National Road Traffic Amendment Bill: deliberations; Online licence booking system and matters related to vehicle and licence renewals; with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed Members of the Committee and officials of the Department of Transport (DoT) to the virtual meeting. He accepted the apology of Minister of Transport, Mr Fikile Mbalula, and invited Ms Sindisiwe Chikunga, Deputy Minister of Transport, to introduce the briefing on matters related to vehicle and driving licence applications and renewals.

Deputy Minister Chikunga explained that the interventions to overhaul the licensing system were being led by the Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC), and were intended to address the inefficiencies and corruption that plagued the current system. The Department was treating the difficulties being experienced by citizens in trying to book slots to renew their driving licences as a serious concern.

It was also concerned that corruption seemed to be the main reason for the lack of available slots, particularly in Gauteng. This corruption was being addressed through the centralisation of online bookings, while backlogs resulting from COVID-19-related workplace disruptions were being addressed through increasing the operating hours of driving licence testing centres (DLTCs). The grace period for people whose licences were due for renewal from March 2020 had been extended until August 2021, after which the ordinary 21-day grace period would return.

RTMC presentation

Adv Makhosini Msibi, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), RTMC, said that the total number of expired licences in the country was 1.3m, of which more than 400 000 were in Gauteng. He outlined some of the short term interventions being taken, which included longer operating hours at DLTCs, filling vacancies, introducing an electronic eye-testing interface with the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) and Computerised Learner’s Licence Testing (CLLT) centres. He also outlined progress made on three new DLTCs in Gauteng, noting that they would operate from 7am to 9pm, seven days a week. Their fingerprinting systems had been integrated with the Home Affairs database, which would reduce the required number of visits to the DLTC. Together, the RTMC’s interventions would increase the renewal capacity by almost 50%.

He looked at the progress that the Department had already made to address the backlog, and drew attention to a smartphone app and two dedicated email addresses for requesting a driving licence slot. He described the RTMC’s marketing interventions, which would take place through social media, radio, television, webinars and interviews with traditional media, and would be specially designed for different age cohorts. He added that the DLTCs in Margate and Kliptown had been affected by the looting in June 2021, but they would be back in operation by the end of September.

Discussion

Mr K Sithole (IFP) said that the online booking system was a disaster. He was worried about whether the RTMC would be able to meet its March 2022 target for clearing the backlog of expired licences. He requested clarity on whether the RTMC had fulfilled its recruitment target in Mpumalanga.

Mr T Mabhena (DA) asked for more detail about the electronic eye-testing interface with the HPCSA. He doubted that centralising the functions of DLTCs would solve the corruption problems in the long run. In fact, it would just increase the risk of spreading the corruption even more widely throughout the country. Corruption did not take place at all DLTCs, and it needed to be dealt with at the centres where it did take place. He noted that some areas of Gauteng still did not have easy access to DLTCs. Soweto’s one million residents were not provided with a mobile testing centre, for instance, after the permanent DLTC had been vandalised. Why was the Ekurhuleni/Mogale City centre going to be open on only three Saturdays a month, and what did it mean to say that working hours at the Tshwane centre had been reduced?

Under-staffing was an irritating excuse for under-performance. How many employees had actually been affected by COVID-19, and had there been no plans in place for this? What were the actual reasons for staff attrition? He recalled a visit to a CLLT centre in Bloemfontein at which only two computer stations out of 13 had been working. How would the RTMC ensure that effective maintenance services were provided? Did the RTMC know how many of the roughly 70 000 monthly driving licence renewal bookings were actually taken up? How would people actually use the email addresses that had been set up for booking? What information did they have to provide, and how many people would handle email requests? What would the turnaround time be?

Mr L McDonald (ANC) did not think the extra renewal capacity would be enough to clear the backlog by the March 2022 target date. He identified the lack of integration between DLTCs and the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) as a major facilitator of corruption. Were there any figures on how many current driving licences were associated with fake identity documents, and how many DLTCs were now connected to the DHA? 

Mr P Mey (FF+) appreciated the work that had been done by the RTMC thus far, and asked when online booking would become available.

Mr C Hunsinger (DA) welcomed the establishment of more DLTCs, mobile centres and kiosks, and the expansion of online booking opportunities. He predicted that it would be challenging to implement all these measures within the projected timeframes, but expressed support for the RTMC’s efforts.

He requested greater detail on the nature of online booking systems. Was it a website, an app, an email system or an SMS system? He suggested that working hours be extended to Saturdays. He understood that the five-year licence renewal period was subject to legislation, but commented that there was a general trend around the world towards longer renewal periods, and he did not think that a comparatively short period made any contribution to road safety. He asked for detail on the institutional arrangements around the transfer of DLTCs to the RTMC from the DoT, especially the human resources arrangements. He suggested that fines for drivers with expired licences be waived if they were in possession of a receipt to indicate that they had made a booking to renew their licence.

Mr M Chabangu (EFF) asked what would happen if the March 2022 deadline for clearing the backlog was not met. He also asked whether DLTCs and senior citizens were generally aware of the privilege that allowed them to walk in to a DLTC and get a renewal appointment without making a booking.

Department's Response

Adv Msibi replied that an applicant using the email booking request system would provide information such as their identity number, residential address, and the DLTC to which they would prefer to go. He explained that addressing the backlog would require the RTMC to review the entire value chain of licence renewal and go outside the ordinary realm of its work. It was important to note that it was only in Gauteng where there were DLTCs managed by municipalities, rather than by the province itself. He confirmed that the vacancies in Mpumalanga had been filled.

He explained that the eye-testing interface with the HPCSA was a memorandum of understanding that would allow eye-test results to be accessed automatically for licence renewal purposes. The current system, according to which the applicant brought a hard copy of the results to the testing centre, was vulnerable to fraud.

He explained that the online booking system was the only DLTC function that was going to be centralised. The reason was that DLTCs in Gauteng had resisted the phasing out of walk-in bookings, which had been an avenue for corruption. He noted that the new DLTCs were the first since 1994, other than the one at Maponya Mall, and added that the RTMC was in discussions with shopping malls to open licence renewal kiosks. He assured Members that the issues they had witnessed at the CLLT centre in Bloemfontein were a thing of the past. The units being used now were both cheaper and more reliable.

He conceded that the target date to clear the backlog was ambitious, but thought that the additional hours and new DLTCs would be of great assistance. The online booking system had been delayed after a DoT official had claimed it was unconstitutional. He noted that the DLTCs in Midrand and Centurion were open seven days a week from 7am to 9pm. He explained that the five-year renewal period was consistent with changes in people’s eye-test results. Fines for drivers with a receipt for a booking would be waived until March 2022, but would be reinstated then. He did not mention any consequences for missing the deadline for clearing the backlog, but said that the RTMC would perform much more aggressive oversight over DLTCs. When a DLTC experienced a COVID-19 outbreak, it was not possible to keep it open because the specialised training required to run the centre meant that the quarantined staff could not be easily replaced.

He observed that corruption was endemic. In Mpumalanga alone, an amount of R2.3bn was involved. Fake driving licences were being produced constantly, and it was not possible to conduct oversight everywhere. On a positive note, traffic officers were being trained to identify fraudulent licences and some officials involved had been arrested.

Deputy Minister Chikunga confirmed that the Department would be monitoring efforts to clear the backlog very closely, particularly in Gauteng, where the problem was most severe. She had had first-hand experience of the Home Affairs interface during a recent visit to a DLTC, where her image had been displayed when she scanned her fingerprints. She stressed that the problem of the backlog was exacerbated by corruption, which was facilitated by officials at all levels, from security guards to senior managers. She had even witnessed bribery at first hand.

Deliberations on National Road Traffic Amendment Bill

Clause 16, amending section 16 of the principal Act

Adv Alma Nel, Content Advisor, Portfolio Committee on Transport, explained that this clause added provisions for DLTC grading information to be published in the Gazette, in addition to registration information.

Mr Hunsinger asked for clarification of the legal significance of the word ‘shall.’ Did it indicate an obligation or a discretionary power? He thought it should be an obligation.

Adv Johannes Makgatho, Chief Director: Road Regulation, DoT, confirmed that ‘shall’ in this context indicated an obligation, like ‘must.’

The Committee accepted Clause 16

Clause 17, amending section 11, and Clause 18, inserting section 11A of the principal Act

Adv Nel pointed out that Clause 17 removed the requirement for the Minister of Transport to involve the Shareholders Committee, consisting of provincial Members of the Executive Committees (MECs) and chaired by the Minister, in the appointment of an inspectorate of DLTCs. Clause 18 inserted a new clause which gave provincial MECs responsibility for appointing provincial inspectorates. There was a concern about where members of municipal committees (MMCs) would fit into this new arrangement. She recalled that the Automobile Association (AA) had opposed the changes to section 11.

Mr Hunsinger was in favour of retaining the role of the Shareholders Committee in the appointment of inspectors. It was a matter of procedure and sequence.

Mr L Mangcu (ANC) also opposed the removal of the powers of the Shareholders Committee. There were valid reasons for giving MECs certain responsibilities, and these functions should not be centralised.

Mr Sithole asked what kind of ‘body’ could be appointed as an inspector, alongside a ‘person’ or an ‘authority’ in Clause 17.

Adv Makgatho explained that it could be a company or institution that could provide the relevant services.

Mr Hunsinger suggested that a practical compromise would be to provide for the Minister to appoint inspectors if a particular province did not have sufficient capacity.

Mr Mangcu recalled that the RTMC Act had foreseen the establishment of a national traffic police service with a specific role. This had not happened, however, and the national traffic police had ended up competing with and sometimes bulldozing its provincial counterparts. He maintained that the responsibility should be given to provinces and municipalities to avoid duplication.

Adv Nel suggested that the Department should indicate the current arrangement for appointing the DLTC inspectors and why they wanted to split the responsibility between the provinces and the national Department.

Adv Makgatho replied that these clauses should be understood as a devolution of power. They would give MECs the power to appoint inspectors.

Mr Hunsinger asked what practical state of affairs had prompted the change.

Adv Makgatho drew attention to section 7, which provided for the appointment of inspectors of manufacturers, importers and builders. He also referred to the regulations which also described their powers and duties.

Mr Hunsinger did not think this explanation was helpful. He wanted to know what was happening on the ground. He suggested setting the issue aside until the Department provided a better explanation. He confirmed his view that MECs should be responsible for appointing inspectors, with a provision for the national Department to appoint inspectors in cases where a province was not able to do so.

Ms Phumelele Ngema, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, argued that these two clauses, 17 and 18, did in fact provide for inspectors to be appointed either provincially or nationally, as Mr Hunsinger suggested.

Mr Hunsinger maintained that a provincial MEC could not be in control of DLTCs in their province if they did not have the power to inspect them.

Mr P Mey (FF+) described a case in which the manager of a DLTC had simply ignored the instructions of the inspectorate to keep the centre open. The manager had claimed that there were potholes, but he had driven the road, and there were no potholes. He did not see any reason for the existence of inspectors if they did not have any power.

The Chairperson ruled that the deliberations on these clauses would be set aside for the present.

Adv Nel suggested looking at what would happen if a provincial MEC and the national Department appointed inspectors for the same DLTC. Whose decisions would take precedence?

Clauses 19 and 20, amending sections 13 and 14 of the principal Act

Adv Nel noted that this clause introduced a new category of driving licence -- a provisional licence. Most submissions from the public had opposed the new category. There were no other references to the category, nor was it included in the definitions. Provisional driving licences were found in several countries, including Australia, where they were issued to new drivers and were linked to stricter limits on the licencee’s blood alcohol content (BAC). They might also be issued where a person’s licence had earlier been withdrawn for some reason.

Mr Hunsinger proposed that the Committee consult the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (AARTO) legislation before deliberating further on this clause, as he recalled that it made some related provisions. He did not see how a provisional licence would be implemented in practice. Would it be connected to a vehicle licence plate, the driving licence card, or just a part of the registry?

Mr Sithole asked what the reason for the introduction of the provisional licence category was.

Adv Makgatho replied that it was intended to promote better driving.

Mr John Motsatsing, Director, DoT, added that it was intended to inculcate safer driving habits among novice drivers.

Mr Mangcu observed that provisional driving licences had international precedents, and it was a noble idea. However, in the countries where provisional driving licences were issued, it was mandatory to attend a driving school and do a certain number of practice hours. In this country, the reason for attending a driving school was to get a licence more quickly through bribery. This was the more pressing problem. So was the low barrier for obtaining a professional driving permit (PrDP).

Mr Hunsinger did not support the idea of having levels of fitness for driving. He did not see how a provisional driving licence would contribute to road safety. How would other drivers know they should treat the provisional licence holder more cautiously on the road? He maintained that the Committee should look at related provisions in the AARTO Act.

Adv Nel suggested that the Committee return to its deliberations on these clauses after consulting the AARTO Act, in particular the sections on demerit points. The learner’s licence was also often spoken of as a provisional licence, and the Bill generally lacked clarity on the status of the provisional driving licence.

Adv Makgatho commented that the AARTO Act did not make reference to provisional licences. He added that a set of regulations would be published following the signing-off of the Bill which would address a range of issues, including provisional licences.

The Chairperson was not satisfied with this response. The Committee could not assess the clauses in question in the absence of detail on how they would be implemented. They could not be approved without information on practical details.

The deliberations on these clauses were set aside.

Clause 21, amending section 15 of the principal Act

Adv Nel explained that this Clause reworded some of the provisions governing disqualification from holding a licence.

Mr Hunsinger asked for clarification of the meaning of ‘chief executive officer’ in this Clause.

Adv Makgatho referred to section 93 of the principal Act, where it was specified that ‘chief executive officer’ in this Clause referred to the ‘MEC concerned.’

The Committee accepted this Clause

Clause 22, inserting section 15A into the principal Act

Adv Nel explained that this Clause introduced provisions for surrendering a licence, or re-issuing a licence for a different class of vehicle.

Ms Ngema observed that because it was an insertion, the reference of ‘chief executive officer’ in this Clause was not specified in the principal Act. Would it have the same reference as the amended section 15?

Adv Makgatho said that the reference was the same.

Mr Mangcu wondered why it was necessary for a person to surrender their existing licence when they obtained a more comprehensive licence. What value would it add? Would this Clause also apply to the proposed provisional driving licence?

Adv Makgatho drew attention to Clause 19, where section 13 was amended to include provisional licences.

The Chairperson asked what the amendment was seeking to achieve, other than excluding provisional licences.

Mr Hunsinger asked whether this Clause was to apply to the driving licence card or the entry in the registry of licencees. He did not think that a person should be able to request a change to the registry.

Adv Makgatho replied that the type of licence a person held determined the type of vehicles they could drive.

Mr Hunsinger said that the only thing the Clause appeared to achieve was to shift the responsibility on to the licencee for updating their registration when their licence classification changed. This was ridiculous. It should be the responsibility of the institution.

Mr Motsatsing explained that it was a licencee’s obligation to update their licence card if and when they obtained a licence to drive a new class of vehicle.

The Chairperson asked for further explanation of the intent of the Clause.

Mr Motsatsing replied that the main reason was to ensure that obsolete driving licence cards were submitted to the authorities to be destroyed.

Mr Hunsinger said that this made much more sense, because Mr Motsatsing was referring to a driving licence card. It made sense that the card would have to be changed to reflect changes in the register, and that this should be the responsibility of the card holder.

Mr Mangcu did not think that it should be the card holder’s responsibility to update their card or submit it to the authorities for destruction. The Clause did not have a clear intent.

Adv Makgatho explained that the Clause sought to address the situation in which a holder of a learner’s licence sought to upgrade to a driving licence.

The Chairperson did not think it made much difference whether or not the Clause was included.

Mr Alec Moemi, Director-General, DoT, submitted that the Clause should be retained. It sought to regularise a practice that was already ongoing.

The deliberations on this Clause were set aside.

The meeting adjourned.