Will the Leader arrange for a debate on this matter in due course? Will he also arrange for a debate on bringing in a ban on corporal punishment of children? I am glad the Council of Europe is making a decision against Ireland on this. It is long overdue. We should now do away with the continued defence of reasonable chastisement which is appalling and goes against the principle of children’s rights which we enshrined in our Constitution. Senator Jillian van Turnhout has spoken about this many times and I echo her words. We need to introduce legislation on this issue without delay.

On a point of order, for the record, the Government’s share of Aer Lingus is 25.1% which prevented any takeover without the support of the Dáil and the Seanad, as well as that of the board. The 0.1% was particularly significant and was introduced by a Fianna Fáil Government.

That is a very good point.

The Senator’s point is well made.

Fianna Fáil still sold 74.9% of the airline.

I back the call made by Senator Darragh O’Brien for a debate on the issue of the sale of the Government’s shareholding in Aer Lingus. I hope the Leader will look at it favourably and organise it at the earliest opportunity.

Ireland has been found in violation of the European Social Charter by the Council of Europe’s European Committee of Social Rights. It clearly stated the corporal punishment of children should be expressly and comprehensively prohibited in law. When we look at the defence of reasonable chastisement, many people think it refers to rebuking or reprimanding severely. However, the dictionary states it includes corporal punishment, beatings and inflicting punishment such as by whipping. The fact that anyone would have this defence against children is inexplicable. Over 100 years ago, one could beat one’s wife, dog or child. We have removed this for domestic abuse and animal welfare but this defence is acceptable in cases involving children. The Council of Europe has repeatedly asked for it to be removed.

Up to 28 member states of the Council of Europe have prohibited corporal punishment of children in all settings, including the family home. Almost one year ago I forwarded an amendment to the Children First Bill to the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. I hope it will be accepted before it comes to the Seanad. I know I have the backing of the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Children’s Rights Alliance and many other children’s rights organisations. If we want to children to be seen as rights holders, we need to remove this defence of reasonable chastisement. For the past 12 years, the Council of Europe has repeatedly told us to remove this defence. Will the Leader arrange a debate on this matter? Will he also urge the Minister to bring forward the Children First Bill to the Seanad? I know it was stalled for 18 months, but it has now passed Committee Stage in the Dáil. We need to bring it into law. I know that it has not been used in the courts, but the very fact that it remains in the law books speaks volumes about our perception of children as rights holders.

I would like a debate on this issue of corporal punishment as I am not convinced about it. I would like to be convinced. It does seem that this is political correctness gone wrong. It is interfering in the home. There are many impolite, brassy children around. I think a bit of a slap would not do them the slightest bit of harm. I agree with Pope. I know that it is an unpopular view, but that is what I think. That is the way I was treated and look at me. I am not psychologically damaged.

Does the Senator accept that he cannot slap a colleague? Children are rights holders too.

Will the Senator, please, resume her seat?

I could not hear what Senator Jillian van Turnhout asked, but I will discuss the matter with her later. It is for that reason that I would like a debate on the matter to clarify things in my own mind. There are many people throughout the country who feel as I do, namely, that giving a child the odd slap if he or she is badly behaved is very good for him or her.

It actually is not.