I shall give HANSARD all of what I have here. Further, I ask the Minister to deal with the proposal to establish a 1,000-plus mixed school instead.

The objections were submitted to the Minister pursuant to a notice of 1st August 1973 which was published by the town clerk under Section 13(3) of the Education Act 1944. I want to ensure, on behalf of my constituents who object to the scheme, that their objections are heard by the Minister, although they will be brushed aside. I shall state them. There are 11 of them. First, there is a substantial demand, which should be respected—Mr. Speaker, if right hon. Members on the Government Front Bench would stop chattering to one another it would be enormously appreciated. I should not expect right hon. Members to take any interest in matters that concern my constituents, who are just humble people. However, I am, with great respect, trying to represent them.

First, there is a substantial demand, which should be respected, from many thousands of parents for a grammar school for girls so as to provide a sound academic education for those with special needs and aptitudes. Second, they think that there is also a demand for a grammar school for girls, and not a mixed school. They are entitled to that view, if they wish to take it, and to express it to the Minister. Third, they believe that the Ilford County High School for Girls has an exceptionally fine record of academic achievement by its girls and a contribution to make to the social life of the borough. I mean social life in its broadest terms. It is actually a beautiful school. Even if it were not so beautiful in its setting and amenities it would be a beautiful school, because of its civilised and mature tone and influence. The credit for that is due to succeeding generations of staff, parents and governors. I go to the school every year, and I can only say that I wish that the maturity and civilised attitude of some of the universities were half to match.

Fourth, it is felt that the influence of the school is especially valuable for gifted children from homes in which high academic achievement is not part of the normal set of goals. Fifth, it is felt that the chief education officer regards the Gearies School as an unsuitable annexe to the proposed new comprehensive school. Sixth, it is felt that the idea of schools of over 1,000 pupils is fundamentally objectionable, as such schools are impersonal, and that the present personal atmosphere in both the schools will be destroyed to the detriment of all. In any case, it is felt that the site is inadequate for a school of the size proposed.

The seventh point is that the educational standards of the more gifted children will be lowered. Eighth, the disruption of the reorganisation will last for six years at least. Ninth, experienced and valuable teachers are already determined to leave the borough if the proposal is approved. Tenth, the £3 million which the school will cost—I am just making a rolling forward estimate—could be more effectively used. Eleventh, the proposals are put forward merely to follow the pattern of neighbouring boroughs with a lower educational standard. That standard itself has become even lower since the comprehensivisation craze set in. The final objection is that comprehensive schools and the whole craze for them are now a burst bubble.

I quote, with the approval of the objectors, the words of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson). He said: It is possible … that, in rural areas and small towns, comprehensive schools will succeed, but what is happening in London and elsewhere suggests that there is something in their structure, not just a question of teacher supply or wages, but the difficulty of spread of ability and size and variety of courses, which almost destroys them from the centre."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March 1974; Vol. 870, c. 549.] We have seen bitter examples in London of how true that is.

Such is the objectors' case, which I am sure is heard and understood by the Under-Secretary of State. There are suspicions that the minds of Ministers are closed, that the Section 13(3) procedure is a humbugging farce, and that no fair consideration will be given to this case at all. I believe that these suspicions are justified, and I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a question. There is no excuse for his ducking the answer, although it will not be in the typewritten speech provided for him by the Department. He can answer my question. He is a Minister, and knows the Government's policy and political intentions, and it is the function of the House to get answers to such questions from Ministers.

Can Redbridge Council's plan to preserve a minimum number of grammar schools go ahead without bringing down on the council a financial penalty from the Government? There is a fear that unless the council abolishes the few surviving grammar schools its grants will be withheld or diminished. I want to know whether that is true.