Building and Related Works (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

12.31 pm

The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for National Development): Mdm Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for National Development, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

The Ministry of National Development (MND) launched the refreshed Built Environment Industry Transformation Map, or ITM, last September. The ITM aims to raise the adoption of digitalisation, automation and prefabrication to position the sector to be more future-ready and resilient, taking in the lessons learnt from COVID-19.

CORENET X is a key initiative to support our digitalisation efforts. CORENET X is a one-stop digital shopfront for the industry to make regulatory submissions for building works. We expect it to bring about significant benefits for both the industry and the agencies.

First, CORENET X will drive greater industry collaboration through data interoperability. We will require eligible projects to prepare their plans in Building Information Modelling, or BIM format, which is essentially a 3D digital building model.

Consultants will be required to submit their BIM models for these projects through a standard submission format, which is aligned to common data standards. This will allow for BIM models to be read by various BIM-based software used by other project stakeholders and will also allow consultants across multiple disciplines to coordinate on a single BIM submission. Data interoperability can also allow contractors and facilities managers to weigh in on the building design at an earlier stage, so that consultants can incorporate considerations for construction and maintenance upfront. The BIM models can then be passed on to contractors to guide construction downstream and minimise abortive work from creating their own models from scratch. The capturing of accurate building design data within the BIM models will also facilitate new possibilities, including their use as "digital twins" for building maintenance.

Second, the use of new technologies under CORENET X will deliver productivity gains for both the industry and agencies.

One example is the Collaboration Platform, which will allow Government agencies to review regulatory submissions concurrently. This will facilitate collaboration across agencies to put together a clear, consolidated response to consultants, which will help to reduce the number of iterations between agencies and the industry today.

We intend to introduce an Automated Model Checker. This will automate the checking of regulatory rules and speed up compliance checks for agencies. The industry can also utilise the checker to review their designs and correct any non-compliances before making their submissions.

Third, CORENET X will support a redesigned process for regulatory submissions for building works.

Today, the project team submits different sets of building plans across various touchpoints for different agencies. This can result in discrepancies leading to plan adjustments and abortive work, which can delay the completion timeline for projects.

Under CORENET X, we will streamline more than 20 existing touchpoints with agencies into just three key submission gateways at the design, construction and occupation and completion phases.

There will also be an optional Piling Gateway between the Design and Construction Gateways. This will provide flexibility for projects to start piling work earlier. At each submission gateway, agencies will provide a consolidated response to each submission from the industry, rather than issuing piecemeal directions in silos. This coordinated process will enable cross-agency issues and conflicts to be identified and resolved in a systemic manner.

So, taken together, CORENET X can help reduce the overall time and effort from the industry to obtain approvals across the development process.

For a project above 5,000 square metres submitted in BIM, approval times could be reduced by 20% to 25% based on preliminary estimates.

For smaller projects, agencies have also streamlined requirements to expedite regulatory approvals under CORENET X. For example, simpler works, such as minor standalone structures, can enjoy a Direct Submission Process, or DSP. Under DSP, such works will only require a single submission, compared to the submissions at the Design and Construction Gateways required for other works.

Madam, the Bill will support the new regulatory approval process under CORENET X by providing agencies with relevant powers. It will also harmonise regulatory processes across agencies, in tandem with CORENET X.

I will now outline the key amendments.

First, amendments to the Planning Act. Currently, when applying for Written Permission, or WP, Qualified Persons (QP) must submit a full set of design details complying with Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA)'s guidelines and requirements. Where there are non-compliances, URA may issue Provisional Permission, or PP, instead of WP.

Clause 25 will amend the Planning Act to allow QPs to apply for and for URA to approve as the competent authority, the PP separately from the WP.

This means that QPs will only be required to submit key design parameters to receive the PP earlier at the Design Gateway, together with similar clearances from other agencies. The design can then be developed in greater detail to be submitted for URA's approval of the WP later on, at the Construction Gateway. This new process will help QPs to avoid reworking detailed designs at a later stage, because issues with key design parameters would be picked up by regulators earlier.

Second, the amendments to provide for lodgment. Today, agencies already allow for the lodgment of building plans for simple submissions. Under the lodgment process, QPs declare that their building plans are compliant with agencies' requirements, and approvals are expedited.

Together with CORENET X, all agencies will harmonise their lodgment approach for works of lower risk, such as certain landed housing developments.

Hence, clauses 2, 4 to 9, 11, 12, 16 to 18 and 20 will amend the Building Control Act, the Environmental Protection and Management Act, or EPMA, and the Environmental Public Health Act, or EPHA, to provide for lodgment of building plans under Building and Construction Authority (BCA) and National Environment Agency (NEA).

We expect that the response times for lodged projects could decrease from up to seven days for some agencies, to within a day when CORENET X is fully implemented.

Third, amendments to regularise approvals under EPMA and EPHA. Today, NEA ensures that building plans comply with pollution control and environmental public health requirements by administratively riding on BCA's approvals.

Clauses 16 to 18 and 20 will amend the EPMA and EPHA to provide the Director-General of Environmental Protection and the Director-General of Public Health with powers to ensure that building and other works meet pollution control requirements and environmental public health requirements respectively.

This involves providing them with powers to grant approvals for controlled works. Both Director-Generals will also have powers of enforcement, such as by issuing directions and imposing timelines for project parties to comply with.

Fourth, amendments to enable electronic service of relevant documents. To enable CORENET X, provisions for electronic services will be harmonised under various Acts across agencies for clarity.

Hence, clauses 10, 16, 18, 21, 22, 27 and 28 will amend the relevant legislation to make clear that BCA, NEA, National Parks Board (NParks), Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and URA can electronically serve approvals, directions and other documents related to building works, using a common electronic service system in specified circumstances.

Madam, CORENET X is a significant effort that is the culmination of many years of hard work and effort. Without the close partnership and valuable insights of industry stakeholders, it would not have been possible for us to bring CORENET X to fruition.

Since 2018, more than 100 industry representatives have worked with us to develop the new CORENET X regulatory approval process.

Agencies have also established Communities of Practice with various industry stakeholders, including consultants and developers. This involves monthly meetings for agencies to provide progress updates and receive feedback on the development of CORENET X.

We are also working with the industry on sandbox projects to test out and refine the new features and processes prior to launch. The sandbox involves submissions from both public and private sector projects across various building typologies.

This iterative process of seeking inputs and incorporating feedback has built a deep vein of trust and understanding between agencies and the industry.

As we roll out CORENET X in the coming years, we will leverage this close partnership to ensure its success. As with any new system, we recognise that all parties will require sufficient time to adjust to the changes. To this end, we will onboard users in phases and roll out features progressively, beginning with a soft launch of CORENET X in December this year.

As a start, we will work with partner firms to test out the new features, with projects of varying sizes and building typologies. For the first year following the launch, we will gradually encourage more submissions for new projects to come on board on a voluntary basis. This will encourage the industry to familiarise themselves with the new platform and processes and ensure a smooth transition as we move towards onboarding all submissions. We will release more details when ready.

This phased approach will provide the industry with sufficient time to prepare for CORENET X. We have put in place various resources, such as training courses, industry briefings and webinars, a Code of Practice as a guide for submission requirements and a dedicated CORENET X website with self-help resources. And we will continue to work closely with trade associations and professional boards to reach out to their members, including smaller firms, to inform and train them on the use of CORENET X.

To date, we have trained more than 350 industry professionals on the submission requirements and the new regulatory approval process under CORENET X.

An example of an SME firm that has upskilled itself is DCA Architects, which has adapted its inhouse workflows to align with the new CORENET X processes. DCA Architects is also preparing its project team for CORENET X submissions by participating in the CORENET X sandbox and is sending its QPs for the necessary training programmes.

To support more SMEs in their upskilling efforts, I am happy to share that we are expanding the scope of the Productivity Solutions Grant, or PSG, to include a package comprising BIM authoring solutions and training programmes to utilise these solutions for CORENET X. Local SMEs will now be able to receive up to 50% funding support for qualifying solutions, to help them make the transition to BIM under CORENET X. BCA will release more details in the coming months.

We will pay close attention to the industry readiness for CORENET X through regular checks with the industry. In the meantime, I encourage our industry practitioners, especially QPs, to tap on the various resources available and upskill yourselves to reap the full benefits of CORENET X. So, please do approach BCA or your respective trade associations for more details.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, to conclude, this Bill is necessary to implement the new CORENET X platform. CORENET X will create productivity savings and reduce regulatory burden for both the industry and agencies. More importantly, CORENET X is not just an IT system but will play an integral role in the ongoing transformation of our built environment sector by driving greater digitalisation and collaboration across the project value chain. Madam, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

12.46 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, this Bill introduces new planning permissions for buildings and related works and enables building approvals to be processed through the new CORENET X platform.

I commend the Government agencies and the industry for their collaborative approach in creating the new CORENET X platform. The platform streamlines our planning process into a single submission by developers and a coordinated response across agencies. It is a good example of how all stakeholders can work together for better outcomes.

I have three points of clarification on the Bill.

My first clarification is on safeguards for preliminary approvals. Under the new section 5AA of the BCA, plans for any lodgement works are automatically approved without any need for the Commissioner to check the plans. The new section 33E of the EPMA and 46F of the EPHA allow developers to apply for a design certificate to commence preliminary works before getting a clearance certificate for pollution control or public health risks is given. Under the new section 17A of the Planning Act, there is a process to apply for provisional permission to commence works before planning permission is granted.

I understand it is important to give developers flexibility to commence work early while waiting for final permission. However, once preliminary work has begun, it becomes harder to change course. Would it be difficult for the agencies to refuse final permission, knowing that developers have already incurred expenses? What if rectification costs are too high or not even possible and the damage is already done? Can the Senior Minister of State clarify what safeguards will be taken when giving provisional or preliminary permission to minimise such risks?

My second clarification is on the scope of defences under the Bill. Under section 20 of the BCA, the new subsection 1 states that it is a defence to lodging a non-compliant plan if the accused reasonably believed the plans complied with all the prescribed regulations. What would be considered to be reasonable?

Similarly, in the new section 33H of the EPMA, it is an offence to deviate "in a material way" from the plans under a clearance certificate. What is the threshold for the deviation to be considered material? Providing guidance and examples on how these terms are applied would be useful for developers to know the extent of due diligence expected.

My third and final point is the need to legislate an environmental impact assessment (EIA) framework for all building works. I have raised this a number of times in this House. These updates to planning permissions are commendable but we still have not taken the critical step of introducing a formal EIA law.

EIA is an essential exercise to ensure that we properly balance the benefits of development to the costs to our environment. Loss of natural spaces and biodiversity adversely affects the lives of all Singaporeans. We not only are denied the enjoyment of natural spaces, we also lose an invaluable resource for combating climate change.

The Minister for National Development has previously stated that even though we have no formal EIA laws, the EIA framework is built into the planning approvals and agencies can require an EIA to be undertaken. I also recognise that we are taking steps to centralise EIA requirements under NParks.

A law to mandate EIA has several benefits over the current case-by-case approach. It creates certainty. Developers would know the cost of falling short. They would be able to plan ahead of time and not need to await some government decision.

Agencies would not need to make as many case-by-case assessments. Singaporeans could be consulted to ensure the law reflects their values and priorities. The law could also contain principles and rules to standardise when and how information gets disclosed, strengthening our Government's principle of transparency.

I hope the Senior Minister of State can consider these benefits and periodically review our planning framework to consider codifying an EIA law.

Madam, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

12.50 pm

Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Building and Related Works (Amendment) Bill facilitates a simplified approval process for less complex and lower-risk buildings such as shelters and landed properties and promotes the regulation of environmental health in respect of buildings, among other things. I support the Bill.

Beyond these improvements to regulatory frameworks and while I acknowledge that many steps have been taken in this direction, I urge the Government to apply even greater efforts towards minimising work safety incidents in the construction industry.

Workplace fatalities have been on the rise, following the winding down of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021. In 2021, there were 37 workplace fatalities. In 2022, there were a total of 46 workplace facilities. Most recently, a 20-year-old migrant worker was killed due to the collapse of a concrete wall at a work site in Tanjong Pagar. Earlier this year, there was a construction worker who fell from a roof while doing waterproofing work and a migrant worker who was killed by falling bars.

The project Migrant Death Map, a volunteer-driven initiative, documented all migrant worker deaths from January 2000 to mid-2022 and investigated the key issues surrounding these deaths. Sixty-six percent of the deaths were caused by workplace incidents. The project found that the lack of safety at work sites and migrant workers' work practices were not inherent to the nature of the work as many accidents were preventable and involved employer negligence, which may be symptomatic of prioritising financial gain over labour safety.

Apart from the safety infrastructure, worker's healthcare, mental health and transportation facilities all play a part in creating a safe working environment.

The hon Minister for Manpower Tan See Leng reported to the House in July last year that for the past five years, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) received around 2,400 to 3,800 reports a year on unsafe acts in workplaces from various channels such as the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) hotline, eFeedback on MOM's website and referrals from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and unions. The Minister also mentioned that MOM assesses each element of feedback and aims to ensure that relevant companies make the required rectifications and encourage workers to report unsafe workplace conditions.

While these are welcome measures, the number of workplace fatalities suggest that there is much more to be done.

According to the Migrant Worker Death Map, 455 migrant workers died between 1 January 2001 and 3 August 2022. These deaths amount to a moral call to action to save lives, but they also underline what is at stake in protecting our national brand and reputation as a caring society.

I have a few suggestions to make for the Ministry's consideration.

Firstly, the in-depth review and sharing of information on significant lessons learnt following workplace incidents is important. Companies can then improve from the failures of themselves and others, thereby enabling the benchmarking of safety procedures.

While the immediate cause of the accident is investigated and made known through a coroner's inquiry – in the case of a fatality, that is – it is not known whether and how companies explore the deeper reasons behind safety lapses and make the necessary changes.

For instance, for the migrant worker who was killed by bars falling on him, the coroner's inquiry found that he had been using an unapproved method of securing the bars, resulting in the wire securing the bundle of bars, which was being lifted by a tower crane, snapping.

Two workers who noticed the mistake on a previous occasion did not highlight the mistake to their supervisor. It is unclear why they did not do so. Reasons could include a lack of training, reporting procedure or an inclination to complete the job faster.

Rectification and stop work orders issued by MOM should ensure that companies make swift initial assessments and rectifications, including prompt solutions to safety reporting, when an accident happens, while waiting for the results of an investigation that should provide root cause analysis. Moreover, safety codes should be made as simple and visual as possible so that workers can fully comprehend the safety procedure.

Secondly, besides skills-based training, employees need to be given awareness-based training to be able to confidently report safety risks. Awareness-based training tackles the impact of work pressure resulting in the compromise of safety boundaries. It would be key to follow safety procedures and draw attention to the importance of doing so.

On an everyday basis, one way could be using the pointing and calling method which we commonly see in Japanese companies, where every safety step taken is loudly stated, verbalised or called out. This helps to increase focus on the safety measures taken.

On a more structural level, companies must set up adequate procedures for reporting to ensure that workers understand that safety is crucial.

The Industrial Safety and Health Act in Japan, for example, obliges employers of work sites with 50 or more employees to establish a safety committee which must meet at least once a month, with half of the members nominated by a representative of the employees.

While Singapore has similar regulations, the law in Japan requires the committee to circulate an agenda to all employees and provide opportunities to hear workers' opinions on matters related to workplace safety and health. This ensures that the opinions of the employees are reflected in the safety and health measures undertaken by the employer.

Thirdly, the Government, of course, needs to regulate construction companies by invoking appropriate punishments to compel companies to ensure a safe working environment.

There is a framework for doing that, and that is done. While there is a Safety Disqualification Framework, though, to disqualify contractors with a certain number of demerit points from Public Sector's construction tenders, the demerit points framework has room to be tightened further.

Companies have the leeway to accumulate a few breaches in safety before being disqualified from tenders. A company would have to accumulate three full stop work orders or to have major injuries or the death of one person before there is a disqualification of three months from entering into tenders.

While company directors can be prosecuted under section 48 of the Workplace Safety and Health Act, we have not seen prosecutions of company directors arising from the many workplace safety incidents that have happened, generally speaking. Instead, it is companies that are penalised, without the individuals responsible being punished.

If workplace accidents are not reduced significantly as a result of the other measures being taken, this should be reviewed.

Apart from looking into major workplace safety concerns, there are also issues of concern with heat, especially with our rising temperatures amidst climate change.

Construction workers are disproportionately affected because they have to wear heavy safety gear like helmets and thick rubber boots, which trap huge amounts of heat. Migrant workers lack access to cooling technology because they work outdoors and at times in remote areas. During hot spells, there is also, generally speaking, no "Stop Work Order", with companies being able to insist that workers continue to work in temperatures that are much higher than normal.

The hon Minister for Manpower shared in May this year that MOM conducts targeted inspections to check on-site measures and acclimatisation programmes for workers. In addition to inspections, we can look more into the way construction sites are built.

There should be access to shaded areas and access to water facilities and even perhaps access to air-conditioned rest areas, whether from the work site or nearby areas. For instance, construction sites can tie up with nearby shopping malls or office buildings to provide air-conditioned spaces for rest.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, as we enjoy the fruits of the labour of our migrant workers who toil to maintain our living environment, let us never forget that they live here too, and they deserve the highest level of gratitude and protection from Singapore.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.

12.59 pm

Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. This Bill gives agencies the authority and means to streamline regulatory processes through CORENET X.

The built environment sector professionals I spoke to look forward to a CORENET X that can bring about improved efficiency and faster approvals. They also hope CORENET X can become the digital foundation for the entire sector in the future. This is a huge undertaking, a critical part of our built environment sector's transformation.

Some large architecture firms have been working with our agencies on CORENET X through industry consultations and feedback sessions. It is likely that MND has factored in their views.

Therefore, I am here to share the feedback of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) architecture companies that use CORENET often, as well as some main contractors who use certain features of CORENET. The four key feedbacks I have heard are as follows.

One, built sector professionals would like to know more about how agencies will come together to approve the key gateways, specifically the Design Gateways, Construction Gateways, as well as the OP/Stat Completion stage.

Today, architects seek approval from agencies, which may take time depending on complexity. For example, agencies may take a while to approve a change in the Building Plan when an undocumented gas or water pipe is found in a brownfield development.

Currently, the industry may continue working on the project, even as they are waiting for that one or two agencies' approval at the building plan level. For example, from the National Parks Board (NParks) on relocating of trees, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) on fire safety for the design of a stairwell.

The question is: in the future, do all agencies need to sign off at a particular gateway before one can commence work? What happens when there is an unexpected site condition, which is common in brownfield developments, is discovered and requires a minor amendment? Will they need to get all the agencies to approve the revised design? If so, would getting all agencies to sign off lead to longer delays?

Two, can MND clarify whether the built sector can continue to make 2D submissions, or will the entire industry be asked to move to Building Information Modelling (BIM)? If so, what is the rough timeline? And if not, does the regulatory process differ for 2D and BIM submissions.

Most professionals agree that BIM is the future, but not everyone can use it yet. Smaller firms continue with 2D submissions. For our SMEs, the issue is cost, not technology.

Our SMEs can upgrade their software to do BIM and many professionals have the basic skills, but SMEs need to invest in training and to redesign their processes. I am happy to hear the new productivity solutions that have been announced.

SMEs can also outsource BIM creation to overseas companies in the Philippines or Indonesia. This cost is justified if they can really benefit from productivity improvements. Or the cost will simply be passed to the end-user.

But I believe our agencies also need time to fully re-engineer the process and also to get CORENET functionalities and infrastructure ready especially for industry wide adoption.

Therefore, I believe a staggered timeline is needed to get the industry to adopt BIM and CORENET X. It will be ideal if MND can publicly set a desired timeline, but also adjust the milestones depending on how fast our agencies get fully ready, and for our industry to acquire the capabilities.

Three, MND must pay special attention to the CORENET X roll-out to ensure it goes well. Several years ago, the industry experienced difficulties during the initial roll-out of CORENET 2. This includes server downtime and issues with Singpass login. For CORENET X, given how important it is to the industry, MND should work hard to avoid the same issues.

Four, there is great potential for MND to use CORENET X to accelerate approval efficiency, by resolving bottlenecks. Using data garnered from CORENET X applications and approvals, agencies can jointly identify solutions to common but complex building designing issues. MND will also know if agencies have insufficient staff strength to process approvals, because they now see the data from all agencies, and MND can work with them to close the manpower gap. Doing so will benefit the built sector tremendously.

To conclude, there is a proverb: "If you want to go fast, run alone; if you want to go far, run together." This rings true for CORENET X, and I believe MND is committed to co-creating CORENET X with the industry. Today's debate on the bill is an important step to getting CORENET X ready, and to increasing the built sector's knowledge of it. Therefore, I hope MND can answer some of the questions that I have raised on behalf of the SMEs within the built sector.

Notwithstanding my questions, I support the amendments to the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How.

1.04 pm

Mr Tan Kiat How: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Louis Ng, Mr Leon Perera and Mr Henry Kwek for the support for the Bill and the new CORENET X system.

Let me now address the issues that they have raised earlier. I will start with the points regarding the redesigned regulatory process under CORENET X.

To recap, there will be three key submission gateways at the design, construction and occupation and completion phases. At each gateway, project teams will need to consolidate the critical project requirements and submit them for approval. Agencies will then work together to provide a consolidated and coordinated response to project teams. Project teams can then proceed with the relevant works after each gateway is cleared.

This streamlined process will minimise abortive works later, by ensuring that key parameters associated with each gateway are jointly reviewed by agencies, before works proceed.

So, for the specific examples raised by Mr Louis Ng, the design certificates under the Environmental Protection and Management Act or EPMA, and Environmental Public Health Act or EPHA, and the provisional permission under the Planning Act, would only be granted after agencies have jointly assessed that the key environmental and planning parameters for the project are in order at the Design Gateway.

This would give project teams greater assurance to commence some preliminary works, without needing to wait for agencies' approvals of the detailed building design at the Construction Gateway.

Mr Ng also asked about the lodgment scheme under the Building Control Act, or BC Act. This is a business-friendly measure that will provide the industry with expedited approvals for less complex, lower risk building works.

BCA has observed that the plans submitted by QPs for such works today are usually in order and downstream rectification works are not likely to be required. That said, the Commissioner of Building Control may still require the plans to be submitted for approval if he or she views that they are not fully compliant. This provides a safeguard in the event that certain plans will require more detailed review.

Mr Henry Kwek asked if there would be delays due to the consolidated approvals from agencies at the various gateways. On the contrary, this new process should help project teams save time. As mentioned, this should reduce abortive works, as agencies would jointly review the plans and resolve any conflicts upfront. QPs would no longer need to keep adjusting their plans, to reconcile and address different requirements from different agencies at multiple points of the approval process.

In addition, we will establish service standards to ensure that agencies provide timely responses to project teams at each gateway. At the Design and Construction Gateways, agencies are expected to respond within 20 working days for most submissions. At the Occupancy Permit and Statutory Completion Gateway, agencies are expected to respond to applications for Temporary Occupation Permits, or TOP, and Certificates of Statutory Completion, or CSC, within seven working days from the date of their respective inspections.

Let me move on to the next issue around the implementation of CORENET X.

I fully agree with Mr Kwek that CORENET X involves significant changes, both for the agencies and the industry. Hence, we will need to ensure a smooth transition from the existing CORENET platform. That is why we have worked with the industry on sandbox projects to test out and refine the new features and processes.

We will onboard users in phases and roll out features progressively and make adjustments as necessary. We will first work with partner firms to test out the new features from the soft launch in December 2023, before gradually accepting more submissions on a voluntary basis. Agencies will also provide helpdesk support as CORENET X is progressively rolled out.

We are also paying special attention to the needs of our SMEs, as mentioned by Mr Kwek. In particular, we are helping them make the shift from 2D submissions to Building Information Modelling, or BIM, submissions.

As I had mentioned earlier, local SMEs will be able to receive co-funding support for BIM authoring solutions and training programmes for CORENET X under the Productivity Solutions Grant, or PSG. We plan to implement this PSG support within the next few months. I encourage our SMEs to tap on the support available and start your BIM journey as soon as possible.

Let me touch on the remaining points raised by Mr Louis Ng.

First, on the new section 20(1A) of the BC Act. This provision allows for an accused to argue that they reasonably believed that the plans lodged were compliant with the necessary requirements.

In each case, whether the defence is made out would depend on the specific facts, such as the qualifications and experience of the accused, the nature of the work, and other relevant factors.

Second, on the new section 33H of the EPMA, this provision stipulates that it is an offence to carry out controlled works that deviate in any material way from approved plans. The intent is to ensure that the works are carried out according to approved plans in order to prevent pollution.

NEA will determine whether to pursue any enforcement action based on the facts of each case. Whether a deviation is considered material would depend on the circumstances of the case including, but not limited to, prevailing requirements under NEA's codes of practice and legislation.

Both BCA and NEA will conduct formal investigations and examine the facts of the case carefully, before embarking on any enforcement action under these provisions.

Third, on the need for Environmental Impact Assessment, or EIA, legislation. This is not within the scope of the Bill, but let me briefly clarify nonetheless.

Environmental considerations are already integrated into our planning process. As part of the planning approval process, development projects near sensitive areas such as Nature Reserves, Nature Areas and other areas with significant biodiversity, marine, and coastal areas undergo in-depth consultation with relevant technical agencies on the expected impact on the environment.

If the impact on the environment could be significant, agencies will ask for an environmental study to assess in greater detail the full impact and develop more mitigation measures to minimise the impact of the development.

EIA reports are also made publicly available online, unless there are reasons to maintain confidentiality, such as security considerations.

Projects are also subject to existing regulatory standards by various agencies, which developers should be aware of.

So, we will continue to study ways to enhance the EIA framework, such as the ongoing pilot to centralise the management of EIA consultancy services for the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and JTC projects under NParks.

Let me now move on to Mr Leon Perera's comments on migrant worker safety. This is also not within the scope of the Bill but let me briefly respond.

The safety of our workers is a priority for all of us in the built environment sector. Mr Perera may not have been in the Chamber when the Parliamentary Question was answered this morning. This is the question raised by Mr Yip Hon Weng. The Senior Minister of State for Manpower Mr Zaqy Mohamad had also given a fairly comprehensive reply to Mr Yip. Let me just touch on a few points.

Workplace safety is an important priority for us. When accidents happen, it is an opportunity for us to reflect, learn and see how we can do better as an industry, as a sector. Every fatality is a tragedy that we hope to avoid for future building works.

This culture, this safety mindset is in line with our entire effort to transform the way we build in Singapore. Many of the efforts under the refreshed build environment Industry Transformation Map (ITM) would not only raise productivity, but also improve workplace safety and put workers' safety at the centre of what we do. For instance, using robotics and automation, we reduce both the need for manual labour as well as the safety risk for workers. Our shift towards pre-fabrication using Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA) technologies will move more construction work from worksites into factory-like settings. This can lead to better worker safety outcomes, with fewer workers deployed on site.

The Government will lead by example. As mentioned by Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad earlier in the reply to the Parliamentary Question, the Multi-Agency Workplace Safety Taskforce (MAST) was set up in May this year. Agencies will place greater emphasis on safety considerations in tender requirements and evaluations.

Agencies also intend to implement sector-specific measures, such as improving the training for our workers, to improve safety outcomes.

So, many of the suggestions raised by Mr Leon Perera – and I thank him for those suggestions – had also been considered by the MAST task force and we will continue to see how we can improve and incorporate good practices, not just from overseas but good practices within our firms in our sector, and share these good practices with many of our industry partners. And when an accident or incident occurs, how will we get learning points from that incident after our investigation and see how we can do better as a community to support our migrant workers here in Singapore.

So, those suggestions around demerit points, safety committees, in-depth sharing of knowledge and best practices, these are things we will continue to look at. I thank him for his suggestions and the taskforce will continue to look at those suggestions as we improve workplace safety for everyone.

That said, firms must also take ownership and see worker safety as a core part of their operations. Individuals must also take responsibility for keeping themselves and their fellow workers at the worksite safe. Together, we can do our part to look after our migrant workers and ensure their safety.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, let me conclude by thanking the Members once again for their support of the Bill.

CORENET X is, indeed, a significant milestone for our built environment sector. We have been partnering the sector closely during its conceptualisation and development and we will continue to work with the sector to take in feedback and help firms prepare for the shift to CORENET X.

The amendments under this Bill are necessary to implement CORENET X, which will deliver significant benefits for the industry and agencies. Madam, I beg to move.

1.17 pm

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Any clarifications? None.

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. – [Mr Tan Kiat How].

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