As has already been said, the agreements have an extra-egial mechanism for compensating victims. There are transparency and enforcement challenges that we will look at. See, for example. B, the additional mib uda agreement, which included the exception for terrorism and the derogation from damage to vehicles in previous agreements, see mib „Additional Agreement (uda)“ (2017) , which was acceded on 3 April 2020. Of course, there is nothing to say about the fact that the legislation inserts exclusions. However, the differences between the protection offered to victims of uninsured and insured vehicles would be more noticeable and would be subject to further review. In addition, the introduction of a compensation system for victims of uninsured and unsur pursued vehicles would have some advantages in the legislation. For example, by imposing the equivalence of accident victims from uninsured and unsur pursued vehicles, with victims of insured vehicles, as shown by the procedure of the act. However, it is questionable whether the equivalence of third parties could instead be qualified in the mib agreements without the need for a statute. Greater transparency in discussions between dfT and mib, as well as increased consultation with people outside the Mib and DfT, could also mean equivalence without resorting to legislation. As noted above, it is clear that Mib is consulting on its agreements. However, a new consultation would undoubtedly be welcome.

Nevertheless, Parliament has at times put pressure on the government with regard to the Mib`s mission, for example with regard to the victims of unretectable drivers52, although there is no significant control. It is worth mentioning, however, the indirect role of legislation by Parliament in the reporting of the mib. The mib covers situations where there is no compulsory insurance and does not cover situations where insurance is not mandatory. Therefore, if the legislation were to change the mandatory insurance requirements under Section 145 rta 1988, it would automatically change the scope of the agreements. An example of this is the 1988 amendment of the rta by the Mandatory Insurance Regulation 2000, which extends the compulsory insurance obligation to „the other public place“. This therefore underlines some control over Parliament`s coverage of the agreements. Furthermore, it is doubtful that the introduction of a legal Mib (similar to the approach of the act) in the United Kingdom is welcomed because of the need for cooperation. Since 1946, the United Kingdom has focused on cooperation between the insurance sector and the government. The repeal of the agreements and, therefore, the obligation to legislate on the mib could mean that the insurance industry has no goodwill. This applies not only to auto insurance, but also to other forms of insurance.131 In addition, this could mean that insurers try to find loopholes in each legal plan when asserting a right. This would also be a major challenge, given that after the transition period, EU legislation may not have a direct effect on filling some of the gaps in a legislative system. Of course, it is difficult to know whether, by removing the direct effect, insurers would seek in any case to find loopholes in non-legal agreements in the future.