§ 15. Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total cost to public funds involved in the legal expenses incurred by her Department in the Tameside litigation in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal.
§ Miss Margaret JacksonI have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member's Question on 21st November 1977.
§ Mr. GowWhen does the Minister expect that the total cost to public funds of this disgraceful exercise by the former 234 Secretary of State will be known? Does the Minister recollect that the judge in the case found that the Minister has misdirected himself fundamentally about his duties? In those circumstances, may we look to a contribution from the present Secretary of State for Defence and from his successor?
§ Miss JacksonI think it extremely unlikely. As for when we shall know the answer, unfortunately we are awaiting the views of the local authority on its costs before any decision can be reached.
§ Mr. NobleDoes my hon. Friend agree that the Tameside affair cannot be measured in financial terms alone but should be measured in terms of the deprivation suffered by many people, particularly the children who were forced into a selective system? As regards the late lamented Councillor Thorpe, who was chairman of the education committee and who was removed by the electorate at Tameside, would my hon. Friend care to comment on the reasons for his failure to achieve re-election?
§ Miss JacksonI am not sure that I would say that Councillor Thorpe is lamented. As for the reasons for his defeat, I understand that most ungallantly he blames his defeat on the immigration policies of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition—in which, of course, he may be correct. But, in fairness to the right hon. Lady, it is only right to point out that since Councillor Thorpe claimed, when he was last elected, that the electorate had chosen grammar schools, we can deduce that perhaps now they have chosen comprehensives.