In common with many parents I completely, utterly understand why Caitriona Ruane would choose to take her little girl with her during a recent official trip to Cyprus.

In the great scheme of things three days out of a school career is unlikely to be a serious educational drawback. What the child will have learned from a trip to a foreign country will more than compensate.

Ms Ruane says her daughter’s school was informed in advance. And that there were “personal” and “exceptional” circumstances.

When she points out: “I as a parent, as a mother, made the decision to take my daughter with me and I stand by that |decision,” I as a parent and a mother back her totally.

However ...

Where my sympathy comes off the rails is when Caitriona hits out at this week’s Press coverage of the story.

“This is a dreadful attack on my family. It is not right that my daughter is being discussed like this,” she says .

“I paid for my daughter. She missed three days of school but I am a mother as well as a |minister and I will decide the priorities in relation to my family.

“What I am saying is stop bringing my family into political battles, she is a minor.”

In fact this was not a dreadful attack on the Education Minister’s family and she is being disingenuous in claiming that it was.

In Northern Ireland the rules imposed by the education department which she heads up, clearly state that parents should not remove their children from schools during term time.

Except in “exceptional” circumstances which are spelt out as actually extremely rigid.

That the Minister removed her child from a school (in the Republic) during term time could be taken as sending a very confusing message to all those other parents who also decide the priorities in |relation to their children. Was this a case of a government minister saying, do as I say, not as I do?

The story fell into that category. And at a time when politicians are under scrutiny as never before it was both entirely fair and responsible that the paper which broke the story, and the wider media who |followed it up, should ask that question.

So no, it wasn’t about bringing the Minister’s family into political battles. It was about asking where as the Education Minister she stood on education policy.

Actually of all the comments in the story the one that gobsmacked me the most wasn’t anything Ms Ruane said.

It was a reported comment, from Frank Bunting leader of the INTO teaching union.

He is quoted as saying: “If people are in a high pressured job and do not see their children as much as others do then I think there should be a different rule for them and if they want to take their child away for a bonding trip for three days that is not going to have a catastrophic effect on their education.”

Can this really be a trade union leader suggesting that people in “high pressured jobs” should not be subject to the same rules as the ordinary rest of us?

Another thing — define high pressured?

After all if a politician’s role is deemed to be high pressured what does that make the likes of nursing or policing? Or working nightshifts in a factory?

High pressured, when you think about it, probably applies to the job of just about any working parent in these difficult times.

Sadly Frank, the rule is that rules is rules. And they should apply equally to everyone. Not just to a chosen few.

The onus is on an education minister |(indeed any minister) to be seen to support the rules of the department of which she is head.

And when she is occasionally asked to |explain her actions in this regard, this is not a “dreadful attack“ on her family.

It is legitimate public interest.