Peers to water down smacking ban

The row over plans to ban parents from smacking children escalated today ahead of a crucial parliamentary vote.

They want radical changes to the law to give children the same protection from assault as adults.

But ministers will today order Labour peers to vote down an outright ban. They hope to scupper the plans with a compromise allowing parents to administer mild smacks, as long as excessive force is not used.

The controversial proposals have been inserted into wide ranging new legislation on children's rights, to be debated in the House of Lords today.

More than 350 children's rights organisations successfully campaigned for a clause in the Children's Bill outlawing smacking earlier this year.

But the proposal is bitterly opposed by the Government,

which fears

it will be accused of encouraging a "nanny state." Last year Scotland's Justice Minister Jim Wallace was forced to abandon moves for an outright ban amid overwhelming public opposition.

Tony Blair will today try to defuse the row by encouraging Labour peers to back a watered-down proposal, tabled by Liberal Democrat peer Lord Lester of Herne Hill.

Peers will be given the option of backing an amendment letting parents smack children as long as they do not cause harm.

Those who inflict actual bodily harm will no longer have the

reasonable chastisement defence and could face jail.

Health Secretary John Reid said: "I think people want this middle road between not constraining parents too much from bringing their own children up, but on the other hand making sure that the law can't be used for some of the terrible violence we have seen against kids recently."

Ministers believe the alternative, cross-party amendment seeking a wide-ranging ban on smacking would be "an unwarranted intrusion into family life".