A BID by Bury MP David Chaytor to ban child-smacking failed to win enough support in the Commons.

The Labour backbencher took part in his second rebellion this week - the first was over new gambling laws - in an attempt to impose an outright ban.

But the majority of MPs voted to allow parents to inflict reasonable chastisement as long as it did not leave marks. Parents, however, could be prosecuted if this caused cuts, bruises or a black eye. Ministers argued that a full ban would potentially criminalise most parents, who used force only as a last resort.

But Mr Chaytor said the amendment was designed to change attitudes to physical punishment, while making it easier to prosecute those who regularly abused their children and hid behind the chastisement defence.

"All the child protection agencies and charities have campaigned for a number of years to give children the same legal protection against assault that adults have," he said.

"This is the situation in several European countries, including Sweden and Germany, and has led to a significant reduction in child abuse and deaths of children at the hands of their parents.

"The difficulty with the Governments position is that it will come down to the visual inspection of the child, and the courts will make judgements about the level of bruising."

Mr Chaytor admitted he had smacked his three children, and every parent he knew had smacked theirs: but occasionally and out of anger, not as a rational approach to enforcing discipline.

"It has not done them any harm, but it has probably not done them any good either," he added.