asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received the proposals of the bristol city council for secondary education; and if he intends to approve them.

Yes, and I have discussed them with representatives of the Education Committee. I hope to let them know my considered views shortly.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware that the proposals have engendered widespread Opposition in Bristol from parents and teachers alike? Is he further aware that on educational grounds there are serious objections to the plan? May I ask whether in his view the plan will involve the closure of any grammar schools and whether he will not accept the plan on that aspect?

I am aware that there are differences of opinion on this matter. Before making the statement either my right hon. Friend the Minister of State or myself would be willing, if we were asked, to hear the representations of those who take a contrary view to that of the City Council. The question of actual closure of grammar schools does not at present arise.

Will my right hon. Friend avoid being misled by the political prejudice which has been injected into this matter and treat this excellent plan of the bristol city council strictly on its educational merits?

I shall consider the whole question on its merits, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that I should be right to hear as many expressions of opinion as there are before making a decision.

Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is a genuine procedural difficulty here? I fully understand his own position in the matter, but is not the difficulty that he has to keep himself very much, as it were, sub judice until he has formed his decision and afterwards it is too late for the House to intervene? Will he consider making a general statement of the principles upon which he wishes to act in these cases, of which there will be quite a number, in order that the House may participate with him in the formation of policy?

I think that a general statement will be needed, but I could not undertake to delay a decision in Bristol until I had made a general statement.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the authoritative and non-dogmatic approach made by the Crowther Committee, which, considering the position where a comprehensive school could be established only at the cost of damaging a good existing school, came to the firm conclusion that we cannot afford to lose any good existing schools? Will the Minister be guided by this non-dogmatic and good principle?

When the right hon. Gentleman uses the expression "damaging an existing school", he is really begging the whole question. One of the points in argument is whether a desirable reorganisation can be carried out without damage.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what effect the proposals of the bristol city council for secondary education will have on the future of the maintained grammar schools and the direct grant schools in the city.

The Bristol proposals represent a further stage in the development of a maintained system of secondary education in which there is no element of selection. The plan provides that, for the time being, five of the seven maintained grammar schools should continue, namely those in North and South Central Bristol, but they will draw their pupils from the areas in which they are situated and not from the whole city. The two grammar schools in East Bristol will become senior schools in a two-tier system, recruiting pupils at 13 instead of at 11 and exclusively from the East Bristol area. The Bristol Authority will cease to pay the fees of any pupils at the direct grant schools. These schools must, under the Regulations, offer at least one-quarter of their places free to pupils who have spent two years in a maintained primary school whether in Bristol or elsewhere.

Does not the Minister realise that this plan involves the eventual disappearance of both the direct grant and the maintained grammar school, that, as it stands now, it considerably restricts the choice of parents, and especially that the position of the church schools, Catholic schools in particular, is not safeguarded? With reference to what the Minister said about no closures being involved, is it not plain that, in the long term, Cotham Grammar School in my Constituency, which is now a three-form entry boys' grammar school, is to become a six-form entry mixed comprehensive school? If that is not a closure under the guise of reorganisation, what is it?

It is quite well known from the terms of the Act what closure is, and what I said earlier was that, at present, it does not arise. If, at some future time, Bristol or any other authority appoaches me with proposals which involve the closure of a school, I shall then have to observe the provisions of the Act and consider it in that light. As to the rest of what the hon. Gentleman said, I take note of his views, as I have taken note of the views of many people on this matter, but I do not think that it would be suitable yet for me to make a final comment.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that parental choice is a figment of the imagination and that I myself was a victim of this system 50 years ago, as were two of my children recently, and will he bear in mind also that we would, in those days, have welcomed the scheme which the Labour Party is now proposing for Bristol schools?

I am well aware of what my hon. Friend says.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman concede that, so far from being a figment of the imagination, an element of parental choice is written into Section 76 of the 1944 Act? In relation to the Bristol scheme, what is the size of the new units proposed and in how many cases is involved the amalgamation of two existing schools some distance apart under a single head teacher?

I gave a description in my first Answer of what is proposed for the future of the grammar schools. As regards parental choice, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have heard the views of both his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins). One accepts, of course, the importance of parental choice, but under the selective system that choice is not absolute. A child cannot go to a grammar school merely because its parents wish it to do so. The application of the principle of parental choice is more complicated than the right hon. and learned Gentleman realises.