Road Traffic Act 1988 is defective:
the duty to insure should extend to farmyards and private property
However it should be noted that article 5.2 of the sixth directive provides a safety clause that allows member states to devise a list of vehicle types that are to be derogated from the insurance requirement but they must also be covered by the compensatory guarantee scheme under what is now article 10. The minister must now act promptly not only devise a list of motor vehicles that are to be exempted from the compulsory insurance requirement, but he will need to notify the European Commission, incept regulatory provision for these vehicles to be ‘plated’ and to ensure that the MIB Uninsured Drivers Agreement encompasses these claims. As the MIB's liability for such vehicles can be subordinated to other existing cover, where it exists (such as under a household or public liability policy) then the financial impact of this extended scope will be mitigated.
- the rule of law infringed must be intended to confer rights on individuals;
- the breach must be sufficiently serious, and
- there must be a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation and the damage sustained by the injured parties
- The first is to cite the relevant European law when presenting their claim and to require a Community law compliant interpretation of sections 143, 145 and 151 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and / or the MIB Agreements.
- If the court considers that the contra legem rule prevents it from delivering an EU law consistent interpretation, then the victim may be entitled to Francovich damages against the Secretary of State for Transport. However the right to compensation is not automatic: a party affected by an infringement of a directive will have to satisfy the multi-factored test expounded by Lord Clyde in R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and others  4 All ER 906.
Mr McLoughlin, time's up!