MSD is currently a key member of the local Haze Task Force. It will also serve as ENV's delegation to ASEAN meetings on the Environment and on Haze measures. MSD also provides weather information to ENV for public health warnings, such as flooding and haze. Under the NEA, MSD will continue to fulfill its role of providing meteorological information to the aviation, maritime and military sectors.

Sir, the new statutory board will be more focused, and with its more focused mission and greater administrative autonomy and flexibility, its performance will be improved. It will strengthen its partnership with the people, private and public sectors (3P sectors).

We can therefore expect to see greater cooperation and collaboration between the NEA and the 3P sectors and, in this way, it will jointly promote environmental consciousness among our people, by implementing environmental programmes for the community. The autonomy and flexibility that the Agency will enjoy will allow it to be more nimble and innovative in discharging its duties.

Sir, I will now highlight the main features of the Bill. Clause 5 provides for the appointment of the Board, which shall consist of a Chairman, a Deputy Chairman, and five to 12 other members. All are to be appointed by the Minister.

Clauses 11 and 12 set out the functions, duties and powers of the Agency. They are essentially the same as those already undertaken by the Environmental Public Health Division, the Environmental Policy and Management Division, and the Meteorological Service Department.

The financial provisions are in clauses 19 to 27. In particular, clause 23 empowers the Agency to raise loans and issue bonds. Clause 24 empowers it to issue shares and other securities to the Minister for Finance as a consequence of vesting of the property, rights and liabilities of the Government in the Agency.

Clauses 32 to 38 provide for the transfer of properties, assets and liabilities of the Agency. All employees affected will also be transferred on terms no less favourable than those enjoyed by them immediately prior to their transfer.

Clauses 39 to 50 cover some of the miscellaneous legal provisions, which are necessary for the effective functioning of the Agency. In particular, clause 41 empowers MSD the power, in case of emergency, to enter upon any land, with reasonable notice, to set up a meteorological observation station. Clause 50 provides for the consequential amendments to legislation to be administered by the Agency.

The other provisions are standard provisions found in the Acts of other statutory boards.

Sir, in closing, let me reiterate that the formation of the new statutory board will give a sharper focus to our work in ensuring a clean and sustainable environment for all. It will allow us to take advantage of the complementary expertise in the three departments to be brought together. It will also provide greater autonomy and flexibility so that the Agency can be more agile and innovative, and work even more closely and effectively with the 3P sectors.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Holland-Bukit Panjang): Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

The setting up of a National Environment Agency will facilitate the achievement of the targets as set out in our Green Plan 2012. The proposed Agency will provide more flexibility and efficiency when administering policies concerning environmental health, environmental protection, resource conservation, waste minimisation, waste recycling, waste collection and disposal. This will, hopefully, reduce administrative bureaucracy resulting in better and affordable services to businesses and consumers.

Sir, although the setting up of the National Environment Agency has certain benefits, I wish to highlight a number of concerns of its impact on businesses and consumers in the future.

First, on autonomous agency. The proposed Agency will be an autonomous agency, and thus must have a long-term sustainable business model. As a regulator and licensing body, I presume it will receive a grant from the Ministry and collect licensing fees. May I ask the Minister what proportion of the income will be from licensing fee? Is there any mechanism in place to moderate any increase of licence fees in the future? Furthermore, what are the financial savings in transferring these departments out of the Ministry into this new Agency?

The second concern is on set-up cost. As stated in the Bill, there will be extra financial expenditure by the Government to set up the Agency, but the details are not provided. I hope that the Minister can enlighten the House on the likely development and operating expenditures of the Agency. If possible, I would propose that the Agency be located near the Ministry of National Development so as to provide a one-stop service centre for the public.

As highlighted by the Minister of State for the Environment, ENV will promote more recycling of construction waste and sustainable development in future. The proposed BCA's registration of construction firms also requires environmental management accreditation, which is ISO 14000. This calls for a greater integration between the Ministry of National Development and Ministry of the Environment. The co-location of services of these two Ministries will help businesses to save costs, and facilitate the approval of development projects.

The third area of concern is on the potential conflict of interest. Sir, as stated in clause 12(h), the Agency has power, subject to the approval of the Minister, to form or participate in the formation of any company, partnership or joint venture as a shareholder or partner or in any other capacity. As a regulator and licensing body, there could be potential conflict of interest if the Agency were to be involved in business ventures, especially in environmental related businesses. This will impede open market competition among service providers, thus increasing cost of services. I hope the Minister can clarify on this potential conflict of interest and explain the rationale for allowing the Agency to participate in business activities.

It is also stated in clause 11(1) (b) that the Agency can provide consultancy services on matters concerning food hygiene in the food retail industry, and in relation to pest control, environmental and other related industries. Again, how can a regulator provide consultancy services to businesses and, at the same time, license and regulate their clients' business activities? Although the services may be provided by different groups of staff in the Agency, both are serving the same master. I hope the Minister can consider the removal of such provision in the Bill.

The fourth area of concern is on protection from liability. Sir, clause 17(3) protects the Agency and its employees from any liability if the Agency provides a service to the public whereby information is supplied to the public. This is an unfair clause and does not offer any protection to the public, who may suffer losses as a result of errors or omissions made by the Agency or its employees.

The clause does not provide any redress to the public for their losses. It is also unhealthy to have such a clause as it erodes accountability of the Agency and its employees. The protection clause will result in employees being careless when providing services or information to the public. As a regulatory body, the Agency must be held responsible for its actions. The public must also have the right to seek legal redress, if necessary. Thus, I would propose to the Minister to delete the unfair protection clause in the Bill.

Mr Andy Gan Lai Chiang (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

It is timely that we have such an Agency set up to provide a focused attention to matters pertaining to our environment. As Singapore becomes more and more congested, with increasing number of people living in the country and more vehicles congesting our roads, a focused attention is necessary to make sure that our environment is free from unnecessary pollution, be it in the air, water or from food contamination.

I am also pleased to note that the services of the meteorological stations are now under the purview of this Agency. Apart from providing meteorological services to Government agencies, it has the important role of making sure that our shipping and aviation communities are supplied with accurate data on the weather. An environmental agency with these powers to provide such services would be in line with a more focused view on environmental control.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to suggest to the Minister that the functions already listed out in the Bill be further expanded to include environmental issues relating to nature conservation. It should have the power to monitor areas of Singapore, such as our natural forest or mangrove swamps that are in danger of being lost in the name of progress. Such an example is in the recent issue of the wasteland at Tanjung Chek Jawa at Pulau Ubin, which was saved by the timely intervention of concerned members of the public. These areas are, in a sense, natural parks and serve as a reminder of the wonders of nature. There, we can learn the inter-relationship of living things with the environment and the associated flora and fauna, something which future generations of Singaporeans may miss learning from, if all these indigenous ecosystems were to be wiped out from our landscape.

I am aware that we already have the National Parks Act to look into nature conservation matters. But the Act is too restrictive in that it controls and administers only our national parks and nature reserves, such as the Sungei Buloh Nature Reserves and Labrador Park. I feel that the Environment Agency should be given the power to look at the bigger picture as compared to the National Parks Board, which looks after built-up parks and gazetted nature reserves. Every bit of our natural habitat, including the water mass that comes with it, once transformed, may never be regained. We need an environmental agency to look into projects such as the proposed new golf course at the Kranji marshlands that will destroy precious feeding grounds for herons and a long time habitat for more than 90 species of birds. If it were not for the intervention of the Nature Society of Singapore, the meeting between the developer of the golf course, the URA and the National Parks Board may not have taken place, and Singaporeans would have lost another natural habitat for birds.

A master plan should be drawn up by this Agency to preserve areas of Singapore, not from the standpoint of the Urban Redevelopment Authority and the National Parks Board, which may focus too much on redevelopment, but from the conservationists' view under the Environment Agency. Through that course, we will not make decisions to transform our natural habitat into concrete jungles too quickly. Even all our recent reclaimed land, such as Jurong Island, can very quickly turn into natural habitats for birds when suitable trees and vegetation grow on them, and in the tropics these thrive very quickly. Such areas could come under the attention of the proposed Environment Agency for conservation matters.

Mr Speaker, Sir, permit me to add another suggestion. The Environment Agency should be given the power under this Bill to set up mini-meteorological stations in our parks. This would not only serve to provide localised weather information but would also attract residents to make use of the parks for information and educational purposes. I can see parents bringing their children there to teach them or even teach themselves how our daily rainfall and weather temperatures are being collected and measured, and the importance of knowing these figures, and how to predict them under changing wind directions as well as seasonal changes in weather patterns.

Such interest, when generated, may spur the growth of a weather industry as well as its related economic benefits to the nation. In fact, I came across an advertisement showing a perfect Father's Day gift - a Galileo thermometer to measure the weather temperature, not very accurate, but it promotes awareness of our exposure to the elements, at a special reduced price of US$18.95, inclusive of delivery. Outdoor sportsmen and women may also want to carry with them a pocket weather tracker, lest they find themselves baking under the hot sun or drenched by the rain. Such interest would involve more people to connect themselves to nature and learn to respect its awesome powers and gentleness.

Another function given to the Environment Agency, under clause 11(1) (n), is to promote energy efficiency, the use of clean energy, the use of clean technologies, the use of efficient pollution technologies and waste recycling. I agree with these functions fully. However, the Bill is silent as to whether any researches need to be done in the area of clean energy. We have heard much about this, but what is clean solar energy, clean wind energy or some others, and how do we know that it is beneficial to the country? Perhaps a clear definition is needed to help Singaporeans identify the new age energy.

When it comes to the point relating to offences committed under this Bill, I would urge the Minister to be firm as well as being compassionate when deciding on the quantum of fines, when the Bill is finally enacted.

Under clause 46(1), compositions of offences can be imposed on offenders for up to $1,000, and clause 48(2) allows fines of up to $10,000, or with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or with both. As this Bill covers acts ranging from littering on the streets up to pollution of our coastal waters, I hope that the severity of the offences will vary with lighter fines bearing on acts such as littering.

Singapore has no natural resources that we can boast of, but it has abundant natural habitats that nature provides. These natural landscapes, once carefully crafted out, will show the world that we care for the environment.

Finally, I wish to compliment the Hon. Minister for his wisdom in setting up this Agency, which will not only allow a greater flexibility and interest in managing our environment, but also greater professionalism in the management of its daily functions.

On that note, Sir, I support the Bill.

The Minister for the Environment (Mr Lim Swee Say): Sir, I would like to thank the Members - Dr Teo Ho Pin and Mr Andy Gan - for speaking up in support of the Bill. I will go through some of the issues raised by Dr Teo Ho Pin first.

Firstly, Dr Teo is concerned whether the National Environment Agency (NEA), being an autonomous agency, will adopt a business model that is revenue-driven. I suppose Dr Teo is concerned, firstly, whether this Agency would compete with the industry for business and, secondly, whether this Agency will over-emphasise on revenue generation to keep the Agency going.

Sir, here, I want to assure the Member that, firstly, the NEA will be an Agency funded by the Government. In other words, the NEA is not set up to be a self-funding statutory board, but rather a statutory board - to be funded by the Government to offer public services. Secondly, the revenues collected by the NEA, whether it is through fees, fines and so on, NEA will not get to keep the revenue for its own use. This is because every year, NEA will be getting a grant from the Government. So whatever revenue the NEA is going to collect, through fees, fines and so on, will be offset against the grant from the Government. As far as NEA is concerned, it will be operating on an annual budget based on its operating requirements. It is not driven by revenue generation.

Dr Teo is concerned whether NEA will compete with the private sector for business. Sir, here, I want to assure the House that, again, it is not the intention of NEA. The staff of NEA, from time to time, will offer consultancy service for overseas projects. For example, we extend technical assistance to the Riau province in Indonesia, under a G to G programme. Basically, we offer consultancy to organisations and projects in the region for the purpose of enhancing regional collaboration. The officers may also be asked to undertake some consultancy services - maybe in places like China. These projects are undertaken in order to, firstly, strengthen our collaboration on a country-to-country basis; and, secondly, to enable our staff at NEA, as part of their professional development, to keep track of some of the development and issues faced in the region. But, at the end of day, I want to assure the House that it is not the intention for NEA to function as a business entity, because it is not set up to be a business entity. It will continue to be a Government-funded statutory board. And the main responsibility, as my MOS has presented, is to ensure that environmental performance in Singapore will continue to be improved, and the foundation for sustainability will continue to be enhanced. Most of these works will be done through the private sector, by the private sector. ENV will set the policy; and the NEA will enforce on the operational aspects; whereas the actual implementation will be done by the private sector.

Dr Teo brought up another point regarding the protection granted to employees and officers of the Board. Sir, here, again, I want to emphasise that, as public sector employees, NEA employees, from time to time, are asked by the private sector to provide information regarding certain aspects of our work. For example, waste disposal, clean air, and so on. Based on good faith, from time to time, my officers do share some technical information with the private sector. But how this technical information could be applied to a specific situation is something that the NEA officers should not be expected to take on the responsibility. Take, for example, if someone were to come to NEA and say that if he were to purchase a ultra low sulphur diesel (ULSD) vehicle, would that ULSD vehicle satisfy NEA's emission standard? Based on technical specifications, the NEA officers should be in a position to advise him. They will say, "Yes, if you go by the international standard for ULSD vehicles, you should be able to satisfy the requirement." But what if the ULSD vehicle turns out to be violating our emission standards due to maintenance or operational problems? Firstly, does it mean that NEA officers cannot take enforcement action against that person? Secondly, does it mean that once enforcement action is taken against him, he can take counter action against our officers for giving him wrong information?

Sir, at the end of the day, we have to bear in mind that the more we remove this protection of good faith from the NEA officers, the more it is likely that the officers would behave in an even more bureaucratic manner. As my MOS has pointed out, the purpose of the NEA is to strengthen the 3P partnership, meaning that we would very much like to work very closely with the people sector, the public sector and the private sector. In that regard, as we work together based on good faith, it is very important that whatever information and assistance that the officers offer out of good faith to the industry and private sector, should not be taken against them. At the end of the day, it is really for the recipients of the information to make their own technical or business assessment on whether they want to accept the input of the NEA officers.

Sir, let me move on to respond to the points raised by Mr Andy Gan. Basically, Mr Andy Gan asked whether nature conservation should come under the NEA. Broadly speaking, from the environmental angle, there are three types of issues. First is the green issue relating to nature conservation, bio-diversity, and so on. The second type will be the brown issue, eg, pollution control, and so on. And the third type will be the blue issue, eg, marine life, marine diversity, and so on.

At this moment, all over the world, there is no standard practice on how the government should organise its agencies to address the blue, brown and green issues. Take, for example, in the case of USA, the USEPA is basically an agency that looks after the brown issues. The blue and green issues are looked after by some other agencies. In the case of Germany, for example, one agency takes charge of all three issues - green, brown and blue. In the case of Singapore, ENV, and now NEA, will continue to be responsible for handling the brown issues. In the case of NParks, it will continue to be responsible for the green issues. The Marine Port Authority (MPA) will continue to take charge of the blue issues. This is not without good reasons. Because, in the case of Singapore, marine resources are used mainly for port traffic. As a result, it makes more sense for MPA to regulate the traffic flow in our water, and enforce environmental protection measures at the same time.

But, here, I want to point out that any land-based pollution, any activities on land that may lead to pollution in the water, will continue to come under NEA and ENV. There is therefore no gap in our responsibility. In the case of NParks, many of our green issues have to do with land use. Many of the examples mentioned by Mr Andy Gan really are issues between balancing environmental consideration and land use consideration. Up till now, I think the Government has found it most efficient and most effective for NParks to come under the Ministry of National Development, because land use consideration and environmental management consideration can best be balanced within the same Ministry.

I also want to emphasise that just because NEA is looking after the brown issues, NParks after the green issues, and MPA after the blue issues, it does not mean that the three agencies will be working in isolation. In fact, the three agencies work very closely together. One good example is the SGP 2012. NParks is an integral part of this whole exercise. By the time the SGP 2012 is formulated and implemented, ENV, NEA, NParks and MPA will collectively take joint responsibility in the overall implementation of SGP 2012.

Sir, Mr Andy Gan also asked whether we can do something to enhance the interest of our younger generation in local weather broadcast and so on, so that in time to come, maybe we can even nurture a weather industry. Sir, this is a very interesting idea. I will convey this to MSD. Once it comes under NEA, we will see what can be done and what needs to be done.

Mr Andy Gan also asked whether NEA will set very clear policy directions regarding the research direction for clean energy. Sir, the NEA, basically, will pursue management by outcome. The concern of the NEA will be to ensure that the ambient air quality of Singapore will remain within the standard imposed by the World Health Organisation and the USEPA. Research is a means to the end. In other words, NEA, in itself, will not undertake research. Rather, it will pursue the 3P partnership. NEA will encourage research in the technical community. NEA will promote innovation in the industry, and commercialisation in the marketplace so that the results of research can be widespread.

Sir, in other words, NEA will be looking at how upstream R&D, midstream innovation, and downstream deployment and commercialisation, can be best synergised without getting too involved directly in any of these areas of work.

Last, but not least, Mr Andy Gan suggested that the penalty that we impose should take into consideration the severity of the offences. I fully agree with Mr Andy Gan. When we impose penalty, we will certainly take into consideration the implication and impact on the environment.

Sir, I think I have answered most of the points brought up by the Members.

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. - [Dr Balaji Sadasivan].

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