Protection for Self-employed Persons who Offer Delivery Services

12 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Manpower what are the specific challenges in ensuring that self-employed persons who provide delivery services on their own bicycles and personal mobility devices enjoy similar and adequate workplace safety protection as employees working for delivery companies, including insurance coverage in respect of injury, death and property claims arising from accidents while working.

The Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, employees and self-employed persons (SEPs), enjoy similar protection under the Workplace Safety and Health Act (WSHA). Companies are required to take reasonably practicable measures to ensure the safety and health of both their employees and SEPs they have a contract with. So, whether as employees or as SEPs, delivery riders on bicycles or personal mobility devices should have the proper equipment, protective gear and also sufficient training to ensure that they can do the job properly and safely.

Companies can also be prosecuted under WSHA for failing their duty of care to SEPs, as well as to their own employees. And the maximum penalty upon conviction is up to a S$500,000 fine for companies, or up to a S$200,000 fine and a two-year jail term for individuals.

Companies are not required to buy Work Injury Compensation insurance for SEPs. This is because their relationship is one of client-contractor and not the employer-employee relationship. However, to help SEPs get adequate insurance coverage, a Tripartite Workgroup has been formed to look into this matter as well as to address other main concerns of SEPs. This was announced by the Ministry in the Committee of Supply debate this year.

Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister of State for his answer. I have one clarification. I would like to ask the Minister of State, in respect of SEPs, how does the study group intend to look into the issue of insurance that the SEPs should take when they take on such jobs, including insurance that provides for third-party claims, for example, when they run into a pedestrian or when they hit another vehicle on the road and possibly when they are in the wrong?

Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for two important questions.

First, with regard to insurance for SEPs, this is really not a very straightforward issue because individual SEPs may have contracts with many companies, multiple service buyers and some of which, their contracts may be just one-off and some may just last a few times. So, it is not really prudent to require all companies to purchase the insurance for every SEP because if we were to require companies to do so, then obviously, the cost for the companies will be quite high and, eventually, the cost will be passed down to the consumers. So, in our view, this is not the most prudent way of requiring companies to buy insurance for SEPs.

However, there are other ways that the Workgroup is looking into now, for example, whether it would be useful for the SEPs themselves to buy the insurance since they are already in the service to provide services, programmes and activities to companies.

As to third-party insurance claims, if a member of the public is injured by the employees of a company, then the third party can obviously take legal actions against the company for the injury that the third party sustains. But if the third party is injured by an SEP contracted by a company, then the situation is a little bit complicated. The Court will have to decide whether the service buyers have taken the necessary practicable measures to ensure that the SEP under their contract has the relevant expertise, has attained the training, has worn a protective gear and also taken all the necessary precautions in carrying out the duties. If the companies, the service buyers have not done this, then there is a reason for the Court to rule that the WSH Act was breached.

However, if the company has taken all the necessary precautions, and it is solely the fault of the SEP, then the company is not liable for the SEP's actions. Then the third party would have to take up the legal action against the SEP himself or herself. This is currently how the framework works.

Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: I thank the Minister of State. Just a quick clarification. Would the study group be looking into the possibility of making it mandatory for SEPs to have some form of third-party insurance? A second question would be: how long is this review likely to take?

Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong: I thank the Member for the further questions. Yes, the Workgroup will look into various aspects. We have just formed the Workgroup. So, we have to allow the Workgroup to consult all the tripartite partners and also the stakeholders. So, it would take a while. When it is ready, we will make the announcement.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Hin Kee.

Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): I would like to seek a clarification from the Ministry whether or not, in the Minister of State's experience, were there cases whereby the SEP deployed by the company or the services purchased by the company were people who were disguised contract-for-service? What I mean is basically that these companies should have hired them. Instead, they purchased their services under this contract-for-service, therefore, making them self-employed. What has the Ministry's experience been like?

Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong: So far as we know, we have not come across any cases of such disguised incidents. But if the Member should have any actual reports or information, I would appreciate it if he can let us know so that the Ministry will look into it.