asked the Minister for the Environment the plans, if any, to amend, update and improve arrangements in regard to the Motor Insurers Bureau in view of the many instances of considerable injustice suffered by individuals as a result of the actions of uninsured drivers.

So far as I am aware, the Motor Insurers Bureau scheme is working satisfactorily. I have no proposals at present to amend the agreement with the bureau.

Is the Minister prepared to accept the difficulties that arise because of drivers not being insured, especially when such persons cannot be traced after being involved in accidents.

I am aware of these difficulties but the Motor Insurers Bureau scheme seems to work quite well. However, if there are specific cases which the Deputy has in mind, I should like to hear of them.

By way of clarfication I should say that one of the primary motivations in my putting down the question related to the problem of the hit-and-run driver who causes substantial injury to an innocent person who is virtually without legal rights of any kind in regard to compensation and who must accept an ex gratia payment——

The Deputy is making a statement.

——of a nominal nature and who in that situation has to bear his own cost and expenses. Is there not an injustice here that should be remedied?

In certain circumstances the bureau make ex gratia payments.

Am I right in assuming that they pay only in respect of injuries to people as opposed to, say, the loss of a car?

They pay in respect of third party injuries but not in respect of property.

In that case how can the Minister be satisfied with a situation in which a person might walk away from a wrecked vehicle that had crashed into a dwelling, for example, and which had caused enormous damage though not causing serious injury? In such circumstances there would not be anybody responsible for payment in respect of the damages involved.

This bureau have not been in operation for very long. They came into existence only in the sixties as protection against people who were not insured but who caused injury to others. Though the scheme applies only to injured third parties, it is working reasonably well and ex gratia payments are made from time to time.

That is not an answer to my question.

It may not be the ideal situation but the ideal would be that every driver and every car be insured.

Should we not be aiming for the ideal having regard to the number of injustices that result from the present situation? Is it not possible to take steps to ensure that such injustices can at least be minimised in the future?

Of course we would like to minimise hardship in this regard in so far as possible. If the Deputy has knowledge of specific instances of injustices that have resulted from damage caused by vehicles that have not been insured, perhaps he would let us know of them.

I have given one such instance.

I have referred to the problem of the hit-and-run driver.

We seem to be wasting a lot of time arguing across the floor but I shall allow Deputy Fitzpatrick a final supplementary.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Will the Minister accept that this scheme has not been either improved or modified since its introduction in the sixties which means that if one happens to have a car which is worth up to £8,000 and which is damaged beyond repair by a non-insured vehicle, there is no way in which the injured party can recover any of that loss? Is that a reasonable situation in this day and age when cars are so expensive?

A decision in that regard is one that would have to be taken by the Motor Insurers Bureau since they are the people who fund the scheme.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Surely the Minister is not of the opinion that the insurance companies will take the initiative in regard to shouldering further financial responsibility unless he takes the first step in that direction.

I am prepared to begin discussions with them in regard to improving the scheme but I cannot say how successful such discussions might be.

The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.