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

Meeting report

Adv Alma Nel, Committee Content Adviser, introduced the report by the Subcommittee of the Portfolio Committee on Transport on the Public Protector report. The report covered the following:

• The introduction on the work of the Subcommittee (terms of reference)
• The analysis of the report of the Public Protector
• Presentations received by the Subcommittee and a short summary of each presentation and engagement
• Observations
• Recommendations

[PMG will link the full report as soon as it is tabled]

Discussions

Mr C Hunsinger (DA) thanked the Adv Nel for a well prepared report. The report was excellently drafted and captured the essence of the Committee’s experience in establishing facts. He said whether the Committee viewed the report as the conclusion of its work or whether it viewed it as the conclusion of the first phase of the Committee’s work, it was necessary, at this stage, to report to the main Portfolio Committee. In his view, the report only concluded the first phase of the Committee’s work which was triggered by the Public Protector’s report. The report needed further scrutiny and establishment of who participated in allowing the illegally converted vans to become taxis on the road. The Committee was aware that the scope needed to be extended beyond just one particular make of vehicle so that they could look into the matter holistically.  The Committee also wanted to establish what its role was in terms of the remedial action and identify opportunities and gaps for which improved policy and legislation was necessary. He saw the report as the conclusion of the first phase of the Committee’s work. The recommendations should include the continuation of the Committee’s work.

The next phase was to work towards a proper solution. Its objective should be a solutions focused phase of work and to also find proper remedial action. The Committee was now aware of what the roles of each of the stakeholders were and established the gaps in their roles. They needed to tighten the screws in addressing the issue. The well compiled report should be submitted as a conclusion of a phase and the Subcommittee was asking the mother Committee to continue with its work with regards to finding proper solutions and remedial actions for businesspeople that were unknowingly lured into transactions. The next phase would also involve establishing the exact number of vehicles that were currently illegal.

The Chairperson said one of the recommendations the Committee made concerned disagreement on whether Toyota gave permission for the homologation of those vehicles. There was never an actual document from Toyota South Africa or Toyota Japan saying that those vehicles were allowed. There was a later documentation where Toyota said they did not want the vehicles to be converted. He wanted the Committee to put a sentence saying that no vehicles could be homologated further without explicit written approval from the manufacturers like Toyota Japan. He agreed that that was the Committee’s first phase of its work. The Committee needed to ask the mother Committee to give the Subcommittee permission to investigate more types of vehicles and vehicle manufacturers. Then in the next phase, have solutions to stop the illegal conversions. The remedial action is to address who was going to pay for the removal of all those vehicles off the road. There were government departments that were currently using illegally converted ambulances. People were dying in Nissans, Ford bakkies and all kinds of vehicles because they had been illegally converted. From his research, the Committee was not looking at 2 500 vehicles, it was 15 000+ vehicles. The mother body [principal Committee] should allow the Subcommittee to dig in deeper to get the exact number of vehicles and establish how big the problem was, then provide remedial actions.

Mr Hunsinger said he was happy with the summary and contribution made by the Chairperson.

The Chairperson said the report had been accepted by the Members and they could submit it to the mother Committee for approval and further recommendations.

Adv Nel asked the Committee Secretary to indicate how the Committee should proceed with the process. She was happy to include the additional recommendations that the Committee suggested.

Ms Valerie Carelse, Committee Secretary, said the decisions would now rest with the Portfolio Committee. There were also additional issues that she wanted the Committee to be aware of - the information that was requested from different stakeholders was not received. The way to proceed with that must also be taken to the Portfolio Committee. The requested information was the test report for the retro-fitment process from the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) and the information of the evidence relied on during the investigations by the Public Protector. The Portfolio Committee must indicate how the Subcommittee should proceed to get the information because it would also form part of the final report.

The Chairperson suggested that the Subcommittee asked the entities again for the reports and if they fail to deliver, the Subcommittee can put it in its report that the entities failed to deliver and this then can submitted to the Portfolio Committee.

Mr Hunsinger said he valued the input made by the Secretary. He suggested that the Subcommittee included in its report that the questions and additional reports were still outstanding and note the three reports that were still outstanding.

The Chairperson agreed with Mr Hunsinger and said they would include the reports.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) agreed with the Members. He asked if the Subcommittee was extending the scope of its visitation and which companies were going to be affected. If they were going to other companies, did the Subcommittee have that mandate?

The Chairperson said that the mandate would be up to the Portfolio Committee –the Portfolio Committee would have to give the Subcommittee the mandate to investigate further. During the Subcommittee’s discussion, they were made aware that there were other types of vehicle ambulances that were not included on the report but were as illegal as the Toyota quantum. It was up to the Portfolio Committee to make the decision.

The Chairperson said the Subcommittee would now submit the report to the Portfolio Committee.

Meeting adjourned.