Economic Regulation of Transport Bill; Quarter 4 Report on DoT Performance; Sub-Committee report on Public Protector’s Toyota Quantum panel vans investigation

This premium content has been made freely available

Transport

17 August 2021
Chairperson: Mr M Zwane (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video
Report No. 37 of 2018/19 on an investigation into the illegal conversion of goods carrying Toyota Quantum panel vans into passenger carrying minibus taxis to transport members of the public for reward

The Committee was expecting to be briefed virtually by the Department of Transport on changes to the Economic Regulation of Transport Bill. These included the phasing in of different regulatory entities, the validity of projected cost savings after changes to the phased-in approach, changes to other legislation that the establishment of the single regulator would require, and the appointment of the board of directors. However, due to a misunderstanding, the Department had not prepared any responses to the Committee’s concerns.

The Committee considered and adopted its draft report on the Department’s 2020/21 fourth quarter expenditure. The Committee’s recommendations included quarterly reporting on the filling of vacancies and delays in various projects, and the alignment of the Department’s performance indicators with actual service delivery.

The Committee considered and adopted the sub-Committee's report on illegally converted panel vans, which made a wide range of observations and recommendations. Members of the sub-Committee reported that the problem was much more widespread than the Public Protector’s report suggested, and requested that it be allowed to continue investigating it. This request was granted by the Committee.

The Committee also discussed its third term programme.

Meeting report

The Chairperson accepted apologies from Mr I Seitlholo (DA), Mr B Yabo (ANC), Mr P Mey (FF+) and the Minister of Transport, Mr Fikile Mbalula.

Deliberations on the Economic Regulation of Transport (ERT) Bill

Adv Alma Nel, Committee Content Adviser, said that the major outstanding issue that the Department needed to respond to the Committee on, was the financing of the proposed “phased-in” approach to establishing the single regulator.

The Department of Transport (DoT) had not prepared any input on the outstanding issues.

Mr L McDonald (ANC) was disappointed that the Department had not prepared a response to these issues. The Committee still needed clarity on the phasing in of the various regulatory entities, as well as consequential amendments.

Mr C Hunsinger (DA) also wanted to know when the Committee would engage further with the public and other stakeholders on the Bill, given that so many important changes had been made.

Mr Moeketsi Sikhudo, Project Manager: Single Transport Economic Regulator, DoT, explained that the Department had been under the impression that the Committee was satisfied with the B-list of changes to the Bill, and that the purpose of the current meeting was to discuss the A-list. That was why it had not prepared any comments.

The Chairperson confirmed that the Committee was concerned about the cost of the phased-in approach.

Mr T Mabhena (DA) added that the appointment of the board was another important matter that the Committee had raised. Like the board of the South African Broadcasting Association (SABC), the board of the single regulator should be appointed by the relevant parliamentary Committee. The Department had not yet responded to this proposal, as well as concerns about ministerial overreach.

Mr Hunsinger recalled that the Department had undertaken to provide the Committee with clarity on three matters:

  • the phasing in of different regulatory entities;
  • the validity of projected cost savings after changes to the phased-in approach; and
  • changes to other legislation that the establishment of the single regulator would require.

The Committee was eager to pass legislation that would improve the transport sector, but it would not be persuaded to rubber-stamp a bill with outstanding issues.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) agreed about the need for more clarity on financial matters related to the establishment of the single regulator. He also asked the Department for clarification of the proposal to consolidate various entities into the economic cluster.

Mr Sikhudo noted the issues raised.

Mr L Mangcu (ANC) said that the Committee must register its disappointment with the Department. This was not the first time it had failed to respond to the Committee’s concerns.

Consideration of Committee's draft report on DoT's 2020/21 fourth quarter expenditure

Adv Nel summarised the spending in each of the Department’s programmes, noting that there was under-spending in all of them, and the reasons given. She drew attention to the spending related to COVID-19. She mentioned the Committee’s observation that even though the Department had met its performance target on rail transport, trains were still not running on main lines, the roll-out of new trains was very slow, and the Department had not taken the opportunity during the lockdown to repair infrastructure, instead leaving it to be looted. There was also a disconnect between the over-performance on maintenance by the South African National Roads Agency (SANRAL) and the experience of road users on the ground. Personnel vacancies had been identified as a serious problem.

The Committee’s recommendations included quarterly reporting on the filling of vacancies and delays in various projects, and the alignment of the Department’s performance indicators with actual service delivery. 

Mr Mangcu asked if the recommendation on vacancies could include a request to the Minister of Public Service and Administration to assist the Department.

Mr Sithole was concerned that the issue of scholar transport was not reflected in the report. In some provinces it was managed by the DoT, while in others it was managed by the Department of Basic Education (DBE). Could a joint meeting be arranged to consider this?

Adv Johannes Makgatho, Chief Director: Road Regulation, DoT, commented that scholar transport was a shared responsibility of the two Departments and agreed that a joint meeting between the two Portfolio Committees was a good idea.

The report was adopted.

Consideration of sub-Committee's draft report on illegally converted panel vans

Adv Nel provided the background of the sub-Committee’s work, starting with the issues raised and recommendations made in the Public Protector’s 2018/19 report into illegally converted panel vans. She summarised the contents of the sub-Committee’s meetings with the DoT, the Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC), the National Regulator of Compulsory Specifications (NRCS), the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS), the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC), Toyota South Africa, the National Association of Automobile Manufacturers of South Africa (NAAMSA) and the Public Protector (PP).

The sub-Committee’s observations included:

  • The DoT had treated the PP’s report as a tick-box exercise. and it was necessary to hold regular meetings to resolve the issues it raised.
  • It was not possible to determine the extent of the problem of illegal conversions on the basis of data in the National Traffic Information System (NaTIS), which might be open to the manipulation of vehicle data.
  • There were dissenting views on whether the responsibility for physical vehicle inspections lay with the RTMC or NRCS.
  • The sub-Committee had been constrained by the scope of the PP's report, which had been limited to public entities.
  • The NRCS had not yet been established when the problem of illegal conversions had first arisen. Its capacity was limited, and there were some regulatory shortcomings.
  • The retrofitment of illegally converted vehicles had been done in accordance with the safety standards in place at the time.
  • There was as yet no mechanism to ensure that illegally converted vehicles were not used for public transport.
  • The DTIC had failed in its oversight role by not ensuring that MLA gaps were closed
  • Toyota South Africa was adamant that panel vans were not suitable for conversion to passenger vehicles, and recommended the scrapping of all converted panel vans currently on the road.
  • The SABS had failed to supply the sub-Committee with the test report for retrofitment it had requested.

The sub-Committee’s recommendations included:

  • The Portfolio Committee should consider whether amendments to the National Road Traffic Act currently being considered addressed the sub-Committee’s observations, or whether it would be preferable to introduce new amendments that would address them.
  • Further investigation would be required to determine the full extent of the problem and the most appropriate remedies.
  • Future vehicle conversions should require authorisation by the manufacturer.
  • The Minister of Transport should gazette a proclamation with a clear deadline for the scrapping of illegally converted vehicles.
  • The DoT should improve its communication with the NRCS, SABS and DTIC, and conclude a memorandum of agreement to ensure vehicle manufacturers, importers and builders (MIBs) and testing stations complied with conversion regulations.
  • The Minister of the DTIC must ensure that the Department would work with the SABS and NRCS to improve and update compulsory specifications for public transport vehicles.
  • The NRCS should improve its regulatory and compliance system and widen its market surveillance activities.
  • The taxi industry should make it known to operators that illegally converted vehicles were dangerous and also a risky investment, and should cooperate with the DoT in the process of scrapping illegally converted vehicles. It should cooperate with the DTIC, NRCS and SABS to establish the compulsory specifications for public transport vehicles.

Discussion

Mr Hunsinger moved the adoption of the sub-Committee report, with minor corrections. He also proposed that the sub-Committee be allowed to continue its work with a wider scope that would include vehicle models in addition to the Toyota Quantum, ambulances and sightseeing vehicles, and finance and insurance companies. A wider range of remedies needed to be explored, going beyond the Taxi Recapitalisation Programme (TRP) recommended in the PP’s report, and legislation needed to be improved in collaboration with the DTIC.

Mr McDonald also called for the sub-Committee to be extended. He observed that places such as Harmony Mines transported workers on the back of trucks. It seemed to have become a norm that safety considerations were thrown out of the window when black and poor people were concerned. The South African branches of Toyota and Nissan used converted vehicles in their own operations, without the permission of their parent companies and despite their public stance against conversions. He added that Petersen’s Taxi World had closed down, and it was unlikely that the people responsible for the illegal conversions would be brought to justice, and that the SABS had not done any of the required rollover tests because they did not have the necessary equipment. 

Mr Sithole noted that it was for the Portfolio Committee to decide whether or not to extend the sub-Committee or widen the scope of its work. He also expressed concern that certain entities of the government undermined the ability of the Committee to do its work by not responding to its questions.

Ms M Ramadwa (ANC) said that the sub-Committee should continue its work. Members of the Committee who were not part of the sub-Committee should study the draft report and submit ideas to it.

Mr Mabhena commented that the Department of Health was using converted ambulances. He wondered how illegally converted panel vans would be recalled, and then legalised or scrapped. What was the process? The report did not seem to recommend any consequences for the NRCS, despite the fact that Section 17 of the NRCS Act had clearly been violated. Was the practice of illegal conversions ongoing and if so, what measures were being put in place to end it?

Mr Mangcu said that it had become very clear in the course of the sub-Committee’s work, that the eNaTIS system was porous and the data held there was easily manipulated. It was not designed to prevent the registration of illegally converted vehicles. He also observed that the responsibilities of the NRCS in this area were very vague.

Mr Hunsinger confirmed that it seemed to be an ongoing problem, adding that it also appeared to be much more widespread than the PP’s report suggested.

Adv Nel pointed out that the Committee should bear the sub-Committee’s findings in mind when it deliberated on the National Road Traffic Amendment Bill the following day.

The Committee adopted the report, and granted the sub-Committee’s request to continue and widen the scope of its work.

Committee business

The Committee adopted the minutes of its meetings on 2 and 3 June 2021.

When it considered its third term programme, Mr Mangcu suggested that the Committee should make time to discuss the recent raiding of the Minister of Transport’s offices by the sheriff and the ongoing stripping of rail assets across the country.

Ms Valerie Carelse, Committee Secretary, announced that the third term would run until 1 October. She asked if the planned meeting for 20 August should be postponed to provide the DoT an opportunity to respond to the Committee’s concerns about the Economic Regulation of Transport (ERT) Bill. She recalled the Committee’s June decision that organisations and individuals who had asked to appear before the Committee should provide reasons.

Mr McDonald supported the postponement of the 20 August meeting. He said that the driver’s licence renewal backlog in Gauteng was also becoming a huge problem. He called for more oversight visits to be arranged, as there were many pressing issues that needed to be addressed.

Mr Hunsinger supported the postponement of the 20 August meeting, and the Committee’s June 2021 decision. Had the organisations and individuals who wanted to appear provided reasons?

Ms Ramadwa observed that as public representatives, the Committee should welcome people who wanted to appear.

The Chairperson replied that the Committee had already taken a decision on this matter.

Mr Mangcu also supported the postponement of the 20 August meeting. He said it would be remiss if the Transport Committee had no report to make on the looting in Kwazulu-Natal. This had to be prioritised. The taxi violence in the Western Cape had started to spread to the Eastern Cape. He wondered if the consideration of the National Land Transport Amendment Bill could be brought forward.

Mr Mabhena was concerned that the Committee seemed to take the taxi violence in the Western Cape more seriously than the road deaths on the Moloto Road. It had arranged an emergency visit to Cape Town during the recess, but had not done the same for the people of Mpumalanga. He agreed with Mr McDonald that the licence renewal problems in Gauteng needed to be addressed.

The meeting was adjourned.

Documents

No related documents

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: