Debated in Parliament on 8 Apr 2013.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
We last amended the Fire Safety Act in 2004 to implement a performance-based regulatory system for buildings and to extend regulatory control over non petroleum-based flammable materials. These amendments strengthened our fire safety regime and contributed to Singapore's success in maintaining its good track record in fire incidences and fatalities. In fact, Singapore's fire fatality rate is lowest when compared to major cities such as Hong Kong, Tokyo, New York and London. We had 0.02 fire fatalities per 100,000 population in 2012.
We have recently completed a review of the fire safety enforcement framework, taking into account changes in our industrial structures, lessons and experiences from major incidences both locally and overseas.
Page: 41
Arising from the review, we are introducing this Amendment Bill with the aims of strengthening the operational effectiveness of the SCDF and raising the fire safety standards of buildings and premises. SCDF will keep up its tempo of inspections and will take action against those who do not comply with fire safety regulations. We will also enhance measures against those who repeatedly flout the law.
One example is the People's Park fire on 21 April 2010. The fire occurred at the fifth level of the multistorey car park. Post fire investigation revealed that there were extensive illegal fire safety works, with full height partitioning segregating part of the car park into storage facilities. Apart from contributing to the fire load with excessive storage of combustibles, the unauthorised partitioning covered up the original openings at the fifth level of the car park and impeded the natural ventilation. These resulted in a heavily smoke-logged environment which made it very difficult for SCDF to put out the fire. Due to the severity of the fire safety violations and consequences, the management was brought to Court and fined the maximum sum of $60,000 on two charges involving unauthorised fire safety works and change of usage.
Madam, let me now elaborate on the key amendments.
Currently, Commissioner SCDF is empowered to order the owner or occupier to close the identified premises for a period not exceeding 72 hours if a previously issued Fire Hazard Abatement Notice (FHAN) has not been complied with. Two conditions have to be met for the closure to take effect.
First, the fire hazard constitutes an immediate or substantial danger of fire within the premises, or if a fire breaks out in or on the premises, it is likely the fire hazard will increase the normal risk to life.
Second, the safety of persons within the premises cannot be reasonably ensured by any other means.
Clause 13 amends the second condition such that the Commissioner's Closure Order (CCO) may be issued when it is "necessary for the safety of persons that the premises should be closed immediately". This will allow the SCDF to act quickly and decisively to address fire safety violations.
Clause 13 gives SCDF additional powers to deal with recalcitrant offenders. Currently, the CCO has to be rescinded once the fire hazard is abated. However, there may be premise owners who continue to violate the fire safety
Page: 42
requirements, such as permitting overcrowding, once SCDF's inspectors leave the site. Clause 13 gives the Commissioner the authority to effect the CCO for up to the full duration of the 72 hours, even after the fire hazard has been abated. This will only apply to a small group of premise owners that have a poor track record and where SCDF deems it necessary for the safety of persons that the premises be closed immediately. The premise owner will be considered to have a poor track record if he has had three or more court convictions for fire hazard offences during the past 24-month period. Imposing the CCO will send a strong signal to recalcitrant premise owners. However, I would like to assure all Members that the CCO will only be used as a last resort. As far as possible, SCDF will rely on other measures such as fines and court-imposed closure orders to compel premise owners to put in place the required abatement and mitigation measures.
Mdm Speaker, in January this year, a fire broke out in a nightclub in Brazil resulting in more than 200 fatalities. This is indeed very tragic. Preliminary findings have revealed that the high death toll was due to numerous fire safety lapses such as faulty fire extinguishers, absence of clear exit lights and overcrowding. This incident illustrates the importance of compliance with fire safety requirements, otherwise there could be dire consequences.
The Amendment Bill also proposes to increase the penalties for certain categories of fire safety offences and notices of composition. This is to align the penalties with similar offences under the Building Control Act and ensure that the penalties continue to have a deterrent effect. The fire safety offences affected include unauthorised fire safety works, failure to supervise fire safety works, non-compliance with closure orders and continuing offences. In particular, the penalties for serious offences such as unauthorised fire safety works and failure to supervise fire safety works will carry an increased fine of $200,000 and/or 24 months imprisonment compared to the current fine of $50,000 and/or 12 months' imprisonment.
Improving Fire Safety Provisions. Clause 17 amends section 21, which deals with fire emergency plans, by renaming the Fire Emergency Plan required for designated premises as an Emergency Response Plan (ERP). The intention is to require owners of designated premises to draw up plans to cater not only for fire emergencies, but also for fire-related emergencies, such as gas leaks and chemical spillages, that may cause injury or the loss of lives. The Emergency Response Plan will also require owners of designated buildings to notify the SCDF immediately in the event of a fire-related mass casualty incident, which is defined as having 10 or more casualties.
Page: 43
Clause 18 amends section 22 to require premise owners of designated buildings with Fire Safety Managers (FSMs) to also appoint Company Emergency Response Teams (CERTs) for the premises. This will expand the coverage of the CERT scheme which has been implemented for the chemicals sector since 2008. The function of the CERT is to respond immediately to emergencies prior to SCDF's arrival in an emergency situation. Time is of the essence in an emergency and the CERT provides a first line of defence in mitigating incidents. Having a competent and well-trained CERT minimises the risks to lives and property, and disruptions to operations. A good example is Exxon Mobil's CERT team which was mobilised when a fire occurred at one of its pumps on Jurong Island in April 2011. The CERT was immediately activated to assist in the emergency. Because of the fast response rendered by the CERT prior to SCDF's arrival, the fire was extinguished within five minutes, preventing further damage to other parts of the premises.
Enhancing Investigative Powers. Clause 10 inserts new sections 8B and 8C to enhance the investigative powers of SCDF officers. Currently, SCDF's fire investigators have the powers to collect samples of substances for analysis and evidence during fire investigations, only if the substances are petroleum or flammable materials. Fire investigators have to be empowered by the Police to collect other types of evidence. The proposed amendments will allow fire investigators to collect any samples required to test for fire resistance or flammability. They will also be able to retrieve any other materials to assist them in their investigations, or as evidence.
The scope of SCDF's investigative powers will also be extended to include means of transportation such as vehicles, vessels and aircraft. There are over 100 vehicle fires in Singapore per year and it is important that SCDF's officers have the powers to investigate such fires. SCDF will also be able to detain or impound vehicles and aircraft to establish the cause of fires.
Control of Petroleum and Flammable Materials (P&FM). SCDF is the regulatory body for Petroleum and Flammable Materials (P&FM), and it currently regulates the import, storage and transport of such materials. The current licensing regime authorises SCDF to stipulate control measures and carry out inspections, audit checks and enforcement actions. Clause 40 inserts a new section 36A into the Act, to extend this licensing regime to cover pipelines conveying P&FM. As more pipelines are developed, there is a need to ensure that they adhere to the relevant design, construction and maintenance standards. The pipeline owner is also required to formulate an Emergency Response Plan (ERP) and establish a Company Emergency Response Team (CERT) that will respond quickly should an incident occur. In accordance with
Page: 44
the ERP, the CERT will provide an immediate first response to deal with any pipeline incident.
Clause 40 also inserts a new section 36B into the Act, which stipulates requirements for contractors who conduct earthworks in the vicinity of the licensed P&FM pipelines. And the contractors will be required to inform the license holders of their intention to conduct earthworks. Prior to commencement of the works, the contractors will have to take precautionary measures such as marking out the pipelines and maintaining a safety distance from the pipelines. This is important so that earthworks do not endanger the lives of others in the vicinity of the pipelines.
To enable action to be taken against persons who wilfully or recklessly damage P&FM pipelines, clause 40 inserts a new section 36C to create an offence and clause 41 amends section 37 to stipulate penalties for that offence.
Powers for marine firefighting and rescue (MFFR). Clause 10 inserts a new section 8A into the Act to give SCDF powers for marine firefighting and rescue. SCDF took over marine firefighting and rescue functions from the Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) on 1 April 2012. This allowed us to provide an integrated response for both land and sea emergencies. SCDF will also be given the powers to facilitate its operations such as obtaining information on layout plans of ships for the purpose of firefighting and rescue and to investigate fires on board vessels at sea, regardless of the country or registration of the vessel. Clause 45 inserts a new section 43 into the Act to allow SCDF to continue MPA's practice of imposing charges on vessel owners for extinguishing fires or protecting life and property in the event of fires on their vessels, whether in inland waters or at sea.
In summary, Mdm Speaker, this Bill will ensure that we continue to have a comprehensive fire safety enforcement framework and that SCDF will have the necessary powers to carry out its mission to save and protect lives and property. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
Question proposed.
Madam, I am in general support of the rationale for the Bill, however, I wish to seek some clarifications on clauses 17 and 18 which require designated buildings to provide Emergency Response Plans and
Page: 45
to have Company Emergency Response Teams. Specifically, I wish to ask what role SCDF will play to collaborate or partner with building managements to comply with the new requirements, and whether the burden being placed on the fire safety managers under the new scheme is, perhaps, a bit onerous.
First, Madam, the new requirement for emergency, not just fire, plans. Clause 17 amends section 21 of the Act to require owners or occupiers of designated buildings to have in place not just a Fire Emergency Plan but an Emergency Response Plan. The new requirement is supposed to obligate building management to cater for all emergencies, not just fires, that may cause injury or loss of lives. Earlier, in his second reading speech, the Senior Minister of State mentioned that the emergencies should be fire-related but I do not see this restriction in the legislation. So, I would appreciate if the Senior Minister of State could clarify further on the scope of the emergencies to be catered for. Clause 18 will amend section 22 to require that buildings which are currently required to have fire safety managers shall also have competent Company Emergency Response Teams as part of emergency preparedness.
Madam, the need to prepare response plans for emergencies is self-evident, and this is especially so in our high-density urban environment. In addition, the proximity of our homes, workplaces and recreational spaces means that when emergency plans are drawn up for buildings, they should be able to respond to not just critical incidents from within the building but those which could potentially come from nearby facilities and even the external natural environment.
What then is SCDF's optimal collaborative role in emergency planning? Madam, the law currently places the responsibility for emergency planning squarely on the building owners and occupiers. Under the Act as well as Fire Safety (Fire Emergency Plan) Regulations 2008, they have to prepare and execute the emergency plans, conduct regular drills and gather tenants to form Fire Safety Committees. The role of the SCDF itself is reflected as issuing of guidelines about the contents of plans, reviewing records and so on. SCDF's role appears to be as regulator and auditor. Under this Bill, building management will have an even more onerous statutory obligation, with wider coverage to include non-fire emergencies, which will require more specialised expertise. What will SCDF do to assist building management in drawing up the required emergency response plans?
Even though the building management should bear the primary responsibility for the plans, the benefits of SCDF being involved in drawing up the emergency response plans would be tremendous. SCDF could advise on
Page: 46
matters which the building management has no knowledge of or control over. Examples of such matters would include: the potential emergencies from outside the building which the management should plan for; whether there is potential to share emergency resources with nearby facilities; and even which open areas to use as assembly points, especially at our blistering pace of urban renewal. Worldwide, it is increasingly recognised that public-private partnerships in emergency planning, involving both Government and private organisations, will improve the quality and practicality of the emergency plans. At the same time, through joint efforts, SCDF would have a good grasp of the private sector expertise and resources available which could be tapped on in national emergencies.
Could Ministry explain how SCDF will collaborate with the building managements to comply with the new requirement and to improve the quality of emergency plans? For instance, would SCDF provide a template for building managements to use and adapt?
Finally, Madam, the role of Fire Safety Managers and the Company Emergency Response Teams (CERTs). Clause 18 will amend section 22 to require buildings with fire safety managers to now have CERTs with competent in-house staff. The proposed section 22(3A) states that it is the building owners or occupiers who are required to maintain the CERTs. However, the MHA's Press Release dated 14 January 2013 indicates that it will be the responsibility of the Fire Safety Managers (FSMs) to ensure that the response plan guidelines are complied with, including upgrading the competencies of the in-house teams to form CERTs.
Is this task too onerous for the FSM to be held responsible for? The FSM in a building is likely to be a mid-level employee with several corporate roles, for example, he could be an occupational safety and health officer doubling up as an FSM. To place on him the responsibility of ensuring that competent CERTs are in place which comply with SCDF guidelines on emergency response seems very onerous.
Will the Government assist building managements to comply with this new requirement of CERTs and if so, how? For instance, are there any plans to develop new training courses in emergency response planning to cater specifically to the new statutory requirement for CERTs?
Page: 47
Thank you, Mdm Speaker, for allowing me to speak on the Bill. I welcome the Bill's overall objective of raising the fire safety standards of buildings and premises and improving the level of fire safety in Singapore. In particular, I support the move to enhance the preparedness of our people and premises in dealing with emergencies. Emergencies like fires can have severe consequences, causing injuries, deaths and serious damage to property. Hence, acting ahead of the curve and being proactive is important. However, I have some concerns about whether the new requirements may be too onerous for premise owners.
For instance, the Emergency Response Plan covers both fire as well as fire-related emergencies. My question is: how will the owner know what types of emergencies he has to plan for? And in the first place, will the owner know how to draft such a plan, or does he have to engage a consultant? What are, if any, are the requirements for Fire Safety Officers (FSOs) for the various types of properties or buildings?
Secondly, the formation of CERTs requires manpower. Some businesses are already facing labour shortfalls, so I am worried whether the industries, especially the SMEs, are able to cope with this requirement. Can the Minister clarify whether the premise owners are required to hire dedicated staff to form CERTs? Also, who will conduct the training and how long is the training for?
Lastly, while it is important for premise owners to adopt the Emergency Response Plan and CERT framework to provide a contingency plan and an immediate first response during emergencies, we should also target the general public to educate them on the importance of fire safety and prevention. May I ask what programmes and initiatives does the Ministry have in place to educate the public on fire safety?
I hope the Minister can address my concerns and assure Members that the new requirements will not be onerous for the premise owners. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Arthur Fong and Ms Sylvia Lim for speaking on and supporting the Bill.
Preparedness is key to ensure that the public feels safe even in the event of emergencies and we should not take this for granted. I would like to draw the
Page: 48
analogy with airlines and how we, as passengers feel safe and confident that the air crew are well-trained and equipped to respond to emergencies. Likewise, premise owners should provide this same level of assurances to those who work and visit their premises.
Let me first address Mr Arthur Fong's concerns on whether the compliance cost will be significant and too onerous on premise owners. I would like to reassure Members that SCDF has conducted extensive consultations with various stakeholders including building owners from the commercial and industrial sectors over the past year.
The stakeholders understood the need for these additional safety requirements and were generally receptive to them. They recognise that being prepared and having a comprehensive Emergency Response Plan, coupled with a competent Company Emergency Response Team (CERT), would help them mitigate incipient incidents and minimise potential damage. Most buildings and premises already have plans for fire-related emergencies such as the In-Place Protection Plan and the Arson Prevention Plan. The Emergency Response Plans (ERPs) serve to integrate all these plans together.
Ms Sylvia Lim asked whether SCDF will be working with premise owners to formulate their ERP and identify the resources required for response. Indeed, SCDF's role goes beyond just auditing and approving plans. SCDF is committed to supporting and working closely with premise owners in the development and formulation of ERPs just as it is doing for the existing fire emergency plans. During the audit process, the SCDF works together with the premise owners to make improvements to their plans and capabilities. SCDF has also published guidelines on for the formulation of such plans on its website. These would serve as a basic template for most plans.
As to the query why the ERP includes fire-related emergencies, this is because FSA is about fire and safety measures, and therefore the ERP includes fire related emergencies. The FSMs are also trained to conduct in-place protection should there be gas leaks or chemical spills that may endanger others in the building.
Mdm Speaker, the Fires Safety Managers, being certified by SCDF, which I believe Mr Arthur Fong was referring to, are trained in both fire and fire-related emergencies to assist premise owners in formulating the ERPs. Should circumstances change, premise owners can also approach SCDF directly for help in updating their plans. Fire stations also conduct regular exercises at
Page: 49
various premises. In these exercises, SCDF and CERT work together with premise owners to test and validate their plans to ensure they work well holistically.
Through these exercises, greater understanding and synergy are fostered amongst all partners involved so that they will be better prepared in the event of an incident. So, we have to work together, exercise the system so should an emergency happen, we will be ready.
The requirement of CERT has already been implemented for the chemical industries since 2008 and is working very well. The proposal therefore is to extend the CERT scheme to other premises to formalise their existing in-house firefighting teams and raise their competencies. The role of an FSM today is to ensure and enhance the fire safety standard within the premises. To do so, the FSM is trained in basic firemanship, emergency planning and fire safety management. Premises will typically not need additional manpower for CERT as the CERT can be made up of existing FSMs and include members of the buildings, security, maintenance staff and volunteers from the tenants as it stands today.
We have discussed this with the various stakeholders during the industry consultation. I would like to assure Ms Sylvia Lim the assessment is that the compliance requirements are not overly onerous.
In order to cater for the anticipated increase in demand for CERT training, SCDF and WDA are collaborating to start and develop three new CERT courses under the WDA's Workforce Skills Qualifications system with the usual absentee payroll subsidy and up to 90% in course fees support.
Training for CERT members is available at the Civil Defence Academy and also private service providers, such as the Association of Company Emergency Response Teams (A-CERTs). The course duration is typically between one and three days. There are also other benefits to having done or gone through this training. CERT members are trained to conduct basic first aid, CPR and AED so that they can also respond during medical emergencies to render assistance to the public as well as occupants within the premises.
We recognise that there should also be sufficient time for the premise owners to gear up and meet the new ERP and CERT requirements. Hence, SCDF will give premise owners a six-month grace period for ERP and a two-year grace
Page: 50
period for CERT from the commencement of the Bill.
On public education, SCDF recognises the need to reach out to the public and promote the importance of fire safety and fire prevention. One of its key public education initiatives under the CD Ready Homes Programme is SCDF's collaboration with People's Association's, C2E or Community Emergency and Engagement Committees in conducting Emergency Preparedness (EP) days in the heartlands annually.
The EP days feature exercise which showcase realistic emergencies scenarios like corridor fires and household fires to drive home the importance of emergency preparedness and fire safety. One exercise held during EP days is the Vertical Stretcher Challenge where SCDF has leveraged on the energy and enthusiasm of students to spread important fire safety messages. This exercise, whereby the students race across the corridors with stretchers, serves to educate the community on the importance of having a clutter-free corridor which will aid emergency responders during an emergency.
SCDF also has a comprehensive emergency preparedness school engagement programme that covers all levels from pre-school to tertiary institutions. In addition, SCDF works closely with the National Fire and Civil Emergency Preparedness Council, PA, HDB and Town Councils. Most recently, they have put up fire advisories at lift doors. These serve to create awareness amongst residents of fire hazards in common areas and to remind them to alert their Town Council if necessary.
Whenever new fire risks are identified, SCDF will also work with the relevant stakeholders to mitigate the situation. For example, in its effort to reduce the number of fires involving discarded items and keep the common corridors and staircases obstruction-free, SCDF issued fire safety guidelines concerning the use of common areas.
Mdm Speaker, we have had a good track record for fire safety. The enhancement of the enforcement framework and fire safety provisions is timely and ensures that our laws remain relevant as the operating environment changes. I urge Members of the House to give your support to the Fire Safety (Amendment) Bill.
Page: 51
Madam, I have one clarification for the Senior Minister of State. This concerns the legal liability of the FSMs in relation to the formation of the CERTs. It was mentioned in the press release issued by MHA on 14 January that under this new scheme, the FSMs will be required to ensure that the response plan guidelines are complied with including upgrading the competencies of the in-house CERTs. And as I mentioned in my speech earlier, the FSM in the scheme of the organisation is not a very high level employee, so I would like the Senior Minister of State to confirm that the legal liability does not fall on him if there is non-compliance but on the building owners and management.
Mdm Speaker, the FSM is hired to advise the owners on the safety requirements of the premises. Therefore, apart from the owners, the FSM is the competent, certified personnel on the ground for the owners to make sure that the compliances to the Fire Safety Act are met. This includes having the requisite number of people who should be able to help and step forward should an emergency occurs because the SCDF cannot come instantly.
There will be a time gap before they arrive, and during this time the CERT and the FSM are very key to the safety of people who are in the premises. Therefore, we have to put the onus on somebody to ensure that the plans are up to date and relevant to the buildings, as the buildings and CERT personnel may change over time, and also ensure that the CERT are up-skilled to the right level and are updated to ensure that new challenges are being met and that they are trained to ensure that they can coordinate and work well with the SCDF.
Yes, Madam, just one more clarification. I understand all that, Senior Minister of State. Just that the FSM may be aware of his responsibilities but the organisation has to support that, and if that is not forthcoming then the FSM cannot be legally liable for the lack of staff in the CERT teams, for example.
The Member is right. The ultimate onus and responsibility fall on the owners of the premises. So, when a fire hazard abatement notice is served, it is served on the owners. But the FSM must ensure that plans for the abatement measures are up to date, and that the CERT is operational and ready.
*Question put, and agreed to.*
Page: 52
*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 Masagos Zulkifli B M M].*
*Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.*
PAPERCUTS