Mr Speaker, Sir, by "consumer protection" I presume the Hon. Member for Potong Pasir implies architect's fees and those matters relating to work done. I shall take my reply together with the Hon. Member for Jalan Kayu. On the question of architect's fees raised by the Hon. Member for Jalan Kayu, the fee for new works done is 7½% of the cost of the executed works as currently shown in the Singapore Institute of Architects (SIA) "Scale of Professional Charges". For repetitive work, the fee is on a declining scale from 6% down to 4%. I understand and it is also understood that these rates are non-mandatory guides for SIA members and that in actual practice, the fees are negotiable between the client and the architect. It is also my understanding that the total cost of works may be based on the tender price or on a fixed lump sum, in which case the question of inflation affecting architect's fees does not arise. However, should the total cost of work be based on the final settlement of the accounts, then the basis of arriving at the final cost of works is negotiable between the architect and the client. Any increase in fees due to inflationary elements is again a matter of mutual settlement. Since architects' fees are negotiable, there is no necessity to make provisions in this Bill to stipulate the scale of fees. However, it may be pertinent to point out that clause 5 of this Bill provides that one of the functions of the Board of Architects is to determine and regulate the professional conduct and ethics of the architectural profession, as well as to hear and determine disputes relating to the professional conduct or ethics of registered architects. Within this context, therefore. cases of malpractice or conduct which is infamous in the professional aspect can be brought to the attention of the Board. Hon. Members of Parliament may wish to know that previously, under the Architects Ordinance of 1941, the Board of Architects was empowered to fix a scale of fees charged. However, this was removed by an amendment in the Ordinance in 1957 as it was felt that the Government should not interfere in the fees charged, which should be left to market forces. However, I would like to assure the Hon. Member that should a situation at any time warrant the architect's fees to be fixed, amendments could accordingly be considered. The Member for Jalan Kayu made a correct observation in that the term "architectural work" is not defined in the Bill. The Ministry is aware of this and to avoid ambiguity in the interpretation (and this is one of the reasons in answer to the Hon. Member for Telok Blangah) an amendment will be introduced at the Committee stage to delete clause 17 (1)(c). Certain other minor amendments to the Bill will also be moved at the Committee stage and the reasons are to make the Bill more explicit. Perhaps I can say that the reasons for the amendments are both of a drafting nature as well as the result of representations and observations made by some MPs and the Singapore Institute of Architects. Generally, architects do not build houses without amendment to the plans. So at the last moment the Singapore Institute of Architects made further representations to the Ministry, and to show that we are open to suggestions we have therefore incorporated a few of the suggestions or recommen dations made by them. The amendments proposed also seek to strengthen the authority of the Minister vis-avis the Board of Architects and also to give the Board of Architects more flexibility in meting out punishment for lesser offences which do not warrant suspension or deregistration as required under the existing unamended Bill. On the other point raised by the Hon. Member for Jalan Kayu on minor works, let me say that for alterations and additions to HDB flats and other private residences a submission of building plans by architects is not required. However, where there are major additions and alterations or where additions and alterations entail structural works involving safety standards, architect's plans are required. Recently, the Building Control Division issued guidelines as to the type of building works which do not require submission of building plans by architects, and this information is available at the Building Control Division, if required. As to the Member's comment on the erection of temporary dwellings in the rural areas, the BCD makes available six standard-type plans so that applicants need not engage the services of an architect. The services of an architect are only required where erections do not conform to any of these six standard-type plans, and this is obviously to ensure that the plans comply with all the necessary building requirements. The Member also suggested looking into and updating the existing regulations under the Local Government (Building) Regulations. We are looking into this at this juncture, and appropriate amendments will be made when we are ready for it. I would also like to inform the Member that the change of roofing from attap to corrugated iron sheets or other light-weight materials such as asbestos does not require architect's plans. The Member has also made a valid point on the use of services of engineers as against architects in engineering type of works. As things stand, building plans can only be submitted by persons registered under the Architects Act. Consequently, in the present context an engineer cannot submit building plans unless he is registered under the Architects Act. The Institution of Engineers Singapore, and the Association of Consulting Engineers Singapore, together with the Singapore Institute of Architects, have made representations to the Ministry. The question of permitting engineers to submit building plans for certain types of projects, for example, prefabricated works, as brought up by the Member, is being discussed between these interested parties. We will incorporate the necessary recommendations in the Schedule to the Building Regulations when these issues are mutually settled. Finally, I would like to assure Members of this House that both the Singapore Institute of Architects and the present Board of Architects have been consulted throughout the whole period of the drafting of this Bill. I have also indicated earlier that even at the last moment representations made by these organisations were accepted and incorporated in amendments which will be introduced at the Committee stage, and they have fully supported this Bill.