2025-12-16

I want to raise qualification for carer's leave for teachers. Section 6(1) of the Carer's Leave Act 2001 makes provision for carer's leave for teachers and provides that they must be in continuous employment for 12 months before they are entitled to that leave. That makes perfect sense because it avoids a situation where a brand-new employee takes leave having just entered into a position, which would be very unfair on the school and all the circumstances around that. Section 3 of the Act also provides for the Minister to have the power to make regulations in this regard. I want to talk about a teacher in my constituency who has been teaching in a school for ten years so she is not a new teacher. She is not a newly qualified or newly employed teacher. She is paid by the Department. She moved school in January and within a month of moving to that new school, she got the terrible news that her daughter was suffering from terminal cancer. By a bizarre and restrictive interpretation of the Act, she is now being told that she cannot qualify for carer's leave because she is in a new job for less than 12 months. This is the most appalling interpretation of the law. The way the law is written makes perfect sense and it is entirely sensible to have the 12-month provision. This lady was a teacher for ten years. She is still employed by the Department and still has the same Teaching Council number. The only thing that has changed is the school in which she works. I find myself aghast at the fact that the Department has now made a decision that red tape is going to triumph over common sense and compassion. The last few months or however long her daughter has left will now be marred by the fact that her mother is not being given carer's leave to look after her. We deal with hard cases in our jobs all the time and one would like to think that when we can solve problems, we would solve them. I have put down parliamentary questions about this and been told that section 6(1) prevents the Department from doing it. I do not necessarily accept that. I cannot see how that is the correct interpretation of the Act. It is surely open to the Minister or Department to say that this woman is with the same employer, has the same Teaching Council number and has been in the same job for over a decade. Can we not express the will and desire to stand by her at a time that is incredibly difficult for her and her family? It makes no sense that the Act is being interpreted in this way. We are allowing that awful red tape to triumph over the compassion that should be shown to this woman. We put carer's leave in place for a very specific reason with specific parameters and now they are being interpreted to exclude somebody who by all logical consideration should be entitled to carer's leave and should be entitled to take the time she needs to with her daughter to ensure that she can look after and care for her at what must be an appallingly difficult time for that family. Does the Minister of State agree that this is the only interpretation that can be made in respect of section 6(1)? If so, when are we going to change the law because that is the next step that has to take place? Alternatively, is it not the case that the Minister could make regulations to change this or to set out the parameters by which section 6(1) should be interpreted? Can we not allow common sense and compassion for once to triumph over bureaucracy? If it is not the case that we can and if all of the advice is that this is what the Act says and we cannot go beyond the legislation, when are we going to change it? Let us change that law quickly. Only a small change is required to allow for the interpretation regarding somebody who is continuing in the employment of the Department of Education and Youth, continuing in her role as a teacher and continuing to serve her community and students but is being let down by the system so let us change it if that is what we have to do.

While I am taking this question on behalf of the Minister for education, I hear very clearly what the Deputy is saying. As somebody who has championed carers' rights for many years, both at European Parliament level and at home, I fully hear the argument he is making. However, I have a response I will read to him and I will perhaps make one or two further comments. As the Deputy said, the carer’s leave scheme is regulated by the Carer’s Leave Act 2001, as amended. The terms and conditions of the carer's leave scheme for teachers are outlined in chapter 6 of the Department of Education and Youth’s Circular 54/2019, Leave Schemes for Registered Teachers employed in Recognised Primary and Post-Primary Schools. Under the terms of the circular, a teacher may apply for carer’s leave when they have satisfactorily completed one year’s continuous service with their current employer. This requirement is waived where a teacher is compulsorily redeployed into a school or where a school is amalgamated, provided that they have worked at least one full year in their former school prior to redeployment or amalgamation. Under section 24 of the Education Act 1998, as amended by the Education (Amendment) Act 2012, the board of management is the employer of teachers, SNAs and other staff of the school. In the case of community national schools, the ETB is the employer and not the board of management. Therefore, when a teacher moves to another school, they are changing employer. This is further confirmed by the contract of employment, which states that the employer is the board of management of the school. To reiterate, the Department of Education and Youth is not the employer. I hear what the Deputy says, but as the scheme is regulated by the Carer’s Leave Act 2001, as amended, it is not within the remit of the Department of Education and Youth to amend the eligibility criteria set out in the Act. It should be noted that the eligibility criteria set out in the Carer’s Leave Act 2001 applies to all employees of the State. As I said to the Deputy, I cannot go beyond the response that is in front of me, but he makes the case very clearly and compassionately. That is what he is asking for. If it is any help, I am certainly willing to make sure that his message gets to the Minister and is delivered very clearly as to the specific circumstances of the case. Perhaps he is right. Perhaps we need to change the law or there are some other solutions. I honestly cannot say but I can say this much: I certainly hear what he says and I remain open in any way I can to seeing whether I can help to provide a solution to this extremely difficult case.

At the outset, I totally accept the Minister of State's bona fides on this issue. I know of her track record on leave for carers and carers' rights. I have a copy of the reply she read. I am really disappointed by it because in no part of it is there any expression of compassion or regret for the fact that our system has failed this teacher. This teacher is being unduly penalised for the fact that she changed position. Of course, technically and to the letter of the law, the response is correct that she is not an employee of the Department but of the school. When she changed school, she was with a different employer and, therefore, the clock reset on her entitlement to carer's leave but, when she changed, she did not know her daughter's diagnosis was coming. What the law states is wrong and what the Act does is wrong. The restrictions placed on this woman and family are wrong. That is why I say we need to change the law. The Minister of State quoted Circular 54/2019. I understand why that is there and that it is the interpretation, but it is not correct in terms of the scheme put in place by these Houses 25 years ago to provide for exactly this type of situation. It was to provide backup, succour and care for those people in that situation who are being failed by the application of the Act in this way. The Department is entitled to make the statement that it is not entitled to go beyond the scheme. It is probably legally correct to do so, and I say that as a lawyer who respects the law, but I also think we cannot allow bureaucracy to hold sway always. We must look at people in situations. That is what this House is about. It is about recognising the fact that people need support. This family needs support. They are not getting it from the State and that is why we need to change the law. I am grateful for what the Minister of State said about bringing the message back to the Minister, but it is really important she understands that this has to change. It is absolutely not fair or sustainable. It is something this House can do. It is within the power of the Legislature to change this. Let us get on and change it. I would be grateful if the Minister of State could convey that to the Minister.

I have a further response here reiterating all of what I said. To be honest with the Deputy, I know he does not want to hear it. Nonetheless, that is my role and responsibility this evening. The Deputy talked about bureaucracy, but it is also the law. He is an expert in this area where I am not, but perhaps the law is what needs changing and not so much the bureaucracy or how the law is implemented. As I said, the employer of all school staff is the individual school board or the board of management which manages the schools on behalf of patron bodies. The Department is not the employer. The carer's leave scheme is regulated by the Carer's Leave Act 2001, as amended. In line with the Act, the eligibility criteria for carer's leave includes the requirement for an employee to have been employed for a period of 12 months' continuous employment with their current employer. The Deputy has made the specific circumstances in this case very clear. As I said, I will bring it to the attention of the Minister, if the Deputy wants to speak to me afterwards or tomorrow. I am not saying I can do anything, but I will make sure this message is clearly brought. I will not read any more of what I have in front of me. I do not think it would be helpful.