Ex-MHKs Win £30,000 Payouts

Two former HMKs have been awarded over £30,000 each by an employment tribunal.

A tribunal ruled that Martyn Perkins and Geoffrey Boot were both directly discriminated against when they were not paid the resettlement grant usually paid to MHKs who are unsuccessful in their re-election bids.

Both Mr Perkins and Mr Boot lost their seats in the 2021 General Election and would usually have been entitled to a payment equal to six months’ salary.

However, as both were over the age of 60, which was deemed the ‘pensionable age’ by the scheme when approved by Tynwald, this payment was withheld.

In response to the claims, the Treasury, which was deemed to be the respondent in the case, didn’t deny the rules were discriminatory, but rather it said that despite this, it was ‘not in breach of its statutory or any obligations’.

During the evidence hearing, both Mr Boot and Mr Perkins said that ‘former MHKs were not popular and this was a problem when seeking employment’.

The tribunal’s report said: ‘Both testified that it was also difficult to pick up the pieces of previous careers or incomes that had been relied upon until first elected to Tynwald.’

Mr Boot, who had been a commercial pilot and examiner and had chaired organisations related to flying and had written for magazines prior to being elected, found that the rapid pace of change in aviation had left him somewhat behind.

The report said Mr Boot claimed: ‘The scheme should have been available to help him because of the potential difficulties in landing a new job and also because of its aim of making it easier for older workers to participate in the workplace.’

We hope that ‘landing a new job’ was a pun on behalf of the panel.

The tribunal also heard that several MHKs, including Mr Boot and Mr Perkins had raised concerns about the scheme before it went to Tynwald for approval. However, the Emoluments Committee decided not to look at this before the 2021 General Election.

Despite several arguments against awarding Mr Boot and Mr Perkins a payout,namely that they were not employees or the government and that as such they were entitled to protection under the Equality Act. 

However, under two other sections of the act and as such, the tribunal ruled that they had suffered direct discrimination and should have been paid the Resettlement Grant and such awarded them £33,778.50 each, equivalent to six months’ salary.