Sub-Committee: Public Protector Report on Toyota Quantum Panel Vans: engagement with NRCS

Meeting report

National Regulator of Compulsory Specifications (NRCS) presentation

Mr Edward Mamadise, Chief Executive Officer, NRCS, began the presentation with a general overview of the legislative background and mandate of the NRCS. He explained that NRCS was appointed as an inspectorate for manufacturers, importers and builders (MIBs) of motor vehicles. In this capacity, its responsibilities included the issuing of registration numbers for vehicles, including converted vehicles, and the issuing of certificates of compliance for minibuses that carried paying passengers. Notably, it did not have the power to impound illegally converted vehicles.

He summarised the findings against NRCS in the report of the Public Protector’s investigation into illegally converted panel vans, which were that NRCS had failed to take effective and efficient measures to ensure that all MIBs complied with compulsory specifications in order to restrict the illegal conversion of Toyota Quantum panel vans into minibus taxis. The NRCS also failed to take steps to stop illegal conversions, despite the fact that the Toyota disapproved them.

Mr Duncan Mutengwe, General Manager: Automotive, NRCS, discussed the vehicle approval process followed by NRCS. Converted panel vans faced a range of additional safety tests, which were not done by NRCS itself but by accredited laboratories. NRCS approved a vehicle conversion by issuing a specific model number for the purpose of registering the vehicle on the Electronic National Traffic Information System (eNaTIS). NRCS had the power to withdraw its approval of a vehicle if it emerged that the MIB was not authorised to do the conversion.

Mr Mamadise stressed that the Public Protector had not recommended any remedial action to be taken by NRCS. However, she had directed the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC) to foster an effective and efficient complementary working relationship between NRCS and the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS). The two entities had signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to strengthen their relationship. NRCS had also put interim measures in place to control the conversion of panel vans into taxis. These included a requirement for MIBs to obtain support documents from the original equipment manufacturer (OEM), enforcing the prohibition of conversions by unregistered MIBs, and increasing the frequency of inspections on MIBs specialising in panel van conversions.

Discussion

The Chairperson was disappointed that the presentation was far too generic and did not indicate what the NRCS had done, specifically in response to the problem of illegal panel van conversions.

Mr C Hunsinger (DA) was disappointed in the apparent passivity of NRCS in response to the problem – it seemed to have only just discovered its responsibilities in response to the Public Protector’s report. He asked NRCS to reflect on its responsibility for the country’s adherence to international agreements, such as the Paris Convention, the Berne Convention and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). He pointed out several instances where the Public Protector had identified regulatory failures of NRCS. The subcommittee had wanted to hear about NRCS’s response to these findings. With reference to paragraph 5.1.142 of the Public Protector’s report, he asked what legislation or national standard NRCS had used to decide that second hand vehicles did not require a letter of authority in order to be homologated, as South African Nation Standard (SANS) 10267 made no mention of second hand vehicles. He wondered who else could be blamed for the regulatory failure if not NRCS, and asked what the role of SABS should be in relation to NRCS. When had NRCS first heard about the practice of illegal panel van conversions, and had there been any communication with Toyota about it? What was NRCS’s involvement in the process of retrofitting the illegally converted panel vans and how had it arrived at standards for this process?

Mr K Sithole (IFP) was also disappointed. NRCS had failed in its duty. When had it found out about the practice, and what had it done at that time? It had failed passengers and taxi owners. He asked for the minutes of its meetings with the Department of Transport, so that the subcommittee could ascertain whether NRCS had adequate capacity. Its failures could not be tolerated, as the lives of citizens were at stake.

Mr L McDonald (ANC) said the presentation seemed like an afterthought, put together to appease Parliament. He asked which laboratories had issued safety certificates to MIBs for illegally converted panel vans. Why had Type 2 braking tests and other crash tests not been done? When had NRCS implemented the interim control measures? Toyota Quantum panel vans were rated to carry up to 1070kg, but 16 passengers with luggage weighing 80kg each added up to 1280kg, so it was not surprising that so many fatal accidents occurred. NRCS was not doing its job of protecting South Africans. He asked how many of the 2353 vehicles investigated by the Public Protector, before or after retrofitment, had been issued with Taxi Recapitalisation Programme (TRP) certificates. He suggested that the vehicles were no safer after retrofitment.

Responses

Mr Mamadise apologised for any gaps in the presentation. He said that although NRCS did have the power of inspection over MIBs, it simply could not be everywhere at all times. In addition, it was dealing with unscrupulous MIBs, which contravened the law without NRCS knowing about it. Just as the existence of crime did not indicate the failure of the police, so the existence of MIBs contravening the law did not indicate the failure of NRCS. However, it continued to perform market surveillance across all sectors under its ambit. He did not dispute that the Public Protector had made findings pertaining to the NRCS, but reiterated that no remedial action had been directed. He explained the relationship between NRCS and SABS: NRCS promulgated compulsory specifications (similar to the technical regulations issued by the Minister of Trade and Industry) in line with applicable legislation and standards published by SABS, which also performed actual tests to determine a product’s compliance with NRCS specifications.

Mr Mutengwe said that NRCS had first heard about the practice of illegal conversions in 2009, which was the same year that the National Land Transport Act had introduced a rollover test requirement for vehicles carrying up to 16 passengers. He recalled that at that time, a task team had been set up, of which NRCS was a part, to decide what to do about these unsafe and illegally converted vehicles. It had developed specifications to enhance the safety of the vehicles, such as reinforcing the seat and window fitments and strengthening the vehicle superstructure, and approved the vehicles after retrofitment. He stressed that NRCS had no jurisdiction over vehicles already registered and on the road. The vehicles investigated by the Public Protector were therefore, from the point of view of NRCS, water under the bridge. He explained that NRCS approved a vehicle model with reference to relevant compulsory specifications, not SANS 10267. Relevant compulsory specifications and national standards also guided NRCS on the nature of the tests performed on vehicles.

Conclusion

The Chairperson underlined the subcommittee’s disappointment with NRCS’s submissions. The mandate of the subcommittee was specifically to look at illegally converted vehicles, but the responses were defensive and generic, leaving Members with more questions than answers.

Mr McDonald was frustrated that his specific questions about the implementation of the interim control measures and the number of TRP certificates had not been answered.

The Chairperson agreed that the responses had not been sufficient and suggested that the NRCS return to the subcommittee at a later date.

Mr Mamadise replied that he would welcome a later engagement, now that NRCS better understood the expectations of the subcommittee.

Mr McDonald suggested that the subcommittee engage with SABS on its testing methodology. It was also urgent to hear from Toyota.

Mr Hunsinger was concerned about the fact that there were still more than 40 000 converted vehicles on the road, whose safety could not be guaranteed. It would also be useful to engage with DTIC, as the parent department of NRCS and SABS, to better understand the roles of these entities. The subcommittee should also have an internal meeting to discuss the scope of its work. The issue of converted ambulances also needed to be dealt with. Perhaps there could be an engagement with the Department of Health to discuss how it had allowed ambulances converted from panel vans to be procured. He suggested deferring the engagement with Toyota for as long as possible to allow the subcommittee to gain a full understanding of the problem.

Mr Sithole suggested a second session with the Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC) and the Public Protector.

The Chairperson cautioned that it might not be possible to engage with every affected stakeholder. If the subcommittee did not focus on where it could be most impactful, it would never finish its work. For this reason he was wary of engaging the Department of Health. It was also important to think about how the practice of illegal panel van conversions could be stopped. All the problems being discussed were ongoing. He suggested that DTIC should be a part of the meetings with NRCS and SABS.

Adv Alma Nel, Content Advisor, Portfolio Committee on Transport, noted that several important legislative changes had only been introduced in 2009. She wondered whether an approach, such as that taken by India recently might be taken, according to which all vehicles of a certain model and year were scrapped entirely.

The Chairperson suggested that this could be discussed by the subcommittee on its own.

Dr Sifiso Ngesi, Committee Researcher, Portfolio Committee on Transport, cautioned that the subcommittee should not lose sight of its terms of reference.

The meeting was adjourned.