No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The Motor Insurers’ Bureau (mib) was formed in 1946 to provide compensation for victims of road traffic accidents from uninsured drivers and later untraced drivers. 1 The mib and its agreements have been criticised by academics due to potential gaps in coverage. 2 The mib agreements are seen as ‘an entirely novel piece of extra-statutory machinery’, 3 due to not being based in statute and therefore without parliamentary control. This has brought challenges involving issues of transparency when new agreements are created. Claims against the mib, particularly in relation to untraced drivers, have also been controversial. With the UK in a transition period in terms of its relationship with the EU and with the potential absence of a cause of action against the mib post-transition period, the question arises as to whether the mib should be put on a statutory footing. This article therefore aims to explore whether the mib should be put on a statutory footing. It will examine the relationships between the mib, its members, the state, and Parliament. It will further examine issues involving transparency and enforcement. It will go on to compare the Australian Capital Territory (act) approach in legislation with the United Kingdom (UK) approach, to see what will be gained or lost with the UK adopting the legislative route. It will then conclude on which, if any, examine potential reform options – radical or otherwise – might be usefully pursued to meet the criticisms of to the system in the UK.