TNAG-1364-FCO40-1810-Hong-Kong-Hansard-reports-and-minutes-of-the-meetings-of-the-1986 — Page 121

4

factor may not be taken into consideration when the bill is footed by the Supplementary Scheme. It is possible that an individual claim awarded could be so big that it would force a shaky insurance company into bankruptcy and the claim is then passed on to the Supplementary Fund wiping clean its resources. Then is it fair for the other victims to queue up and wait for the Supplementary Fund to be replenished gradually before their payment could be made. The TAVAS Fund do not have this Achilles heel and can therefore accumulate a large surplus.

Another reason for a ceiling is equality. If there is a ceiling provided by the Employees Compensation law for a worker killed by machinery and another worker of similar wages, age and number of dependents etc. is awarded compensation by a Court in a traffic accident which is many times larger than the former, then is it fair to the public's eyes.

On the other hand, there is a school of thought that complete protection of the guilty motorist by insurance may hamper efforts to promote greater road safety which should also be taken into consideration.

All these problems may require lengthy and careful study and consideration before solutions may be found. For the present, I do not wish to hinder the progress of Government business and above all I do not wish to prolong the anxieties and sufferings of the victims and their families.

With these reservations, Sir, I support the motion.