The Committee continued its deliberations around the Road Accident Fund 2008 budget. It noted that some progress was being achieved, from the Fund's side and from the Committee's side, in understanding the issues; moreover it seemed that the Fund's Board and Chief Executive Officer were putting their house in order, notwithstanding the huge challenges facing the Fund. The Committee had hoped that by the time of the 18 March 2008 meeting, there would have been an outcome from the Constitutional Court on the validity of the regulations under the Road Accident Fund Amendment Act. This Act had still not been promulgated.
The Financial Services Board (FSB) observed that the Fund's rescue plan adequately addressed the key issues facing the Fund, and noted that, since the implementation of the rescue plan, staff productivity had increased, in that the number of claims finalised per staff member had increased, and that the first time claims finalised were greater than the claims lodged during 2007. It also noted an improvement in administration and staff expenses. However, the FSB was of the view that the Road Accident Fund should be put into receivership. The question was whether the Fund should be funded on the same basis as a registered short-term insurance company. The FSB believed that the Fund did not conform to fundamental insurance principles, in that funding received was disconnected from the benefits payable by the Fund; there was no direct relationship between the Fund and the insured person; and the standard fixed rate was not in line with the general insurance underwriting principle that a poor risk should pay a higher premium.
National Treasury endorsed the call by the Road Accident Fund (RAF) for supervision. It was not possible to oversee the Fund as a commercial insurance arrangement. The standard of the current supervision of the Fund needed to be put on a firmer foundation in law. The fuel levy had been straightforward from a political and revenue point of view. However, it did not meet the injury nor the fault principle. Reforms could bring down costs, but the reform process was incomplete. Risks and liabilities were not related and the Fund had little control over its income or expenditure. There was a need to remedy the financial pressures, as also to examine what type of short-term insurance would be needed for the World Cup Event of 2010.
Members noted that the Road Accidents Benefits Scheme should be in operation by 2010, and pointed out that the Fund was not asking for an increase in the fuel levy, but rather for urgent reform. Members wanted both the Financial Services Board and the Treasury to be an active part of reform. The no-fault system would require legislative changes beyond the Amendment Act currently awaiting promulgation. It was essential to implement a cap on the future loss of earnings. The Department was urged to set a time line. The Financial Services Board was asked to implement its 1996 mandate to supervise the Fund, and to go further than its strict mandate and be more proactive. It could also guide the development of the complementary insurance services that were envisaged in the long term. National Treasury should be active in pushing the reform process as a matter of urgency. The Fund must keep its rescue plan active and continue its internal reforms. The Committee undertook to be more active in its oversight role. The Department of Transport undertook to advise the Committee of the outcome of the Constitutional Court matter.
The Chairperson said that when the Committee met with the Road Accident Fund’s board and management on 11 March 2008 he had a sense that some progress was being achieved. He referred to the findings of the Satchwell Commission, which had recommended that the Road Accident Fund be transferred elsewhere, but noted that this had not been a realistic recommendation.
The Fund’s problems could be seen from three aspects. Firstly, the Committee had examined current legislation and drafted an Amendment Bill. This had sought to introduce a cap on future loss of earnings of claimants, since the current situation was that foreigners could claim unlimited amounts from the Fund – in one case to the extent of R2.2 billion. The Bill had also sought to stop the abuse of general damages. It had also sought to limit the Fund’s liability to many small claims (under R50 000). The Amendment Bill, for a variety of reasons, had not been promulgated, despite the lapse of some eighteen months.
The second problem was the litigious nature of the Fund. The Satchwell Commission found that more than 50% of the fuel levy was, in the end, used to pay the fees of professionals rather than assisting people with health care for their injuries. The Commission had recommended a change to a no-fault system of processing claims instead of the existing fault-based nature of claims processing. Cabinet had accepted that proposed change, but had not been dynamic in moving to achieve its implementation. The Fund, the Portfolio Committee, and the Department were in agreement. It was, therefore, extremely frustrating that progress towards implementation was stalled. It was a matter of greatest urgency to move forward.
The third problem was that although the Board and the CEO had been putting their house in order, and sought to develop a business model for sustainability, it was clear that the Fund lacked an economic regulator to mediate between itself and the Treasury.
Mr Jacob Modise, Chief Executive Officer, Road Accident Fund, responded that the Fund's rescue plan had been based on three pillars. It had sought firstly to put the Fund's house in order, by improving its systems and its interface with accident victims. Significant progress had been made in that regard.
The second pillar, as the Chairperson had said correctly, was to develop the correct business model. This had required legislative intervention. The business model of the Fund had been encapsulated in the Act. Legislative amendments had been required, and the Committee had worked extensively to ensure that caps would be put in place. The Department of Transport had also worked to correct that aspect. Introducing 'no-fault' would make much funding available to pay claimants. Just under R2 billion had been paid out to attorneys, to middlemen or service providers, as the Chairperson had correctly noted. In the Fund's view that was significantly wasteful. Moreover, it delayed service delivery to accident victims.
The third pillar was to ensure that the Fund was sufficiently capitalised. It had for long been grossly under capitalised. The Fund did not make any annual presentation to the National Treasury when the latter set the fuel levy. There was a need for an economic regulator, on the lines of Eskom's, to balance the needs of the public and of the entity. The Fund was processing claims more quickly, but its capital base was missing. The Financial Services Board should be concerned about this situation.
Financial Services Board (FSB): Road Accident Fund (RAF)’s Current Situation and the RAF’s Rescue Plan. Presentation
Mr Rob Barrow, Executive Officer, Financial Services Board, said that it was the responsibility of the Financial Services Board (FSB) to regulate the insurance industry on a prudential basis. The Board’s last report to the Minister of Finance on the Road Accident Fund (RAF) was for the financial year ended 31 March 2006. The Board was in the process of finalising its report for the financial year ended 31 March 2007.
The Board’s report essentially highlighted the shortfall in the Fund’s net assets, indicated by a deficit that had risen from R15 430 million on 31 March 2003 to R20 177 million on 31 March 2007.
In short, the Fund was technically insolvent; did not have sufficient cash or near cash assets to cover its short-term liabilities; and its liquidity ratio was 0.42:1 (compared with 0.61:1 in 2006).
The Financial Services Board considered an entity's structure and liabilities. The Road Accident Fund's liabilities crystallised over a much longer period than a normal insurance company's liabilities would.
The Financial Services Board's review of the rescue plan had been limited. However, it was clearly apparent that it would take a number of years for the benefits of the rescue plan to be realised.
The Financial Services Board was not composed of auditors or financial inspectors per se. As such, it was not in a position to assess the viability or otherwise of the rescue plan; however, it was obvious that action had to be taken if the Road Accident Fund was to be transformed into a going concern. If the RAF were a normal insurance company to be regulated from a prudential point of view, the Financial Services Board would have had to take regulatory action such as curatorship, or winding up the Fund's affairs. However, as it differed, that was obviously out of the question.
Mr Barrow posed the question whether the Road Accident Fund should be funded on the same basis as a registered short-term insurance company. From the Financial Services Board's perspective, the Road Accident Fund was a different kind of entity from a conventional short-term insurance company.
Ms Suzette Vogelsang, Head: Insurance Prudential, FSB, said that the Fund did not embody fundamental insurance principles, in that its funding was disconnected from the benefits payable by the Fund. There was not a direct relationship between the Fund and the insured person. The standard fixed rate was not in line with the general insurance underwriting principle that a poor risk should pay a higher premium.
Ms Vogelsang explained the provisions and requirements of the Short-term Insurance Act of 1998 and the role of the Financial Services Board.
Ms Vogelsang said that the Road Accident Fund Act was silent on the objectives of the supervisory functions, whereas the Short-term Insurance Act did set out specific requirements relating to solvency, liabilities to be provided for, types of assets to be invested in, liquidity requirements, fitness and propriety of directors, limitation of certain actions by insurers, registration conditions, and actions by the Registrar.
Ms Vogelsang compared the financial position of the Fund with what was typical for the short-term insurance industry.
She said that the FSB was not in a position to comment on the rescue plan as such. However, it could observe that the rescue plan appeared adequately to address the key issues. The FSB had noted that since the implementation of the rescue plan there had been an increase in staff productivity. The number of claims finalised per staff member had risen, and the first time claims finalised were greater than the claims lodged during 2007. There had further been an improvement in administration and staff expenses.
However, the Board noted an increase in the number of months’ delay in claim settlement, no improvement in costs to service providers, and fruitless expenditure of R10 million for interest payments and costs payable to the Sheriff.
With regard to supervising the insurance industry, the Board noted that it was very expensive to implement and maintain a new system, New systems often involved teething problems that could cause unplanned delays, there was difficulty in attracting and retaining knowledgeable and experienced staff and there was a need to maintain internal controls, segregation of duties and clear processes and procedures.
The Chairperson observed that it was a pretence that the Road Accident Fund was a short-term insurer that could be adequately supervised by the Financial Services Board. In terms of the Short-term Insurance Act, the Road Accident Fund should be put into receivership. The Financial Services Board, in its Annual Report, when dealing with the Road Accident Fund, admitted that it had to suspend its normal method of reporting in relation to the Fund. It was a paradigm problem.
Mr Barrow said that the Chairperson's understanding was correct. The RAF was insolvent. There were questions as to whether the Fund was a going concern. The rescue plan had been instituted in an endeavour to turn the Fund into a going concern; and the Financial Services Board could do no better than to say that that remained to be seen. Whether that was sufficient was not for the Financial Services Board to comment upon.
The Chairperson noted that what the Board was saying to the meeting was more helpful that what it had said in its Annual Report. He said that it was important not to 'fudge' the issues.
Ms N Khunou (ANC) asked how much revenue the Fund obtained from the fuel levy. She also asked if the Fund compensated claimants on a lump sum basis or by instalments, and suggested that an instalment basis might be better for the Fund's cash flow. She asked Mr Barrow about the advantages of short-term insurance. It was important for the Committee to produce solutions.
Mr S Farrow (DA) said that the Fund, in reality, fell outside the ambit of the Financial Services Board. It was funded by a Government department; and was not a commercial entity as a short-term insurer would be. The revenues from the fuel levy and the costs of the short-term insurance showed that there was a 10:1 solvency ratio. It was necessary to ask how to change the model to make it a viable means of short-term insurance. He asked if the fuel levy would have to be increased to bring funding up to a level comparable to that which could be achieved by private insurance. The cost to average motorists of private insurance was around R1000 a month for a married couple driving a Toyota car, whereas they would in the course of a month contribute only R50 to the Road Accident Fund. He referred to the single claim from a foreigner for R2.2 billion. Although the Road Accident Fund Act prescribed that the Fund be overseen by the Financial Services Board, it was questionable that the FSB was indeed the most appropriate entity to carry out that oversight. It had to be asked how to accommodate those road users who did not own cars. This would include the poor who used taxis or other forms of transport, but who were still eligible to benefit from the Fund.
Ms Vogelsang said that the Road Accident Fund differed from a normal short-term insurer in that its revenues were fixed, but benefits payable were without limit. There was no direct relationship between the premium paid and the benefits payable.
Ms Khunou asked for further clarity.
The Chairperson said that the Financial Services Board members were not auditors, but they were saying that the Fund's liabilities were huge.
Mr Modise said that he wanted to make a case for financial supervision, based on three pillars. The first of these was legislative, in terms of the Road Accident Fund Act. The second was the nature of the Road Accident Fund's business. The third was based on the empirical evidence of the experience of other jurisdictions throughout the world.
The Road Accident Fund Act clearly said that the Chief Executive Officer of the Financial Services Board should determine the manner in which the Fund should be supervised, and that supervision should be in relation to the Short-term Insurance Act. Perhaps if there had been adequate supervision, alarms would have been sounded, and the Fund would not be in the position in which it was now. Action should have been taken much earlier.
The Road Accident Fund was misunderstood in terms of the business that it conducted. In simple terms, all it did was to provide peace of mind. In reality, South Africans faced the possibility, every time they went out onto the street, of being involved in an accident. The Road Accident Fund provided cover. Over the years, for various reasons, the nature of this cover had changed. Historically, people had purchased third party discs when they had purchased their vehicles. However, there were weaknesses in collecting the revenues, hence the change to the fuel levy system. The fuel levy happened to be a more efficient system of making sure that everyone had coverage.
The Road Accident Fund was a monopoly, but not all the institutional systems to govern a monopoly had been put in place, such as oversight and regulation. The fact that the Fund was technically insolvent was not sufficient argument against it being supervised by the Financial Services Board. Moreover, there was nothing in the Road Accident Fund Act to prevent the Fund from having a direct relationship with its clients.
It was true that benefits were not limited, and limitation would require legislative changes, but the fact remained that South Africans were given peace of mind by the existence of the Fund. There was no direct link between the fuel levy and the benefits paid out to claimants, but this did not detract from the Fund's role of providing cover. In most cases, claims did not crystallise over a number of years, but were rather paid immediately.
The Chairperson understood Mr Modise to be saying that the Fund should be overseen by an entity, and that the Financial Services Board was the entity precisely suitable for that role. The Chairperson referred to the 1993 Road Accident Fund Act.
Mr Modise read at length the relevant sections of the Act.
Mr Farrow referred to the audit reports of the Road Accident Fund, and said that it was difficult for the Financial Services Board to compare 'apples and pears' in the broader spectrum of their monitoring. The Road Accident Fund had never had a positive balance sheet or substantial investment portfolio.
The Chairperson said that the 1993 Act recognised that the Road Accident Fund was an insurer of a special kind that would require the development of specific arrangements. There was no single solution to the problem. It was necessary to insist that the Financial Services Board supervise the Fund, as required in terms of the 1993 Act, while recognising the difficulties involved and endeavouring to correct those difficulties. Everyone wanted to avoid taking responsibility for the Road Accident Fund, including even the Committee, but it was recognised that responsibility must be taken.
Mr Farrow asked what sort of financial model was required to make the Fund sustainable.
The Chairperson said that Mr Farrow's question was pertinent, but he wanted to move on to the National Treasury's presentation.
Mrs Khunou asked the Treasury to confirm what informed the fuel levy.
National Treasury (NT) Presentation
Mr Andrew Donaldson, Deputy Director General: Public Finance, National Treasury, introduced the presentation, by endorsing Mr Modise's call for supervision. Clearly what was under examination was a social insurance arrangement that was masquerading as a commercial insurance business. The Financial Services Board had sought to oversee it as a commercial insurance arrangement. However, that did not work and was not appropriate. There was therefore a legislative reform project ahead. The standard of the current supervision of the Fund needed to be put on a firmer foundation in law. However, the main points that National Treasury wanted to make were that the financial supervision aspect was relatively easy. The greater task was the benefits that were underwritten by that arrangement.
The question arose as to why the Treasury continued to fund the Road Accident Fund as it had done for a considerable number of years, with an accumulated liability of R20 billion. The fuel levy was a convenient and elegant method of funding. From a political and revenue point of view it was straightforward. It was less satisfactory from the point of view of visiting the costs of injuries on those who were responsible for causing them. It was a very rough and ready insurance arrangement. The Road Accident Fund Commission in 2002 had made suggestions for a flow of revenue based on fines or heavy vehicle charges to achieve a fairer distribution of costs to users. Those reforms paled into insignificance alongside the macroeconomic reforms that had to be undertaken in respects of benefits. The Treasury recognised that reforms could bring down costs. However, it was difficult to judge at this stage because the reform process was incomplete. It was recognised that there was an unfunded liability of R20 to R25 billion that had been written up in public accounts. It was an actuarially challenging job that had to be done. In effect this represented past premiums to the Fund that had not been paid. The financial position could be considered a holding position. The Treasury did not have any solutions to the macroeconomic position other than to revisit some of the benefit reforms that were needed.
Ms Marissa Moore, Director: Transport and Housing, Urban Development and Infrastructure, National Treasury, said that the risks and the liabilities were not related. She referred to the Satchwell Commission, which had revealed that the poorest road users contributed the most to the Fund, were the most vulnerable to accidents, and yet were least able to claim in case of injury. The poor paid exactly the same fuel levy as the rest, but benefited the least because their loss of income was lower.
Since the introduction of the current legislation in 1996, there had been serious financial consequences of that legislation. It was not possible to compare the Road Accident Fund with an entity such as Eskom. The Fund did not have control over its income or its expenditure. It was not a demand driven fund. As the Fund's Chief Executive Officer had indicated earlier, very little of the Fund's money was available for payment to victims, compared with the high amounts paid to intermediaries such as attorneys. The Road Accident Fund Commission (2002) had proposed a pay-as-you-go system.
Ms Moore concluded that the financial pressures of the Road Accident Fund were real and had to be remedied. There was a need to examine what kind of short-term insurance was needed in the light of the upcoming World Cup event of 2010. The Fund was not able to change itself. Under its present system, the more efficient the Fund became in processing claims, the deeper its financial problems became.
The Chairperson noted that he understood that the fuel levy would not be increased in 2010 because by then a new social insurance-based scheme, the Road Accidents Benefits Scheme, would be in operation. He had never understood the Fund to be asking for an increase in the fuel levy. The essence of the Committee's discussions was not haggling over the fuel levy, but rather the need for a sense of urgency in achieving fundamental changes in the financial basis for the Fund. Reforms must be legislatively grounded. For the time being it was necessary to remain in a survival mode, but be aware that major reforms were under way, and to be committed to the establishment, by 2010/2011, of a Road Accidents Benefit Scheme.
Mr Farrow said that he had long believed that the problem would not be solved simply by putting more funding into what could be considered 'a bottomless pit'. He believed that if the Committee had succeeded in pushing through the Road Accident Fund Amendment Act, the Fund could have been saved R10 million per day. Talking about the model would not achieve much at the present time. He was worried that the reform process was not being taken forward. At the time of the Satchwell Commission, there had been an inter-departmental committee that had met regularly. However, it now seemed that the reform process was not being taken forward, and even that the process was retrogressing. The Constitutional Court challenge would take at least three months, not three weeks. He wanted to know if Parliament could repeal the Amendment Act in order to be able to reintroduce the essentials, such as the provision for capping, in another way. In this way a great many problems could be solved.
Ms Khunou said that she could not overstate her agreement with Ms Moore that the Road Accident Fund was for poor people who could not pay hospital expenses from their own means. She asked if poor people could understand the forms that had to be completed to submit claims.
Mr Modise said that the Fund agreed with the view of the National Treasury. A great deal of money was being paid to middlemen, or for non-serious injuries. Such money could be used to benefit genuine victims. The legislative reform was too slow. The recapitalisation was not in place because it was waiting for the legislative reforms. It was ironic that the middlemen who benefited most from the existing system were making the day-to-day operations of the Fund extremely difficult, by continuously serving Writs of Execution. The Sheriff almost lived in the Fund's offices and did not want to return the Fund's vehicles. The Fund had been forced to delay the processing of claims because it lacked sufficient cash. It would assist the Fund if the serving of Writs could be suspended in order to give the Fund some opportunity to recover itself. As mentioned to the Committee on 05 March, the Fund was considering the need to invoke Section 21 of the Road Accident Fund Act to protect itself. Current funding was sufficient to meet only the new claims being received.
The Chairperson said that he wanted the Financial Services Board and the Treasury to be an active part of reform. He had hoped that there would have already been an outcome in the Constitutional Court matter.
Mr Farrow said that he had been making enquiries and was under the impression that it was a purely technical matter.
Dr Maria Koorts Deputy Director-General, Public Entity Oversight, Department of Transport, said that the Department was still awaiting the outcome of the Constitutional Court decision. However, the promulgation of the Act would need to be accompanied by implementation of regulations related to the Fund's model. This entailed countrywide consultation process, and a last meeting for this purpose would be held on 03 April 2008. The Department was proceeding on the assumption that if the Act and its regulations could be promulgated, then the Fund would be sustainable. The next phase after promulgation would be the realisation of the no-fault policy. The no-fault system would not be introduced by regulation. The constitutionality and legality of the new model would have to be studied, and the legislative framework studied with a view to change.
The Chairperson understood that the no-fault system would require legislative changes beyond the Amendment Act currently awaiting promulgation. There seemed to have been some technical mistake in the process of promulgation, which had been challenged. The intention was to bring into force certain sections of the Act, whilst leaving others to be resolved pending the consultation process being conducted. The challenge had been upheld in the Pretoria High Court and the matter had since been taken to the Constitutional Court. The Pretoria Court had ruled that the President could not re-promulgate, only Parliament could do so. Parliament had said that it was willing to do so. One of the key loopholes that the Committee wanted to close was the huge claims, similar to those of the Swiss citizen who claimed R2.2 billion. However, pending the final judgment from the Constitutional Court, the matter was sub judice. The matter pending at the Constitutional Court was fairly simple. However, it would be a long process to determine in the Courts what constituted serious injury. It was essential to implement a cap on the future loss of earnings.
Ms Khunou asked how long the consultation process would take. Progress had been derailed by non-implementation of policies and failure to complete the legislative process. She asked what answer could be given to a constituent who had waited three years for a claim to be processed.
Mr Farrow urged the Department of Transport, for the record, to set a time line, and for the Department to give a one page summary of what had happened.
Ms Khunou said that the Committee could be proactive and summon anyone to appear before it.
Dr Koorts said that the constitutional process was on track. The consultation process would be completed on 03 April 2008.
The Chairperson said that the Fund was operating in survival mode, but this was not viable.
Mr Donaldson, in response to Ms Khunou, explained the composition of the fuel levy. It was essentially levied on fuel for land transport. It was overall a 12% increase, rather more than inflation. Revenue of the fund was increasing considerably more than national income.
Mr Modise said that the Fund needed a model that could operate under different regimes. The Fund did not want to have to resort to Section 21 of the Act.
Mr Veli Mahlangu, Acting Chairperson, Road Accident Fund, asked the Treasury about problems arising from the Fund's increased efficiency in processing claims.
The Chairperson said that all present agreed on the imperative of moving rapidly to transformation of the Road Accident Fund. However, the chances of completing the process during the present Parliament were remote. He requested the Financial Services Board to implement its 1996 mandate to supervise the Fund, for the Fund clearly requested supervision.
Mr Barrow said that the Road Accident Fund was technically insolvent. The Treasury understood that. To suggest that the Financial Services Board should have done more was a hollow suggestion. He, as supervisor, did not think that the Financial Services Board should be used as the instrument to negotiate different methods of funding from the Treasury. He questioned the motivation of the plea for supervision by the Financial Services Board.
The Chairperson called upon public entities not just to be comfortable with performing their duties within the letter of the law, but, for the good of a developmental state such as South Africa, also to contribute their expertise. The FSB had expertise in insurance. Where there were paradigm issues, everyone had the responsibility to contribute, not just as accountants in a legalistic way, but to ask how further to use one's particular mandate for the general good. The Road Accident Fund Act was a piece of pre-1994 legislation, but a well-intentioned one. The Committee called upon the Financial Services Board to be more proactive.
Mr Barrow said that wherever the Financial Services Board could contribute to the process, it would be happy to do so.
Mr Donaldson said that the real cost of road accidents was much greater than the cost of compensating victims through the Road Accident Fund. The Commission had sought suggestions for alternative sources of revenue besides the motor fuel levy, such as levies on alcohol, which was responsible for many accidents. There was a role for the Financial Services Board in guiding the development of the complementary insurance services that were envisaged in the long term.
Mr M Moss (ANC) said that the Road Accident Fund took too long to process claims and make payments. He asked if the Treasury could assist the Road Accident Fund with emergency funding in the meantime.
The Chairperson said that he sympathised with Mr Moss's question, and he apologised for the very technical nature of the discussion. However, he believed that it would be inappropriate to make the Committee a bargaining chamber or for it to take on the role of a budget committee for the Fund. The Fund wished to see the appointment of an independent economic regulator. It was important on the other hand to tackle the root causes of the Fund's problems.
Mr Modise said that the Fund operated closely in co-operation with workmen's compensation. The Fund did not want to have to involve itself in obtaining police reports before processing claims for accident victims, because this involved heavy delay. He would give further information after the meeting.
Ms Khunou suggested that the Financial Services Board and the Road Accident Fund should, after the meeting, discuss the Fund's model. She said further that it was important to examine how to reduce accidents, and to enforce the laws against drunken driving. It was not safe to go on the roads, but many people had no choice, especially those who had a long way to travel to school or work.
The Chairperson said that the Financial Services Board should be more proactive in catering for what promised to be a growing area of short-term insurance. The Treasury had assured the Committee that, together with the other relevant departments, it was active in pushing the reform process as a matter of urgency. The Fund had undertaken to keep its rescue plan active and to continue its internal reforms. The Committee undertook to be more active in its oversight role. Dr Koorts and Mr Marius Luyt, Chief Director, Public Entities Oversight, Department of Transport, undertook to advise the Committee of the outcome of the Constitutional Court matter.
Mr Farrow said that it was important to achieve promulgation of the Amendment Act and its regulations as soon as possible. In the meantime the Department of Transport should provide the Committee with an interim report for record processes.
The Chairperson said that it would be necessary to await the next Parliament for legislation to bring into being the Road Accidents Benefits Scheme. However, it was realistic to aim for promulgation of the outstanding Amendment Act within the lifetime of the present Parliament and every effort should be made to that end.
The meeting was adjourned.
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.