Mr. Pat McKelvey:

From an ETBI point of view, we believe schools should serve their local communities first and foremost. While we understand the importance of tradition and continuity, we would also make the point that even if this clause was removed from the legislation there would still be a large number of parents or grandparents in an area whose children will attend the school they did. We have some statistics on this and found that the rule is very seldom used, yet a significant amount of parents still send their children to the school they went to. There is a threshold above which schools do not need to have that policy enshrined in law in order to keep that continuity and consistency.

From an ETBI point of view, what worries us is equity and serving the local community. The idea that the rights of a grandchild of someone who went to a school 70 years ago would trump those of a child who lives across the road from a school is wrong. We understand the importance of continuity, but this is about a balance of rights rather than one right trumping another. From an ETBI point of view, we are very much committed to serving local communities.

An important point was made by the Deputy on primary schools, and there is a piece of work to be done on that, in particular where a school falls on the edge of a planning area and the natural catchment area of the school does not concur with the planning area. That is something that needs more scrutiny.