Subcommittee discussion on extension of its scope of work and programme concerning Public Protector Report on Toyota Quantum Panel Vans

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed Members of the subcommittee and the officials from the Department of Transport (DoT) who would update the committee on their activities in response to the Public Protector's report.

Mr C Hunsinger (DA) observed that according to the meeting agenda, the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the continuation and scope of the work of the subcommittee.

The Chairperson explained that this would be discussed after the Department had presented its update.

Mr Hunsinger asked for clarification of the context and purpose of the Department's update. Should it not be presented to the main Committee, rather than the subcommittee? He was concerned that a parallel process was being set up.

The Chairperson recalled that the subcommittee had raised issues about what the Department had reported in an earlier presentation. The presentation would update the subcommittee on these.

Mr Hunsinger maintained that the update should be presented to the main Committee, rather than the subcommittee. He found it intimidating that the subcommittee, whose work was investigative, should receive regular progress reports from the Department.

The Chairperson invited other subcommittee Members to comment on the matter.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) agreed that the update should be presented to the main Committee, but the subcommittee should hear what the Department had to say in case it was relevant to the discussion on its scope.

Mr L McDonald (ANC) agreed that it would be helpful for the subcommittee to hear the update but was also concerned that it was not being presented to the main Committee.

The Chairperson observed that although the subcommittee was not a decision-making body it had been given a mandate by the main Committee to look into the matters discussed in the Department's update.

Adv Alma Nel, Content Advisor, Portfolio Committee on Transport, noted that the content of the presentation did not exceed the existing scope of the subcommittee's work. Moreover, the main Committee had recommended that the Minister of Transport set a deadline for scrapping illegally converted vehicles, and since this deadline was next month it might be important for the subcommittee to hear the update.

The Chairperson invited the Department to present its update.


DoT presentation
Mr Lesiba Manamela, Director, DoT, provided some background on the scrapping of illegally converted vehicles through the Taxi Recapitalisation Programme (TRP) that had been recommended in the Public Protector's 2019 Report. 1 226 eligible vehicles had been identified, of which 572 had applied for scrapping to date, leaving 654 vehicles outstanding. These outstanding vehicles were operating illegally. The Department was proposing that any vehicles not surrendered for scrapping by 31 March 2022 would no longer be eligible for compensation and would be impounded through law enforcement processes.


Discussion
Mr Hunsinger maintained that the update should be presented to the main Committee. The Department was asking the subcommittee to approve its proposal, but it could not do this as its work was investigative. He wondered why, 33 months after the publication of the Public Protector's report, the Department was now urgently providing updates to the subcommittee. It was in fact for the subcommittee to decide whether the Department's actions were appropriate. He did not support the scrapping of the illegally converted vehicles, arguing that it was detrimental to the vehicle owners, who had not known that the vehicles they were buying were illegal, and who would now lose their livelihoods. The subcommittee was allowing itself to be intimidated into supporting the scrapping programme. The real problem was actually the people who had converted the vehicles illegally and sold them to unsuspecting buyers.

Mr McDonald was concerned about the narrowness of the Public Protector’s original investigation, which had only looked at Toyota Quantums converted between August 2007 and December 2008. The amount of money being offered as compensation was also not even sufficient to replace a confiscated vehicle with an old, beaten-up equivalent. He reported that the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) was currently investigating scrapping contractors who were reselling parts from the illegally converted vehicles. He had received numerous complaints from taxi owners who were unable to update the license of their private vehicles because of administrative marks against their taxis, which might not even be in use. The Department was driving poor South Africans into the ground. He appreciated the update but thought that the Department was underestimating the scale of the problem.

The Chairperson said that the subcommittee needed to decide on whether or not to note and engage with the Department's update.

Mr Sithole said that the subcommittee should simply note the report but that the main Committee should decide whether or not to approve the date proposed. He asked whether the Department knew where the 654 outstanding vehicles were and who owned them.

Mr McDonald agreed that the subcommittee should note the report, treat the meeting like an information session and ask the Department to present it to the main Committee.

The Chairperson indicated that the subcommittee would note the report without engaging with it, note Mr Hunsinger's strong views on the matter, and decide on whether it should be tabled to the main Committee after further deliberation.


Discussion on the extension of the subcommittee’s scope of work and programme
Adv Nel recalled that the subcommittee had been unable to meet with the banking sector in 2021. She reported that the Competition Commission was looking into vehicle financing practices by Wesbank and Toyota Finance and suggested that this might have some relevance to the subcommittee’s work. She said that the subcommittee’s terms of reference would not need to change if it expanded its scope to include other vehicle models, but pointed out that attempting to cover all types of illegally converted vehicles would result in a massive investigation that could probably not be completed even by the end of the sixth parliament.

The Chairperson asked how much time was available and what opportunities in the parliamentary programme were available to the subcommittee.

Ms Valerie Carelse, Secretary, Portfolio Committee on Transport, said that the subcommittee would need to calculate how many meetings it would still need to have and when it would report back to the main committee. Members should also take into account other obligations, including the work of the main Committee.

Mr McDonald agreed that it would be impossible to cover all types of illegally converted vehicles. He suggested that the subcommittee confine itself to Quantums, Nissan ambulances and passenger transport for workers and tourists. He expressed his willingness to meet on any day at any time.

Mr Hunsinger did not think that the subcommittee should set a definite date for the subcommittee to conclude. He agreed that the scope should be widened to include more vehicle types but could not cover all of them, and suggested limiting it to the public transport sector (including ambulances). He suggested that the subcommittee should assess the appropriateness of the remedial actions taken by the Department, investigate the financing and short-term insurance of the illegally converted vehicles, and look into legislative improvements to improve intra- and inter-departmental cooperation and close loopholes. The subcommittee should start shifting from investigating to developing solutions but it should still try to hear directly from taxi associations and taxi owners so that the voices of the victims could be heard. They should be compensated for the loss of their businesses, rather than just the loss of an asset.

Mr Sithole said that the subcommittee's work aimed to protect the vulnerable. If the scope of work was too narrow it would fail them. He proposed widening the scope to include all forms of transportation where people were affected.

Adv Nel noted Members' comments and said she would draft an extended scope. She also reported that the Portfolio Committee on Trade, Industry and Competition had requested the subcommittee's report on its work to inform its own engagement with the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC) on the illegally converted vehicles. She suggested that the Portfolio Committee on Transport liaise with the Portfolio Committee on Trade, Industry and Competition on a possible joint meeting.

The Chairperson thanked Members for their engagement. He agreed that a closing date would not be set but that the subcommittee would not be extravagant in its use of time.

The meeting was adjourned.