As the agreements between Mib and SoSfT are in place, it is not certain that there is state influence in this area. The mib is not self-regulating with the ability to determine whether and how it compensates victims. The relationship between the Mib and the state has been discussed several times, as the direct vertical effect of the directives can only be used against the state or its emanation. The Mib is a socially limited society and therefore raises the question of whether it is an “emanation of the state”. One of the requirements of “state emanation” is state control, even if it should not be in the day-to-day functioning of the organ.40 At Silverton/Goodall,41 the High Court found that the mib is an offshoot of the state” taking into account the history of the formation of the Mib and the development of successive agreements between the Minister and the mib, without which other legislation would undoubtedly have been adopted.42 This underlines that the agreements were concluded in the context of potential legislation that could be a factor in the negotiations. It is interesting to note that hobhouse LJ, in the joint appeals before the Court of Appeal in Mighell/Reading and another 43, held that the mib was not an offshoot of the state and found that “the Bureau was created by the insurance companies that were its original members. It was an instrument for these independent insurance companies to enter into private law agreements with the Secretary of State.44 In Byrne v mib and Another,45 Flaux J., it found that the mib was not a public influence and did not fulfil the function of state control. His government compared the Mib to La Water46, which gave the state significant statutory control powers, whereas in the case of the Mib, “there are no equivalent supervisory powers entrusted to the Secretary of State”47 Therefore, although the state is in a position to legislate, there is currently no legislation. A subsequent interpretation of EU law in Farrell/Whitty (No. 2) 48 showed that state emanation requirements are not mandatory and that “state control” is not necessarily necessary.
This case concerned the Mib in Ireland, which, according to the Court of Justice, was an offshoot of the state because of its function, and subsequent UK jurisprudence has shown that the UK`s Mib is an offshoot.49 Nevertheless, the UK`s relationship with the EU should change at the time of the letter due to the UK`s imminent withdrawal from EU jurisdiction after the transition. The impact of these measures is discussed below in the context of the application of EU legislation. Overall, it is clear that there is not a significant amount of control over the day-to-day functioning of the state mib.