Ousted MHKs Martyn Perkins and Geoffrey Boot have been awarded £33,778 each as compensation in their employment and equality tribunal case against the Treasury.

The men, who lost their seats in last year’s general election, were found to have been discriminated against because of their ages.

Resettlement grants are given to MHKs who do not get re-elected to the House of Keys to support them while they re-integrate into the workforce. But Mr Boot and Mr Perkins didn’t receive theirs because they were of pensionable age so deemed not to be entitled to them.

The payment is equal to six months of a member’s salary.

Mr Boot and Mr Perkins were instead offered only the Tynwald members pension.

Mr Boot was offered the amount of £318 per month, whilet Mr Perkins was offered £328 per month.

They were both over 60 when they were voted out of office and the cut-off for MHKs to receive this payment is 60 years old.

Mr Perkins and Mr Boot argued that their employability has been affected by their time in office and needed the money to assist them in finding work post-parliament.

Former Environment Minister Mr Boot told the panel he was a ‘practising commercial pilot and examiner’ before he was elected into the House of Keys.

He said: ‘My skillset and employability have suffered – six years out of aviation is a long time.’

Mr Perkins told the panel that it was ‘impossible’ to be re-employed.

He added: ‘I feel disadvantaged and discrimination by all.’

The advocate for Mr Boot was Stephen Coren, while Anna Heeley represented the Treasury.

Mr Coren said: ‘This case is about defending the right to discriminate against two men in their 60s.

‘Does this drive a coach and horses through the Equality Act?’

Miss Heeley said that ‘the scheme is not open to interpretation’, and that a statutory defence allows the treasury to discriminate as long as it is required by an enactment.

The panel heard that the statutory defence, which was one of Miss Heeley’s main arguments in this case, was previously raised by the Attorney General’s Chambers as an ‘after the event, collateral jurisdictional challenge.’