The smacking of children is an issue which divides the nation. Those in favour say that disciplining their children by administering a smack is their right and prepares youngsters for life in the real world.

Those against - which include the children's charity the NSPCC - say that smacking is nothing less than physical violence against children, and have long been calling for an outright ban.

Whichever side of the fence you fall, last night's decision by the House of Lords to amend the Children Bill will do little to clarify the issue. The Bill includes a defence for any parent of "reasonable chastisement" of their children, a law which dates back to the 1860s.

The amendment means that any parent who inflicts actual bodily harm on children can be prosecuted, but allows for the administering of light smacking. This seems to be nothing less than a fudge. How is such a law to be policed, for example? What measurement is there in place to judge when light smacking becomes something more serious?

It is to be hoped that any child who suffers actual bodily harm at the hands of a parent with its attendant bruising or redness would ring alarm bells with teachers or social workers in any case, without need for a specific amendment in the Children Bill.

Members of the pro-smacking lobby will doubtless feel this morning that little has changed. Those in favour of a smacking ban will feel that little has been done to protect children.

Perhaps instead of this ultimately pointless amendment, more should be done to educate parents in alternatives to smacking as ways to instil discipline among children.