A bid to outlaw smacking was defeated last night when the Lords opted for a compromise allowing parents to use ''mild'' punishment.

The move will make it a criminal offence to cause bruises, reddening of the skin or mental harm in England and Wales.

Campaigners for an outright ban attacked the ''fudge'' and backbench MPs vowed to make a second attempt in the Commons.

But Tony Blair said the Government wanted to strike a balance between protecting children and parents' rights to discipline.

The Prime Minister's official spokesman said: ''We do not want to criminalise parents.''

Lords were voting on a series of amendments to the Children Bill.

Labour peers had been ordered by whips to vote against the outright ban.

However, they were given a free vote on the amendment from Liberal Democrat Lord Lester of Herne Hill allowing ''moderate'' smacking.

Senior Labour MP David Hinchliffe immediately said he would push for an outright ban when the Bill reaches the Commons.

Mr Hinchliffe, chair of the health select committee which has called for such a ban, said 100 backbenchers and a ''significant'' number of ministers supported him.

''I genuinely hope the Government will have the common sense to allow a free vote and not whip it,'' he said. ''If this is not an issue of conscience, I don't know what is.''

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children said legitimising certain levels of physical punishment would continue to deny children equal protection from assault and fail to fulfil the Government's human rights obligations.

Sue Woolmore, the NSPCC's public policy advisor for the North-East, said: "We were very unhappy with Lord Lester's amendment.

"How can it be decided if there is too much redness, bruising or too many tears? We would never have this discussion about adults and children should have the same protection."

Tony Samphier, of the Children Are Unbeatable Alliance, called the result ''shameful, unjust and irresponsible''.

''It sends out a dangerous message to society that it is still legally acceptable to assault a child,'' he said.

''Hitting children is as unacceptable as hitting anyone else, and the law should clearly say so.

"This it not the end of the campaign, it is just the start.''

Lord Lester's proposals removed the defence of ''reasonable chastisement'', which dates back to 1860.

Campaigner Salman Rushdie denounced the amendment. ''We should avoid a lot of weasel words like 'smacking' and 'tapping on the leg'. Hitting is hitting,'' he said.

But the amendment was backed by Lord Laming, who headed the inquiry into the death of eight-year-old Victoria Climbie, who was abused and tortured by her great aunt and her boyfriend.

''We would all like every parent to have the skills and ability not to have to resort to physical punishment,'' he told BBC Radio 4.

''The reality is quite different at the present time for many parents who may be tired, may be exhausted, may be harassed for a whole variety of reasons.

''The most important thing is to pursue constructive approaches towards the family and not rather negative ones.''

A Department for Education spokeswoman said: ''We said we would allow a free vote on this amendment and the Lords have expressed their view.''

Comment - Page 1