Under Lord Lester’s amendment, parents are restricted to giving their children mild smacks. Any blow that leads to actual bodily harm — which can include bruising, scratching or reddening of the skin — is outlawed. Caning and causing psychological distress to a child is also banned.

Two experts — Allan Levy, QC, who specialises in child and human rights law, and Carolyn Hamilton, director of the Children’s Legal Centre at the University of Essex — gave their verdicts on six common chastisements.

AL “It won’t be unlawful unless there is reddening of the skin or some kind of mark.”

CH “Anything that reddens the skin is out, so only the lightest tap would be allowed.”

SLAP TO BACK OF HEAD

AL “As it is the head, I think we can be a little more censorious, but the same test applies. Unless there is actual bodily harm, then it is acceptable.”

CH “Any blow to the head is clearly out and would already have been illegal.”

RESTRAINING A CHILD BY THE EAR

AL “That is likely to cause reddening or leave a mark, so it tips the balance forward towards falling foul of the law.”

CH “That is not reasonable chastisement and would have been illegal before the new law.”

USE OF SEVERE PHYSICAL VIOLENCE

AL “Severe physical violence is clearly illegal already and the position would not change under the amendment.”

CH “This is obviously unacceptable before or after the change in the Act.”

SMACKING THE BOTTOM

AL “Again, it depends if any marks are left.”

CH “It depends on whether there is reddening. Only the lightest tap would be legally acceptable.”

SMACKING WITH IMPLEMENT, SUCH AS A CANE

AL “Using an implement tips it towards falling foul of the law, but it depends on the force of it.”

CH “That would not have been acceptable before the amendment, never mind after it.”

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Oh no, Mr Darling: you have failed
• BBC survives dogfight over Kennel Club expose
• Where the Rosetta belongs can’t be set in stone