NO
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1978
+
CONCERNING LEVY ON VEHICLES, MR. JONES SAID IT WAS INTENDED THAT DRIVING LICENCES SHOULD MAKE UP TWO-THIRDS OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT VICTIMS ASSISTANCE FUND AND THAT THE REMAINING ONE-THIRD WOULD BE A CONTRIBUTION FROM GENERAL REVENUE.
+THE INTENTION BEHIND THIS DIVISION IS THAT THE MOTOR IST, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAJORITY OF TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, SHOULD MAKE AN IDENTIFIABLE CONTRIBUTION,+ HE SAID,
+THE CONTRIBUTION FROM GENERAL REVENUE, HOWEVER, RECOGNISES THAT THE SCHEME IS A SOCIAL WELFARE MEASURE FOR WHICH THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE SHOULD HELP TO PAY AND ALSO THAT PEDESTRIAN CARELESSNESS CAUSES, VERY ROUGHLY, ONE-THIRD OF ALL ROAD ACCIDENTS,+ HE ADDED.
FINALLY, MR. JONES POINTED OUT THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF SETTING UP A MOTOR INSURERS BUREAU WAS A SEPARATE MATTER ON WHICH NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE ACCIDENT INSURERS ASSOCIATION WERE CURRENTLY BEING UNDERTAKEN.
HE SAID THE MOTOR INSURERS BUREAU WAS IN CONTRAST WITH THE PRESENT TRAFFIC ACCIDENT VICTIMS ASSISTANCE SCHEME IN THAT THE FORMER AIMED TO ENSURE THAT AN ACCIDENT VICTIM, WHOSE INJURIES AROSE FROM A DRIVER'S NEGLIGENCE, MIGHT RECEIVE FULL COMPENSATION FROM INSURANCE COMPANIES IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE, AT PRESENT, ANOMALIES IN THE INSURANCE SYSTEM PREVENTED HIM FROM SO DOING.
DEBATE ON THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT VICTIMS (ASSISTANCE FUND) BILL 1978 WAS ADJOURNED.
/7