▁was ▁whether ▁a ▁" less er ▁but ▁persistent ▁and ▁relatively ▁constant ▁dispar ity " ▁would ▁exist . ▁On ▁the ▁question ▁of ▁objective ▁just ification , ▁the ▁EC J ▁held ▁the ▁following . ▁ ▁House ▁of ▁L ords ▁The ▁House ▁of ▁L ords ▁held ▁by ▁a ▁majority ▁of ▁three ▁to ▁two ▁that ▁the ▁extension ▁of ▁the ▁qual ifying ▁period ▁in ▁ 1 9 8 5 ▁had ▁had ▁a ▁considerable ▁dispar ate ▁impact ▁on ▁women . ▁Lord ▁Nich oll s , ▁Lord ▁G off ▁and ▁Lord ▁Ja un ce y ▁reached ▁this ▁conclusion ▁in ▁agreement ▁with ▁the ▁Court ▁of ▁App e al ▁by ▁comparing ▁the ▁number ▁of ▁women ▁that ▁did ▁qual ify ▁for ▁unf air ▁dismiss al ▁protection ▁the ▁number ▁who ▁did ▁not , ▁and ▁then ▁assess ing ▁whether ▁the ▁dispar ity ▁was ▁significant . ▁Lord ▁S lyn n ▁and ▁Lord ▁Ste yn ▁diss ented ▁from ▁this ▁conclusion ▁on ▁the ▁ground ▁that ▁it ▁was ▁for ▁the ▁national ▁court ▁to ▁assess ▁the ▁effect ▁and ▁that ▁on ▁the ▁facts ▁the ▁statistics ▁were ▁not ▁significant ▁enough . ▁ ▁However , ▁the ▁majority ▁of ▁their ▁Lord ships ▁were ▁agreed ▁that ▁there ▁had ▁been ▁a ▁sufficient ▁objective ▁just ification ▁by ▁the ▁government , ▁namely ▁encourag ing ▁rec ruit ment ▁by ▁employ ers , ▁to ▁pass ▁the ▁ 1 9 8 5 ▁Order . ▁This ▁resulted ▁from ▁the ▁broad ▁margin ▁of ▁dis cret ion ▁that ▁govern ments ▁had ▁to ▁implement ▁social ▁policy ▁to ▁achieve ▁a ▁legit imate ▁aim . ▁Yet ▁it ▁was ▁emphas ised ▁that ▁experience ▁may ▁change ▁whether ▁a ▁measure