Building Control (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

2.11 pm

The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for National Development, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Singapore has developed rapidly over the last 55 years. And we need to ensure that our building infrastructure remains well-maintained and safe. This is particularly important for older buildings. Today, about 70% of our building stock is more than 20 years old. In addition, our buildings, both old and new, will need to be made more accessible to meet the needs of an ageing population, as well as persons with disabilities (PWDs).

It is in this context that we are proposing amendments to the Building Control Act, to strengthen the building control regulatory framework and to improve accessibility of our built environment.

Currently, the Building Control Act sets out the duties of relevant parties, such as owners, developers, builders and professionals at the design and construction stages of a building. For example, at the design stage, the developer is required to submit building and structural plans to BCA for approval. At the construction stage, a Qualified Person is required to supervise the works to ensure that buildings are constructed according to the approved plans.

But after a building is completed, there are also requirements to maintain the building so that it is safe to use. These requirements pertaining to maintenance are currently in the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (BMSMA). It gives the Commissioner of Buildings the power to compel owners to carry out repairs to a building that is not properly maintained. It also gives the Minister the powers to enact regulations pertaining to the operation and maintenance of lifts and escalators (L&E).

One of the key aims of this Bill is to consolidate the design, construction and maintenance requirements over a building's life-cycle under the Building Control Act, by porting over the relevant provisions from the BMSMA, at clauses 21, 45 and 48. The BMSMA will be renamed the Building (Strata Management) Act to better reflect its revised scope. This consolidation will facilitate BCA's oversight over the various building-related processes. It will also allow us to strengthen the building control regulatory framework to improve safety and accessibility in a holistic manner.

Besides this consolidation, the Bill contains amendments to the Building Control Act which broadly covers the following three areas.

First, it will strengthen regulatory control over the lift and escalator industry, allowing us to mandate a Progressive Wage Model for this sector. Second, it will provide for a building facade inspection regime. And last, but not least, it will accelerate accessibility upgrading in existing buildings.

So, let me go through these areas in turn.

First, on L&E. There are about 70,000 lifts and 7,000 escalators in Singapore today. We need to ensure that they are designed, installed and maintained properly, so that they are safe to use. This is important as we rely on them in our everyday lives, to get home, to get to work, or simply to get to town.

Currently, the regulatory regime focuses on L&E maintenance and operation. So, for example, BCA mandates their maintenance frequency and outcomes, requires annual inspection and testing of the L&E, as well as for owners to apply for a permit to operate annually.

Upstream, BCA requires professional engineers to certify that the design and installation of L&E are done according to industry codes and standards.

We propose to strengthen BCA's upstream regulatory oversight for L&E, to reduce the likelihood of deficiencies in design or installation which may give rise to downstream safety incidents. Broadly, we will do this by extending the existing design and construction regime for buildings to L&E installations as well. This approach is consistent, given that L&E are integral parts of our buildings.

First, clauses 2 and 3 will empower BCA to require L&E professionals to submit design plans for L&E works to BCA for approval just as they would for building works.

L&E professionals will then need to ensure that the L&E are installed according to the approved plans. Penalties for L&E offences will be aligned with those for existing building offences of a similar nature.

Second, the Minister will have powers to enact regulations to prescribe the key requirements of L&E design and installation, as well as the corresponding duties of stakeholders. For example, we intend to require L&E professionals to ensure that the lift model and its key safety components are certified by independent certification bodies, as part of the new plan submission process.

At the same time, we will also enhance BCA's ability to improve safety for both new and existing L&E installations. We will do this in several ways.

First, under clause 21, relevant parties, such as L&E owners and contractors, will be required to notify BCA of any safety-related defects they may become aware of. For instance, contractors may come across manufacturing defects during the maintenance of a particular lift. They will need to inform BCA so that BCA can get the L&E owners to rectify the defects in this lift and to check other similar lifts to make sure that such defects are not systemic.

Clause 20 will allow the Commissioner of Building Control to issue orders to L&E owners to prevent safety incidents from occurring. For instance, when a check has revealed that there is an imminent safety risk arising from poor design or installation, the Commissioner of Building Control can issue an order to the owner to stop operating the lift or escalator until the risk has been mitigated or removed. This will supplement existing powers to require L&E owners to address maintenance-related issues.

Third, clause 16 will allow the Minister to mandate the retrofitting of existing L&Es, for example, if certain models of L&E or their components are prone to incidents that affect public safety.

The Bill also increases the range of levers available against errant L&E contractors. Currently, the Commissioner of Building Control can censure or suspend the contractor, revoke the contractor's registration, impose composition sums or prosecute them.

This range of measures is not adequate. For instance, suspending or revoking the registration of a contractor may have unintended safety implications if L&E owners are not able to find an alternative contractor to maintain their L&E. On the other hand, simply censuring or imposing financial penalties may not be sufficient to resolve the underlying concerns for public safety. An errant contractor could continue to also take on more L&E jobs without carrying out internal improvements to meet the required standards.

Thus, clause 36 introduces a registration scheme for L&E contractors and sets out additional regulatory sanctions.

Under the new section 29R, BCA will also be able to disallow an errant L&E contractor from taking on new L&E jobs for a specified period, or cap the number of new L&E jobs that can be taken for a specified period, or mandate that employees are retrained to specified standards. Basically, it goes beyond just the machinery but also the standard of employees that may need to maintain our L&Es.

Clause 36 also introduces a new section 29Q, which is needed for the L&E industry to be able to attract and retain competent technicians and engineers to ensure that our L&Es are safe.

The L&E industry faces the challenges today of an ageing workforce and they also have difficulty in attracting new entrants, especially younger technicians. In January 2017, an L&E Sectoral Tripartite Committee (STC) was formed to look into the sector's manpower challenges. This committee, co-chaired by NTUC and BCA, comprised representatives from Government agencies, industry associations and unions, as well as service buyers and providers.

One of its key recommendations was to introduce a progressive wage model (PWM) for the lift industry. The PWM seeks to increase basic wages across the board for local lift technicians, particularly at the lower levels. The recommended wages are pegged against comparable technician jobs in other sectors. The PWM also creates clear career progression paths and ensures that wages are commensurate with the job responsibilities and competencies.

The Government accepted the STC's recommendation in September 2018 and announced that we would work towards mandating PWM adoption for lift maintenance firms. From May 2019, Government Procuring Entities have taken the lead by only awarding lift maintenance tenders to firms that have adopted the PWM. BCA has been working with industry stakeholders to implement the PWM and the associated training and certification framework.

The results have been encouraging and lift firms representing 95% of the market share have committed to adopt the PWM. I thank the industry for their support for PWM and their efforts to uplift the pay and wages of our lift technicians. We encourage the remaining firms to adopt the PWM early as well.

Under the new section 29Q, BCA is conferred powers to mandate PWM adoption as a registration requirement for L&E firms. We aim to mandate PWM for the lift industry by 2022.

Going beyond the lift industry, MOM has recently announced the Tripartite Cluster for Lift and Escalator Industry, which will look into a PWM for escalator maintenance technicians. We expect the Tripartite Cluster to provide its recommendations by the end of the year.

Besides reviewing the regulatory framework for lifts for people, we also reviewed the regulatory framework for Mechanised Car Parking Systems (MCPS). These are automated car lifting systems that transport a car, without its driver, to and from a parking area. BCA does not regulate the operation and maintenance of MCPS today. However, BCA has found that these systems could potentially pose a danger to users. For example, some MCPS do not have measures to prevent unauthorised access into the transfer areas, which pose a safety concern should users get trapped in the parking area.

Thus, clause 45 amends section 49 to enable the Minister to enact regulations for MCPS to enhance user safety. Our current intent is to regulate only areas where users directly interface with the equipment, such as the car transfer area, and the operating panel for parking and retrieval.

Let me move on to the second area of the Bill – how we will improve the safety of our building facades. Currently, owners and persons responsible have a duty to ensure that building exteriors are kept in good and serviceable repair and that exterior features are securely fixed. In this regard, general maintenance works are already carried out regularly on building facades. These works can include simple rectifications, general cleaning as well as painting of external walls.

However, there is a need for us to further improve the facade maintenance standards. Over the last three years, BCA received reports of almost 30 incidents involving falling facade elements each year. Most of these were related to the wear and tear of the facade materials or connections. Thus, we will put in place a more structured approach towards the inspection and maintenance of building facades. This will help guide owners in meeting their existing duty regarding facade maintenance.

Clauses 23, 24 and 25 amend the present Part V of the Building Control Act to introduce a new Periodic Facade Inspection regime that will require owners to engage professionals to check their building facades regularly. This will help to detect signs of facade deterioration early and facilitate timely repairs to reduce the likelihood of facade failure. The regime will apply to buildings that are more than 13 metres high – or roughly four storeys – once they are over 20 years old.

Inspections must be conducted by trained personnel every seven years. This takes into consideration the expected lifespan of some facade materials. It is also aligned with the typical length of Repair and Redecoration cycles for HDB estates and condominium developments, to save costs and reduce inconvenience to residents.

BCA will introduce inspection guidelines and strengthen R&D efforts to look into more effective and productive ways to carry out facade inspections. In addition to the new facade inspection regime, the Bill will also introduce requirements for the relevant parties to report safety-related defects as well as incidents relating to facades. This is similar to our approach with the L&Es.

Mr Speaker, I will touch upon the third key area of the Bill, which is to enhance the accessibility of our built environment. We first introduced accessibility requirements for new buildings in 1990, with a Code on Barrier-free Accessibility in Buildings. In consultation with representatives from social service agencies, trade associations and chambers as well as Government agencies, the Code has undergone several revisions over the years to ensure that the provisions address the evolving needs of Singaporeans, taking reference from international standards.

Besides new buildings, the Code also applies to existing buildings that undergo addition and alteration (A&A) works. However, the current requirements only apply at the specific locations in the building where the A&A works are undertaken. For example, if A&A works are carried out to renovate the washrooms on the upper floor of a building, we can require that the washrooms of that floor be made accessible.

However, we cannot require the building owner to provide an accessible route connecting the building entrance on the ground floor to the lifts if no A&A works are carried out there. Thus, for many buildings built before 1990, such basic accessibility upgrading is only carried out on a voluntary basis. We are amending this to make sure that we can provide a more holistic treatment.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute an information sheet showing pictures of these buildings?

Mr Speaker: Yes. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]

Mr Zaqy Mohamad: As can be seen from the sheet, Tong Building, IOB Building and Bukit Merah Community Centre are among some examples of buildings that provide basic accessibility features on their own accord. These features refer to an accessible building entrance, an accessible route at the entrance level and at least one toilet in the building with lift access if the accessible toilet is on another floor.

We should do more to ensure that our existing buildings are made accessible to all, whenever A&A works are undertaken. Today, almost all of our public sector buildings and infrastructure that are frequented by the general public have achieved at least basic accessibility.

To accelerate accessibility upgrading in our existing buildings, especially the private ones, clause 17 introduces a new section 22DA that empowers the Commissioner of Building Control to require the owner of a building without basic accessibility features to provide these features when the owner or someone else undertaking A&A works to that building that requires plan submissions to BCA is given approval for those A&A works, regardless of where those A&A works are carried out in the building.

The new section 22DA will apply only to commercial and institutional buildings with a gross floor area (GFA) of more than 500 sqm. Examples include offices, hotels, schools and shopping centres. We will exclude smaller buildings, such as shop houses, from these requirements because there is space constraints.

The Bill will also make other changes to improve and clarify the Builder licensing scheme and to facilitate BCA's operations. Licensed builders need to have an "approved person" who is responsible for the management of the business. To ensure proper accountability, clauses 31 and 32 amend sections 29F and 29G to stipulate that only a Director or a Board member can be an "approved person". These amendments will also allow more types of businesses to apply for a Builder's licence, including sole proprietors and partnerships comprising corporations.

This will provide greater flexibility for the industry. For example, smaller firms will be able to form partnerships to take on projects beyond their individual capacity. I hope Er Dr Lee Bee Wah is happy that more local firms can participate in bigger projects, too.

Clause 34 amends section 29J to widen the range of regulatory sanctions that the Commissioner of Building Control can impose on builders. This includes restricting the builder from taking on any new project or any new project above a certain value. The rationale for this change is similar to what I had earlier described – to enhance the measures to regulate L&E contractors.

A few clauses will improve the clarity of the legislation to facilitate the administration of the Act. Clause 8 amends section 11 to make it it clear that builders need to notify the Commissioner of Building Control of the appointment or termination of a specialist builder within 14 days and that builders are accountable for the works that they subcontract out.

Clause 27 amends section 29A to make clear that builders need not be licensed if they are always carrying on their business as sub-contractors. Clause 20 will require owners in non-strata titled buildings to jointly appoint a Qualified Person (QP) for the purpose of complying with BCA's orders, if such orders are served on multiple owners. This will avoid a situation where each owner engages its own QP, which may result in different recommendations and delays in complying with BCA's orders.

BCA has consulted industry stakeholders, including building owners, contractors and professionals, on the key changes through more than 10 engagement sessions over the last four years. The industry stakeholders were supportive of the changes. BCA will continue to work closely with the industry to implement the changes proposed in this Bill, which will enhance safety and accessibility in our built environment. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

2.30 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. The amendments are certainly welcome, especially in light of episodes of lifts breaking down in 2018.

I support the amendments for proper registration and training of lift technicians. We know individual lift companies may have their own in-house training, but how adequate are these training sessions? There is also a lack of career path for the technicians. Hence, you do not attract jobseekers and there would be job-hopping, maybe leading to staff who are not adequately trained.

Next, how do we regulate that the technical crew are not pressured to do jobs in a hurried manner or jobs they are not trained to do, because they have to meet a quota of servicing X number of lifts in a day?

Based on my observation in Nee Soon South, definitely, there is a lot of room for improvement in the quality of lift maintenance and quality of service by lift companies. Sometimes, they even shut down the lift without putting up proper signage and proper notice to the residents. Sometimes, soon after the lift is back to order, back to working condition, then it breaks down again. It just shows that the checking was not thorough enough and that caused a lot of inconvenience to the residents. Also, I believe there is a great shortage of technicians and engineers. That is why they hurriedly finish the work and then put it back into service again.

Can the Minister share with this House how many lift technicians do we have in the industry currently? The Minister of State mentioned that there are 70,000 lifts in Singapore. But how many technicians are there? What is the target number and the schedule of rolling out? What is the duration of the course? How many qualified trainers do we have to conduct courses on lift maintenance? Are we also training more lift engineers, too?

Secondly, are we expecting an increasing number of carparks using mechanised parking system? These are very specialised systems and they need to be properly installed and maintained. Otherwise, any freak accidents can be catastrophic.

Again, how many competent people are there to conduct the training? And how long does it take to get someone trained?

Would Minister look into how the frequency of maintenance for lifts and mechanised carparks is determined? I think one important consideration is the frequency of the usage, rather than just a standard timeframe maintenance schedule.

Next is the maintenance of building façades. Many building owners may want fanciful facades to make their structures stand out. But this is where aesthetics may be achieved at the expense of practicality of maintenance. We have our share of awnings and claddings on façades falling off. What is the protocol for the maintenance of these structures? How are the workers trained for such roles?

Mr Speaker, these are burning issues which we must address in the public interest as we are quite a densely built up city state. In Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In 2018, there were several lift breakdown incidents. Therefore, I support the Government to strengthen the regulation of this industry. From what I have observed, lift maintenance is hard work and there are few career progress opportunities. This could have resulted in the situation whereby people are not interested in positions in this industry. This is going to affect the quality of maintenance, and subsequently public safety.

Furthermore, we do not know what the quality of training is like in the various companies. Hence, to establish a training and registration system for the technicians can ensure public safety better.

Every now and then, we have episodes of claddings and awnings on facades falling off. May I know, for the workers installing and inspecting these facades, what kind of training they have undergone?

2.35 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I appreciate the rationale of this Bill to enhance public safety and accessibility of buildings. As an urban and densely built-up society, public safety of building structures and fixed installations are critical. That said, these measures will entail costs, which will be a concern to those responsible, including Town Councils. Member Mr Fasal Manap, who chairs the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council, will elaborate further in his speech.

I wish to seek clarifications on two particular aspects of the Bill.

The first clarification is on the maintenance of exterior features of buildings. This Bill simplifies the definition of “exterior feature” to mean any permanent feature of a building that is installed on, forms part of or projects outwards from the roof or exterior of the building, and such other features that may be prescribed in the regulations. This is an improvement from the existing definition which contains a laundry list of features.

I note that the Bill changes the definition of the person responsible to maintain these features. Under the existing Act, it is stated that for HDB blocks, the person responsible to maintain exterior features is either the HDB or the Town Council, depending on who the Minister designates for that feature. By this Bill, clause 2(q) will amend the law to remove HDB as a person responsible for the exterior feature, and place the responsibility on the Town Council or a contractor engaged by the Town Council who has charge and control of the management and maintenance of common property.

I have two questions relating to this.

First, what is the rationale of removing HDB from the definition as a person responsible for the exterior feature? Does this amendment change the responsibility of HDB towards problematic features? An exterior feature could have been unsafe from the point of construction; alternatively, it could become unsafe over time due to wear and tear or lack of maintenance, in which case, Town Councils will have to bear some responsibility. During the MND COS, I note that Minister had clarified that if an HDB block had a falling façade that could be attributed to a construction fault, HDB should pay the cost of rectification. This is eminently reasonable. In fact, the proposed section 25H makes clear that if a person responsible for an exterior feature can show that the defect was caused by materials or work supplied, the person responsible has a defence to a charge of failing to maintain the feature. What is the implication of removing HDB from the definition of “person responsible” for maintaining an exterior feature?

The second question relates to the inclusion of the Town Council’s contractor as a “person responsible”, if that contractor has charge and control of the management and maintenance of the common property. Does this phrase mean a Town Council’s Managing Agent, where a Town Council has outsourced its operations to an MA? The same section makes it clear that for private property, such as condominiums, managing agents are persons responsible together with the owners. Could Ministry explain why, for HDB estates, the phrase “managing agent” is not used?

Sir, clarity on who is responsible is necessary, as persons responsible have onerous duties under the Bill. These duties include the need to comply with BCA’s Notices to Maintain under the new section 25E, at their cost. They also have duties to report safety incidents under the new section 25B, and failure to perform these duties carries heavy responsibilities.

Sir, my next clarification relates to clause 20 on building inspections and remedial works. Clause 20 provides for situations where the Commissioner of Building Control requires an owner to inspect and take remedial actions in respect of a potentially dangerous building, exterior feature or fixed installation, or a building product that carries a safety risk. The Bill will remove the need for such inspections and works to be overseen by qualified persons and simply require them to be done by appropriate persons. This will expand the class of persons who do such work beyond architects and professional engineers. What is the thinking behind apparently relaxing this requirement as we are dealing here with potentially dangerous structures and safety concerns? Will the Ministry provide guidance as to the alternative qualifications that such an appropriate person should have?

2.40 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. Professionals from the lift industry have shared with me that lift maintenance is known as a "3D" industry – it is dark, dirty and dangerous. I would like to express my appreciation for the lift technicians who work tirelessly in dark, warm lift shafts to ensure that we can enjoy smooth and safe lift rides in our vertical city.

I have three clarifications on the Bill relating to: (a) facilities for persons with disabilities (PWDs); (b) the progressive wage model (PWM) framework; and (c) working conditions for lift technicians.

The new section 22DA allows the Commissioner of Building Control to require building owners to erect features to facilitate the access to and use of a building by PWDs. I have two concerns here.

First, buildings that are used solely for residential purposes or as a factory are excluded from this section 22DA. Can the Minister share the rationale for excluding residential and factory buildings which are premises that PWDs will need to access? If residential and factory buildings are excluded from section 22DA, can the Minister share how it intends to ensure that building owners of residential and factory buildings will install features for access by PWDs?

Second, the Commissioner can only require building owners to include features for PWDs if it receives an application from the building owner for approval of plans for the alternation, addition or repair of a relevant building. This will mean that the progress of ensuring that our buildings are PWD-friendly is dependent on the building owners deciding to undertake building works. Can the Minister share whether it has a target for ensuring that most, if not all, buildings in Singapore are PWD-friendly? What plans does the Ministry have to encourage building owners to include PWD-friendly facilities?

Next, the amendments will legislate the PWM for the lift industry. I applaud the efforts to raise the wages of lift maintenance personnel who have to do a very difficult but an essential one. However, the PWM will only apply to Singaporeans and PRs. The reality is that lift companies have a large number of foreigners because of a severe shortage of lift technicians, given the difficult working conditions.

Lift technicians who are foreigners are doing jobs that are equally as difficult and equally as dangerous as the jobs Singaporeans and PRs are doing. This is not just an issue of fairness, but one of safety and incentives. Do we want lift technicians who have to ensure the safety of lifts that we all take multiple times a day to feel disgruntled and that their colleague doing the exact same job is paid much higher than he or she is?

In October 2018, during the debate on the Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill, I spoke about the need to ensure that the PWM will apply to cleaners who are hired directly by an F&B establishment and for foreign cleaners. I highlighted that PWM is about increasing productivity and standards and if we leave out our foreign cleaners from the PWM, bear in mind again that foreign cleaners likely form a bulk of the cleaning sector. This similarly applies to the lift technicians industry.

MEWR has encouraged employers to incorporate the principles of progressive wages into the wage structure of their foreign cleaners. Will MND take similar steps to encourage the incorporation of PWM principles into the contracts for foreign lift technicians? Or will the Ministry also consider eventually extending the PWM to cover foreign lift technicians?

Just in January this year, Minister Chan Chun Sing said “The real competition is Team Singapore, comprising Singaporeans, PRs and foreign workers here, competing with the rest of the world to give our fellow Singaporeans the best chance possible to win, not just in Singapore but across the entire globe."

How can we say that we are Team Singapore if we discriminate against certain team members? How will a team work together well if we do not reward the same effort and merit with the same pay?

Lastly, the Lift and Escalator Sectoral Tripartite Committee has recommended reviewing the Singapore Standard SS 550, the Code of Practice for lifts, to specify higher lighting levels within the lift shaft to facilitate maintenance work. The Ministry has accepted the recommendations in late 2018. I understand that BCA is also studying the feasibility of improving ventilation within the lift shaft and motor room to create a cooler work environment for the maintenance personnel. Can the Minister share its progress in implementing these recommendations to improve working conditions for lift technicians? Can the Minister also share details on how it intends to implement these other recommendations? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

2.45 pm

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Sir, my speech will touch on the matters presented in this Bill, which has effect on Town Council estates' maintenance, in particular, the issue of cost.

Sir, two of the main objectives of this Amendment Bill are: (a) enhance safety of lifts, escalator and mechanised carpark system and (b) introduce a mandatory facade inspection regime for buildings more than 20 years old. I welcome these amendments as safety is paramount and should not be taken lightly.

In recent years, we have heard and seen news on a number of cases that pertains to dislodgement of fixtures from HDB blocks' facade or exterior wall such as sunshades, decoratives and even bricks.

Fortunately, no injury or fatality was reported. However, this is not the case for lift malfunction-related incidents that occurred in HDB blocks. In the last few years, there has been reports of residents or members of the public who are visiting, sustaining mild to serious injuries. I do hope with the tightening of legislation and measures as proposed in this Amendment Bill, it will provide a safer and more conducive living environment.

Sir, I support this Amendment Bill. Nonetheless, as the Chair of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council, I do have concerns on the cost issue. Consequently, the adoption and the implementation of the new measures and regimes indicated in this Bill will be the additional expenditure. For example, as mentioned in this Bill, there will be a requirement to conduct the facade inspection regime for buildings which are older than 20 years and, thereafter, conducting a seven years' cyclical inspection.

A town like Aljunied-Hougang is home to many HDB blocks which are 20 years and above, approximately more than 80%. We have encountered dislodgement of facade, fixtures, and one of these incidents was cited by my colleague Mr Pritam Singh two days ago during MND's Committee of Supply's debate.

In view of this inevitable additional expenses, I would like to seek clarification from the Ministry whether the Town Councils will have to solely bear the additional expenses or will HDB, as the landlord, co-share the payment, which is similar to their current practice for facade repair expenses? Additionally, will the Ministry consider additional funding for Town Councils?

Another point I want to raise is on availability of trained personnel or an appropriate person as mentioned in clause 20 on building inspections and other building works. This issue was touched on earlier by my colleague Ms Sylvia Lim. I would just like to seek the Ministtry's views on whether there will be any possibility of shortage of this appropriate person due to the enhanced measurements and regime introduced in this Bill, as there will be a higher demand for such individuals?

In short, will there be an issue of imbalanced supply and demand situation, in particular, for the mandatory regime of facade inspection? If this shortage is likely to happen, what will be the Ministry's plan to address this issue?

Sir, I look forward to the Ministry's clarification on these two matters that I have raised.

2.48 pm

Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, I would like to declare my interest in the Building Control (Amendment) Bill. I am currently the Chairman of the Tripartite Cluster for Lift & Escalator Industry but I would like to state that the expressed views in my speech are my own and not a representation of the committee’s view.

As shared by the Minister of State, Mr Zaqy Mohamad, based on a study conducted by BCA, there are around 2,400 technicians of which 42%, or slightly over 1,000 are residents. This workforce maintains more than 70,000 lifts and 7,000 escalators every day. Maintenance personnel make up most of the sector’s workforce and are essential in providing day-to-day servicing to ensure lifts are well-maintained for safe and reliable use.

In 2017, the Lift and Escalator Sectoral Tripartite Committee chaired by my fellow Labour Member of Parliament, Mr Melvin Yong, was formed comprising representatives from the Government, trade unions, industry associations and firms, and service buyers.

A set of recommendations was made by the Committee and accepted by the Government on 19 September 2018 to provide better jobs to attract Singapore residents to join the industry, upskill the workforce to deliver better quality maintenance services, ensure commensurate wages to build up a core workforce to anchor the industry and push for the wider adoption of technology to reduce manpower reliance.

The Committee has now been tasked to review the escalator industry and renamed the Tripartite Cluster for Lift and Escalator, which I am chairing, together with a co-chair from Singapore National Employers’ Federation, Mr Tony Khoo, CEO of EM Services.

One of the recommendations put up by the first Tripartite Committee was the Progressive Wage Model to uplift the wages of the workers in the lift industry that commensurate with their skills, productivity and career progression. We need to attract young Singaporean to make them feel excited about the industry and their potential long-term career progression.

Hence, I welcome the new section 29Q that gives the authority to the Commissioner of Building Control to specify the minimum amount of basic wage and bonus payable to the workers in the lift industry after considering the recommendations of the Tripartite Committee.

The Tripartite Committee recommended that by 1 July 2022, all lift and escalator companies will pay the local technicians the salaries recommended by the Tripartite Committee.

Based on my experience implementing PWM in the other sectors, engagement with Service Providers and Service Buyers are critical before the start of the full implementation to ensure the stakeholders will factor in possible cost implications in the contract pricing. I would like to know whether BCA has any plans to engage the industry stakeholders on the implementation of the PWM to nudge them to anticipate and make the necessary preparation.

Currently, there are approximately 95 lift firms. Of these 95, the top 12 firms or close to 13% of them command 86% of the market share. Similarly, for the escalator industry, there are 31 firms, with the top 11 firms maintaining 95% of the escalators in Singapore. This industry seems to have an oligopoly market structure with a few firms dominating the market.

This state of oligopoly arises because the major players can exert proprietary rights over their spare parts and are not required to disclose the technical specifications of the lift systems. Hence, many of the lift technicians can only service lifts made by their companies. Such practices hinder market competition to the disadvantage of lift owners and discourage job mobility amongst the lift technicians as they do not have the knowledge and skills to service different types of lifts.

Building owners often are compelled to award their maintenance contracts to the OEM lift firms for fear that other non-OEM companies would not be able to secure spare parts or have the experienced technicians to do troubleshooting and repair.

In the European Union countries, the lift industry is encouraged to adopt an open and non-proprietary lift system which will serve to level the playing field and promote greater market competition. This would also allow the lift and escalator technicians to be cross-trained in different types of lifts and escalators. Moving forward, I would like to know whether BCA will consider open and non-proprietary system in our lift and escalator industry and make the necessary legislative amendments to make this possible.

The Lift and Escalator industry, as shared by my fellow Member of Parliament is often perceived as having the 4 Ds – Difficult, Dirty, Dark and Dangerous. Hence, the Lift and Escalator Sectoral Tripartite Committee also formed a working committee and one of the committee’s terms of reference was to propose and develop solutions to improve key aspects of working conditions to enhance attractiveness of the job to new entrants.

The working committee made several recommendations to improve the thermal comfort, illuminance level, and safety and ease of maintenance at working places on the lift.

Based on the new amendment to this Bill under clause 20, section 24, will it give the authority to Commissioner of Building Control to compel lift owners to retrofit their existing lifts? As the cost of retrofitting new lifts to improve the work environment for the lift technicians can be very expensive, will there be funding support for such work to be carried out? The cost of retrofitting on existing buildings can be substantial, especially for Town Council managing HDB estates. Hence, it would certainly help if all new HDB estates could take this into consideration at the planning and design stage, and the Government to provide funding support for existing lifts.

Given the current profile of the current lift and escalator technicians, half of the resident workforce is likely to retire in the next 10 years. With the number of lifts and escalators increasing steadily, besides building up a pool of well-trained and skilled workers, we must rely on technology to improve our lift maintenance work processes and increase productivity.

For example, the Building and Construction Authority currently mandates that a lift owner shall subject the lift to monthly maintenance by an approved lift contractor to ensure safe operation of the lifts. With different usage pattern and number of lift landings in a single lift shaft, it may be more efficient to use intensity of usage, that is, mileage travelled as a gauge instead. This is similar to how cars should be sent for servicing after certain distance travelled. Such mileage can be easily tracked using existing technology.

In addition, the use of technology can go a long way in enhancing the safety and welfare of our lift and escalator technicians. Productive and innovative technology can reduce the maintenance work needed. For example, remote monitoring can collect data from lifts and notify technicians of faults or irregularities while remote diagnostics can improve the trouble-shooting process and pre-empt breakdowns before they happen.

Hence, under this Act, would the Commissioner of Building Control be given the mandate to exercise flexibility to vary the standard operating procedures for lift maintenance given the advancement in technology? Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I welcome the amendments in the Building Control Bill that gives the authority to the Commissioner of Building Control to specify the minimum amount of basic wage and bonus payable to the workers in the lift and escalator industry after considering the recommendations by the Progressive Wage Model recommendations by the Tripartite committee for this industry.

This will mandate lift and escalator companies to pay the local technicians the salaries that was agreed with the tripartite committee. This is an important step to attract workers, especially the younger ones, to this essential industry. The Progressive Wage Model will ensure that their salaries commensurate with the competencies, responsibilities and productivity of the lift and escalator workers.

(In English): In conclusion, while there is much to be done, I am heartened that the Government recognises the importance of the work of our lift and escalator technicians. Every worker matters and every job counts. I look forward to working with the industry stakeholders to create a better and safe environment not only for our workers but the public as users as well. I support the amendments to the Bill.

2.58 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Sir, this is a timely Bill and I fully support the amendments which cover quite a range of important areas, from enhancing lift and escalator (L&E) safety to ensuring more frequent façade inspections, from mandating a Progressive Wage Model for the L&E sector to regulating mechanised car parking systems.

I would like to focus on the amendments for L&E today. I welcome the introduction of the requirement for elevator maintenance workers to possess minimum qualifications or certification before they can be allowed to perform works without supervision. Besides ensuring that they have acquired competency so that the overall maintenance standards are raised, this new rule will help to enhance safety for the workers as well.

However, accidents can still occur. Could the Ministry share statistics on incidents resulting in injury?

I hope the Ministry could consider providing incentives to encourage L&E maintenance companies to tap upon technology to boost work safety for their staff at the elevator and escalator sites.

May I also take this opportunity to appeal for legislation to mandate higher insurance coverage for these workers?

In the area of lift breakdowns, what are the numbers in the following categories: public housing, non-public housing, commercial, industrial and institutional? How can we further improve the reliability of L&E?

I would like to ask the Minister if it is possible that we make greater use of technology to monitor the performances of our lifts and escalators, and minimise the need for human monitoring? This could help to reduce downtime and minimise inconvenience. Productivity could be increased too. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In the area of lift breakdowns, what are the numbers in the following categories: public housing, non-public housing, commercial, industrial and institutional? How can we further improve the reliability of lifts and escalators (L&E)?

Finally, I would like to ask the Minister if it is possible that we make greater use of technology to monitor the performances of our lifts and escalators, and minimise the need for human monitoring? This could help to reduce the downtime and minimise inconvenience. Productivity could be increased too.

3.01 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to share my views on the amendments affecting lifts in this Bill.

As a densely built-up city state with more and more buildings rising above 20 storeys, it is very important that all the lifts installed are of good quality and are well maintained to ensure safety and reliability for all passengers. With a rapidly ageing society, lifts serve an increasingly essential role too, even in shorter buildings and facilities.

In recent years, we have had a number of malfunctioning lift incidents, which had caused inconvenience and injuries. It is timely that we overhaul the relevant legislation and review the entire eco-system.

HDB is the largest builder and enjoys the benefit of economies of scale. I would like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that HDB is fully leveraging upon this to secure the best deal. Presently, different projects are handled by different contractors, so I am concerned that this advantage may not have been fully exploited.

Next, how could we ensure the adequacy of lift parts to meet the mandatory lift maintenance regime as prescribed here since the replacement of existing lifts can only be done after 28 years? Should there be a need to have a central national storage for all the parts from the different lift manufacturers that have tendered successfully to install lifts for our flats and which have also undertaken to provide the parts for long-term maintenance?

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]

The use of technology can assist to provide checks on the maintenance of lifts. How would the Ministry encourage the use of technology to monitor the performance of lifts round-the-clock independently, particularly to ensure lift safety? Has the current approach been adequate in preventing lift breakdowns? Do we have a national benchmark for lift performance similar to what LTA has done for MRT trains?

I fully support the amendment to empower the Minister to order existing lifts to be retrofitted with safety-related features. Many older lifts were installed without these features, which are specified in the latest standards. Such lifts could either be upgraded or replaced.

Last but not least, the most crucial element here is manpower, and I strongly support the various proposals to boost our pool of lift specialists and deepen their expertise.

It is important that we have a strong Singaporean core of locally trained lift specialists, with attractive incentives for them to remain in this sector and to make career progress. Introducing the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) to attract more Singaporeans to join this sector is a good start. Workers will be able to look forward to a clear progression pathway which correlates the new certification requirements with wage increments for each role.

We need to increase the pool of Qualified Persons (QP) to meet inspection and maintenance enforcement requirements. I also fully support the proposal to introduce a new branch of specialist professional engineers in lift and escalator engineering.

With that, I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad.

3.05 pm

Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for their comments and their support of the Bill. Let me address the issues raised.

Mr Louis Ng asked why residential buildings and factories were not included under clause 17, which requires for existing buildings without basic accessibility features to provide these when undergoing addition and alteration works.

As I mentioned earlier, all buildings built since 1990 have to comply with the Code on Accessibility, including the provision of basic accessibility features. So, buildings in the last 30 years are now compliant. The changes under clause 17 target older buildings built before 1990, which do not have basic accessibility features.

We are applying this requirement to commercial and institutional building types as these are more frequently accessed by members of the public. This is a calibrated approach as we are mindful of the physical challenges in existing buildings as well as the cost impact to building owners. Owners of residential and factory buildings can tap on the Accessibility Fund to co-fund up to 80% of the cost for installing basic accessibility features. The fund is available, and I urge them to do so.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about maintenance of facades. As mentioned earlier, we will put in place a new Periodic Facade Inspection (PFI) regime. The regime provides a more structured approach towards the inspection and maintenance of facades so that owners can better meet their existing duty and enhance public safety.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap also asked about the regulation and training of personnel involved in facade inspections. Owners will need to appoint a competent person (CP) to carry out facade inspections. The CP must be either a professional engineer (PE) or registered architect, and can be assisted by facade inspectors (FIs) in carrying out inspections. So, they do not have to do it all on their own, but there are roles such as FIs that they can use. The FI must be a resident engineer, a resident technical officer, or any other person who possesses the relevant qualifications and experience.

CPs and FIs must undergo a compulsory facade inspection course. Since 2017, more than 200 individuals have successfully completed the course. BCA will also introduce inspection guidelines in due course to guide CPs and FIs in performing their duties.

These efforts will ensure that we will have a pool of qualified and competent personnel to support the new inspection regime.

For these courses, they can also tap on SkillsFuture subsidies available. For those below 40 years old, they can get up to 50% subsidies. For older workers above 40, Singaporeans and Permanent Residents, they can get up to 90% subsidies too. To some extent, I think, if you look at the entire picture, we are trying to beef up our core capabilities.

Ms Sylvia Lim also asked about the terms used in defining the persons responsible for maintaining building facades and about the responsibility for facade maintenance in HDB blocks.

Let me clarify that the Bill does not change this responsibility. The definition being amended relates to exterior features. The maintenance of exterior features is part of any common property in HDB blocks that is currently covered under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act, or BMSMA in short.

Today, the person responsible for such maintenance is defined in the BMSMA as the Town Council (TC) and not HDB. So, we are porting this across. In addition, the BMSMA's definition of "person responsible" includes the Town Council's contractor and the condominium's managing agents (MAs) as long as they have charge and control over common property.

What we have done – it looks a bit complicated – but we are basically porting over the clauses in the existing BMSMA into the current Building Control Act. In the BMSMA, it was the Town Council mentioned – no HDB. But in the current Act, you do have HDB and Town Council. That is for retrofitting orders by the Minister. That will still be retained under clause 13, in which the Minister can still designate retrofitting works to HDB and Town Councils. So, there are no changes.

Just to clarify again, maintenance of exterior features and facades is under the Town Council and its contractors, for coverage of retrofitting, it is HDB and Town Councils. So, there is no change effectively on the total outcome.

Also, to clarify on the co-payment by HDB should you have facade repair issues, that comes under an existing HDB co-payment scheme. I think the Member also knows that if it is found to be a facade repair issue, HDB co-funds 50%. If found to be a design fault or construction issue, it will be 100% covered by HDB. So, the scheme is in place and not so much part of the Act.

So, we have not changed the position when transferring the BMSMA provisions on maintenance of exterior features over to the Building Control Act.

Ms Sylvia Lim also asked why clause 20 of the Bill amends the Act to no longer mandate that inspections ordered under section 24(1) be performed by an architect or professional engineer. She asked if this would have an impact on public safety.

We expect most of the inspections to still be done by architects and professional engineers. However, depending on the specific situation, specialists with the necessary skills and competencies, such as in building materials and components, may be better equipped to carry out such inspections. So, it depends on the type of issue involved.

The amendment allows for such specialists who may not be architects and PEs to be appointed to do inspections. Overall, there should be no impact on public safety. In fact, it should be better because now, you are allowing others with specialised engineering skills.

Ms Lim and Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap noted that the PFI regime entails cost. The schedule for the PFI has been set at seven years, to be tied in with the repairs and redecoration (R&R) schedule that TCs, MAs and Management Corporation Strata Titles (MCSTs) conduct, to save costs. Therefore, you can also leverage on the gondolas that you set up, other things that you typically do in terms of painting of the building, for example, and you can leverage on some of these things to reduce cost.

BCA will also work with owners responsible for many buildings to spread out the inspections in the initial phase to minimise any spikes in costs. BCA is working on other measures to help manage costs. These include building up the pool of CPs and FIs, and exploring, as some Members have also suggested, how technology can help to carry out inspections in a more effective and productive manner.

In terms of whether there will be co-sharing of costs or additional funding provided to Town Councils for the new facade inspections, as building facades are part of common property and under the purview of TCs, TCs are responsible for conducting regular inspections to ensure that the facades are in good condition. As I mentioned, the schedule of the PFI has been set at seven years, which can be tied in with the R&R schedule to save costs. BCA will also work with owners, including TCs to spread out inspections in the initial phase to minimise any spikes in costs.

BCA is also working on other measures. For example, BCA launched a grant call with HDB for the development of a drone inspection system to carry out automated facade inspections. This reduces manpower cost in terms of getting gondolas up and all the other necessary infrastructure.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about the number of lifts in Singapore and their reliability. There are 70,000 lifts in Singapore and the number of safety incidents arising from technical faults has been less than 30 per year over the last three years. We will continue to monitor this carefully as we take the safety of all our users very seriously.

At the same time, the number of lifts in Singapore is expected to grow. We recognise Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap's concern that there should be enough skilled manpower to keep our lifts safe and in working condition. That is why we have been working with the industry to build up capabilities and capacities at all levels.

The Professional Engineers Board (PEB) introduced the specialist professional engineer (SPE) in lift and escalator engineering in 2017. Today, there are about 90 SPEs whose primary duties include supervising the installation of lifts and carrying out routine inspections. Their scope of work will increase with the new requirements under the Bill to also include the certification of new installations.

To ensure that there continues to be enough competent personnel to inspect our lifts, BCA is working together with the Association of Consulting Engineers Singapore (ACES) and The Institution of Engineers, Singapore (IES) to train lift and escalator inspectors (LEIs).

Graduates and diploma holders in the mechanical or electrical engineering disciplines who have relevant experience will be able to apply for registration as LEIs. They will need to complete an LEI training course and pass an examination. These efforts will grow the pool of L&E professionals to meet increasing demand.

As for lift maintenance technicians, BCA and ITE have introduced courses for the various competency levels in the PWM to provide them with common engineering knowledge and skills on servicing lifts and their key components. Technicians will therefore be required to obtain the specialist level competency – so they must obtain this – before they are allowed to service lifts independently, once this regulation comes into effect. To date, almost 400 of the 2,100 lift technicians in Singapore have received the certificate of competency (CoC).

I urge employers to start training up all the technicians. We are now giving a grace period before we put in the regulations. But this is the time as we have put in more support now with SkillsFuture and we need to help train and beef up our capabilities.

I thank Mr Zainal Sapari and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for their support of the PWM for the lift industry. The PWM provides a common competency and wage framework for all lift firms. This will benefit more than 1,000 local lift technicians and ensure that their remuneration is commensurate with their job responsibilities and competencies. For example, a lift technician with the specialist level of competency will be able to earn a basic wage of at least $2,250, while a master specialist could earn $4,000 or more a month. BCA and ITE are also working with the industry to develop more courses to help lift technicians advance along their PWM career progression pathways. This will ensure consistency in training standards and facilitate job mobility, both of which were highlighted by Mr Zainal Sapari and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

As mentioned by Mr Zainal, we have, indeed, been engaging our stakeholders actively to encourage the early adoption of PWM. On the supply side, 40 lift firms, representing 95% of the market, have already committed to adopt the PWM. On the demand side, all Government procuring entities now award tenders only to lift firms that have adopted the PWM. BCA has been in discussions with Town Councils, trade associations and chambers (TACs) and other major service buyers, who have also been supporting the PWM. We encourage service buyers to come on board early, to smoothen the transition to a mandatory one by 2022.

Mr Louis Ng asked about extending the PWM to foreigners in the lift industry. The intent of the PWM is to build a strong local core for the lift industry and not to discriminate against foreigners. So, Mr Ng will be happy to know that several lift firms that have committed to implementing the PWM have also indicated that they provide their foreign lift technicians with comparable remuneration packages. BCA will require all lift technicians, including the foreigners, to be certified for the various competency levels in the PWM, and we will encourage lift companies to also incorporate other PWM principles for their foreign lift technicians as well. So, as they improve their skill-sets, competencies and productivity, their wages will also go up. So, it has to be commensurate with the skillsets and skill pathways.

Beyond the PWM, we also agree with Mr Zainal and Mr Ng on the need to improve the working conditions in the lift sector. BCA is working with the industry for new lifts to be designed with better working conditions for lift technicians as part of the work of the Tripartite Cluster for the Lift and Escalator Industry, which Mr Zainal chairs. So, Mr Zainal, it is in your hands. For example, I understand that the Committee is looking at measures relating to improving minimum illumination levels and mechanical ventilation in the lift shaft so that lift technicians can work in a cooler, brightly lit environment. And for existing lifts, we encourage lift owners to proactively incorporate these improvements as part of their planned upgrading or modernisation works. Yes, the Tripartite Cluster can do its part and, certainly, we look forward to Mr Zainal's recommendations.

On Mr Zainal's specific point, I would like to clarify that clause 20 of the Bill allows the Commissioner of Building Control to issue orders in respect of lifts to prevent safety incidents and not to improve working conditions.

So, as we raise wages and improve the working environment, we will also improve the safety and productivity of the L&E industry through the use of technology, as suggested by many Members who have spoken today. One way is to use remote monitoring and diagnostics (RM&D), which enable lift contractors to not only monitor lift operations in real time remotely, but also to troubleshoot and diagnose faults with greater accuracy.

Such systems are being used in some other countries in Europe and BCA is exploring with the industry how this can be applied in our local context. For example, BCA is working to develop a common standard for these systems that will facilitate more pervasive deployment of such technologies.

If successfully deployed in Singapore, RM&D technology could enable us to shift to a use-based or predictive maintenance regime, as suggested by Mr Zainal and Er Dr Lee. Today, it is very rigid in terms of monthly inspections. But that is because we do not have ways in which we can measure how often the lift is used and how far it travels. So, I think, with technology, we are able to do it better and, therefore, we can assess how soon or how often your lifts need to be maintained much more accurately.

RM&D can also change the way lift technicians work in the future. A technician will be able to monitor all the lifts under his charge from a remote location and in real time. So, when a fault occurs, the system will provide the technician with the necessary information to diagnose the fault and to attend to it immediately. This will reduce the amount of time that the lift technician is required to spend doing maintenance work on site, which not only makes his job safer but also enables him to maintain a larger number of lifts, thus raising his productivity. I think all these fit into the whole PWM narrative in which you want to see greater productivity, you want to see greater skill-sets and improved working conditions. Therefore, I think you can see the rationale of why we are localising this set of jobs and taking it to the future. We want more Singaporeans to come on board.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about how we can ensure the adequacy of lift parts in order to meet the maintenance requirements under the Act, for example, by setting up a national storage for such parts. We agree that it is important for lift faults to be rectified in a timely manner. However, having a centralised storage of the various lift parts from different manufacturers and across different models is neither practical nor cost-effective. It is going to be difficult. Instead, owners can take a preventive approach towards maintenance by planning ahead and scheduling replacement of lift components early, before they cause any issues. The RM&D systems I spoke about earlier have the potential to help owners to do better.

Mr Zainal Sapari also raised concerns about major players exerting proprietary rights over their spare parts and asked if we could adopt the EU's practice of encouraging open and non-proprietary lift systems. We understand that EU prohibits companies from restricting the sale of spare parts to other companies and we have similar laws in Singapore that can deal with refusals to supply essential parts. So, I think it would not be practical to legislate that lift systems must be open and non-proprietary because doing so would severely limit the selection of lifts available to Singapore, given the lift designs of many of our international lift are actually quite proprietary. Just like cars, it is very hard to interchange your parts between a Honda, Kia and Volkswagen, for example. So, you have to also be mindful that there are very few of such models around.

On Mechanised Car Parking Systems (MCPS), we agree with Er Dr Lee that they should be properly installed and maintained. There are about 260 MCPS today in Singapore, and 10 or less MCPS were installed annually in recent years. So, the numbers are not huge. But BCA will work out the details of the MCPS regulatory regime and consult the industry further on the requirements for contractors and technicians.

On Mr Gan's question on HDB's procurement of lifts, while it is not relevant to the Bill, we should ask MOF on how you procure lifts in bulk. But I would like to assure the Member that HDB does enjoy the economies of scale in its lift procurement. Each tender covers about 300 lifts, which is large by industry standards.

Sir, I thank Members for their support of these amendments, which seek to reinforce our Building Control Act by strengthening the building regulatory control framework and to improve the building accessibility in our built environment. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

3.23 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, Er Lee Bee Wah. No five clarifications, please.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: Thank you, Sir, only one. Nee Soon Town Council has been using drones to do facade inspection. But, lately, there was this restriction imposed. The drones can only be used during the weekend. So, I was wondering can MND work out with CAAS to address their concern so that we can be more productive?

Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Sir, I thank the Member for her question. Certainly, we can look at this. It is in our interest, in fact, to leverage more on technology and leverage more things like drones, for example, so that we minimise the cost to Town Councils to have to put up gondolas each time. Let us work this out. And certainly, as we expand the regulations to more Town Councils and across the board, I think this is where we can certainly do better.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

Ms Joan Pereira: I thank the Minister of State. I think I asked about higher insurance coverage for the workers. Can the Minister of State please explain?

Mr Zaqy Mohamad: That is actually an MOM question but never mind. If they are injured, they can claim under the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA). Under the WICA, you can actually claim. So, whether they have insurance or not, it is claimable.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Zainal Sapari.

Mr Zainal Sapari: Mr Deputy Speaker, before I ask my question, I would like to tender my apologies to Mr Louis Ng for referring to him as a fellow Labour Member of Parliament, but he is most welcomed to join us.

My question is, given the fact that we have 70,000 lifts and we are trying to improve the working conditions, I think the initial estimate for retrofitting existing lifts can actually be very expensive. I was wondering whether MND has plans to subsidise the cost of retrofitting these lifts to make sure that we can actually create an environment conducive for the L&E technicians to work in.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad: I understand that is being worked on by your Cluster Committee. So, we will wait for your recommendations.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Alright. Are there any more clarifications? That is a very good taichi.

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 Zaqy Mohamad].

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