Report comment

I take the point on board that damages to claimants involved in accidents which are not their fault should not be a money-spinner for lawyers. It is about access to justice. However, there has to be an argument to say that there is a need for such lawyers given the amount of (largely legitimate) claims that are made each year and, as such, there are people out there who's jobs depend on access to justice remaining.

By my calculations even if the half of the 60,000 people do find alternative employment that still leaves 30,000 unemployed. At £70 per week in benefits, this totals a job seekers allowance payment of £2.1 million per week - or £109.2 million per year. Of those 30,000 some may lose their homes, require social housing and additional payments in child tax credits or other social benefits. There may also be additional resource spent in retraining these individuals in other professional skills.

Where is this additional money going to come from in the age of austerity?

Mrs May, please could you ask your insurer pals to foot this potential bill out of their growing profits, as I don't especially think it should be coming out of the pockets of those that are already paying the price for this poor decision?