However, there is only recourse under EU law in the UK during the transition period, or there is an agreement between the UK and the EU that is part of it. Relations between the EU and the UK beyond the transition period have yet to be decided. If the UK is not required to comply with EU law, there will be no need to act, which could mean less protection for victims and less control over mib agreements. Of course, it should be noted here that the introduction of legislation does not necessarily mean that the protection of victims will increase and that the legislation necessary to strengthen the protection of victims is not necessary. We need to look at the potential for introducing legislation in the UK, although it is first of all important to look at the legislation that regulates this area in legislation. Of course, Parliament could pass legislation that explicitly regulates the Mib. However, the impact of these effects on current agreements is uncertain. If, for example, Parliament commits to pursuing the current mib agreements and adding legislation governing the Mib, this could create confusion and conflict for victims. In addition, it could be a lack of support from the insurance industry and the possible removal of flexibility and expertise.
Nevertheless, transparency and enforcement could be enhanced, which will lead us to the next part of this article. Since agreements do not need to pass through Parliament, Hansard`s parliamentary debates are largely unavailable to discuss the purpose and interpretation of the agreements.53 When a case is brought before a court to determine the interpretation of the agreements, the courts have the opportunity to defer to discussions between the Mib and the government. However, the courts sometimes seem to have criticized the lack of evidence for the introduction of certain provisions. For example, in the Delaney/Secretary of State for Transport54 case relating to state liability for exclusion in the uda 1999,55 of the High Court, Jay J found that in 2019, Maia 2019 defines an “uninsured vehicle,” including “a motor vehicle for which there is no May policy” (paragraph 325, paragraph 1, a point)). This provides limited clarity with respect to the `unsecured vehicle`, in particular the fact that it does not contain `a May policy that comes into force`. Moreover, it is clear that Maya 2019 is the defence that insurers can use restrictively. Thus, under Section 310, the insurer “does not have the authority to terminate a May policy.” Following consultations between the MIB and the government, a new 2017 agreement on unsecured drivers and an endorsement of the 2015 uninsured agreement were published, both applicable to accidents that occurred from 1 March 2017. As the agreements between Mib and SoSfT are in place, it is not certain that there is state influence in this area. The mib is not self-regulating with the ability to determine whether and how it compensates victims. The relationship between the Mib and the state has been discussed several times, as the direct vertical effect of the directives can only be used against the state or its emanation.