Sub-Committee: Public Protector Report on Toyota Quantum Panel Vans: engagement with NRCS, SABS & DTIC

This premium content has been made freely available

Transport

17 February 2021
Chairperson: Mr L Mangcu (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video: Subcommittee of the Portfolio Committee on Transport

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

02 Dec 2020

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

01 Dec 2020

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

25 Nov 2020

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

18 Nov 2020

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

06 Oct 2020

DoT 2019/20 interim audit; Economic Regulation of Transport Bill; PP Report on Toyota Quantum Panel Vans; with Deputy Minister

04 Sep 2020

Public Protector remedial action on illegal conversion of Toyota Quantum Panel Vans to Taxis: DoT briefing; with Minister

The subcommittee met briefly with the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition, as well as two of its entities, the South African Bureau of Standards and the National Regulator of Compulsory Specifications, to discuss the Public Protector’s Report on the illegal conversion of panel vans.

The Department gave a high-level overview of the role of the two entities in vehicle safety.

The Committee was unsatisfied with the generality of the Department’s contribution.

The South African Bureau of Standards discussed its roles and responsibilities relative to the National Regulator of Compulsory Standards, its role in the retrofitment process, and noted that it had no legal authority to regulate vehicle conversions or recall vehicles already on the road.

The National Regulator of Compulsory Standards discussed its role in the registration of converted vehicles and the retrofitment process and drew attention to various relevant facts. It responded to the findings in the Public Protector’s Report and outlined some of its ongoing work on vehicle safety specifications.

 

As there was insufficient time for discussion, the subcommittee decided to reconvene the meeting at a later date.

 

Meeting report

Presentation by the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC)
Dr Tshenge Demana, Chief Director: Technical Infrastructure Institutions, DTIC, introduced the delegation from the Department and two of its entities, the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) and the National Regulator of Compulsory Specifications (NRCS). He gave a high-level overview of the role of the SABS and the NRCS in the area of vehicle safety. The NRCS, he explained, developed compulsory specifications (also known as technical regulations) for vehicles. The SABS developed standards for vehicles to comply with, which became mandatory when referenced in regulations. SABS was also an accredited provider of compliance testing services for some standards.

Discussion
The Chairperson was disappointed at the level of generality in the Department’s presentation. The subcommittee had expected it to provide information on its response to the Public Protector (PP) report on illegal vehicle conversions. Had the Department checked whether the relevant entities had fulfilled their responsibilities?

Mr C Hunsinger (DA) asked how long Dr Demana had occupied his current position. What was his opinion on the regulatory failure that had led to the illegal conversions? When had he become aware of these illegal conversions and was he aware that panel vans had been converted to ambulances as well as taxis?

Mr L MacDonald (ANC) agreed with the Chairperson that the Department’s presentation had not been helpful. Substantive input had been expected but there just seemed to be blame-shifting.

Ms Thandi Phele, Acting Deputy Director-General: Industrial Development, DTIC, said that the substantive input would be provided in the presentations by SABS and the NRCS. She acknowledged the existence of regulatory gaps as identified in the PP report.

Dr Demana replied that he had been in his current position for more than 20 years.

The Chairperson was not satisfied with the Department’s response. The subcommittee had invited the Department for a specific reason.

Presentation by SABS
Ms Jody Scholtz, Lead Administrator, SABS, began by discussing the relationship of SABS with the NRCS, which was one of the questions posed by the PP report. The principal difference between these two entities was that whereas the NRCS developed compulsory standards, SABS developed voluntary standards and offered testing and certification services in competition with commercial entities. The role of the SABS in the retrofitment process had been limited to three tests: roll-over protection, seatbelt anchorages and tilting. She was unaware of the date at which the SABS had become aware of Toyota’s condemnation of the Quantum conversions but said that this date was of no consequence as SABS had no legal authority to regulate vehicle conversions. SABS did also not have the authority to recall vehicles. She said that the PP Report contained a number of factual inaccuracies regarding the role of SABS.

Presentation by NRCS
Mr Edward Mamadise, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), NRCS, began by outlining the mandate of the NRCS with respect to motor vehicles. He drew attention to sections of the National Road Traffic Act, according to which the responsibility for impounding unroadworthy vehicles already on the road lay with law enforcement agencies, not the NRCS. He noted that the Taxi Recapitalisation Programme (TRP) had introduced additional safety requirements for the new taxis. The mandate of the NRCS was to verify the compliance with these requirements of vehicle samples sent to it by manufacturers, importers and builders (MIBs) and to issue a National Transport Identification System (eNatis) number for the vehicle if the requirements were met. He discussed the role of NRCS in the retrofitment process that had been applied to the illegally converted panel vans.

Mr Mamadise responded to each of the findings in the PP Report which involved the NRCS. The NRCS could not have taken measures to restrict illegal conversions because it had been established in 2008, at which time illegally converted panel vans were already on the road. The NRCS was not required to obtain a letter of authorisation from Toyota in respect of the retrofitment process. NRCS could not have identified illegally converted vehicles because it does not have access to the vehicle registration system and was not involved in the registration process beyond the issuance of an eNatis number. In her finding that the NRCS had allowed vehicles to be converted for private use, the PP had failed to grasp the fact that these vehicles had been exempted from the additional safety requirements, adding that the NRCS was reviewing compulsory specifications to include these additional safety requirements for all vehicles. He also recalled that the PP Report had not directed the NRCS to take any remedial action, but had only directed the Minister to improve the relationship between the NRCS and SABS and between the NRCS and the Department of Transport. He added that the NRCS and SABS had concluded a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in October 2019 and the renewal of an MOU with the Department of Transport was at an advanced stage. The NRCS was currently undertaking market surveillance activities and also reviewing compulsory specifications for motor vehicles.

Discussion
Mr MacDonald said that the presentations had raised some issues and suggested reconvening the meeting on another day as there was no time for questions.

Ms N Nolutshungu (EFF) agreed and also called for a more substantial contribution directly from the DTIC.

Ms Phele agreed to address further issues at the request of the subcommittee, and suggested that the Department of Transport also be involved in the discussion on order to close loopholes in the regulatory space.

The meeting was adjourned.


 

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: