Dear Anne,
It is welcome that, with Labour MP David Hinchliffe's forthcoming private member's bill, the issue of parents physically punishing their children in the name of "reasonable chastisement" has come to the fore again, though it is a sad indictment of our society that this defence - dating back to 1860 - still remains.

In effect, children - one of the weakest and most vulnerable groups in our society - enjoy less protection than adults under the law on assault, and efforts to protect them are undermined by its existence.

However, the NSPCC recognises that being a parent is one of the hardest jobs anyone is ever likely to do, and they need as much support as possible in this vital role.

This is why we not only support legal reform to remove the defence of reasonable chastisement, but also advocate the need for extensively available support for parents, including advice on less harmful, positive forms of discipline.

Reforming the law would set a clear standard in our society that using physical force to resolve conflict is wrong. Adults can be confident that no-one should hit them; children now have this protection in daycare, in schools and when they are with childminders.

The one place they do not enjoy such protection is in their own homes, yet we know that this is where they are most at risk.
Yours,
Mary

Dear Mary,
Children are not "one of the weakest... groups", but the most vulnerable people in the world. We owe them not equality (you don't demand suffrage, I notice) but protection.

Beware chronological snobbery. The Married Women's Property Act (1882) and Catholic Emancipation (1828) both liberalised, as did the Offences Against the Person Act (1861), which protected children: treatment of them must be reasonable.

The issue is one of self-control. But first may I ask you, if it is not impertinent (indeed, it is most pertinent): do you have children? Have you ever shouted at them in anger? Do you consider this an abuse? Let me first confess: yes, yes, and very much.

Would you legislate against this? How?
Yours,
Anne

Dear Anne,
You are right that dates, per se, are not necessarily the issue, but neither can we assume that the longevity of a law should be the test of its worth.

Another longstanding form of family violence, marital rape, was not made illegal until 1991. It is no longer acceptable to beat your wife, but on the question of larger, more powerful people hitting smaller, defenceless, people, the law continues to let down the most defenceless.

The legal sanctioning of parents' use of physical punishment can make it very difficult for professionals to promote other, more effective and less harmful, forms of discipline.

You say that the issue is one of self-control; clearly it is important that parents should be able to control their feelings, but it is about much more than this. The issue of physical punishment goes to the heart of how we expect people in our society to relate to one another.

It is, fundamentally, about a child's right to equal protection under the law and, in turn, that according them this protection is a vital step towards children being treated with respect, as individuals with their own human right to dignity and physical integrity.

Indeed, the UK's international human rights obligations require that the government should reform the law in this area. Having ratified the UN convention on the rights of the child in 1991, such a change is long overdue.

Yes, I do have children of my own and, like most - if not all - parents have sometimes shouted at them, but have always regretted it. You point out that it would be difficult to legislate against shouting, and this is not something we are seeking to do.

There is currently no legislation against shouting at adults, but there is a law that prevents us from hitting them. Our aim, as I have said before, is to achieve the same for children, no more and no less. Wouldn't you agree that this is a worthwhile objective?
With best wishes,
Mary

Dear Mary,
On the contrary, it would be dangerous, destructive and undemocratic. But you are making certain assumptions.

With respect, you confuse smacking with hitting. To hit a child is abusive and (rightly) illegal if it is not reasonable, and not chastisement. For the powerful to lash out at the defenceless (say, to relieve strong feelings) is frightening, whether the violence is verbal or physical.

We've both done it, and both regretted it. I don't condone this. But I'm also glad there isn't a law against it. And (though sharing a cell with you would console me) you probably are too.

My parents never shouted, but few modern parents don't. We have lost self-control. This explains our confusion about smacking, and your next misconception - that it is harmful and ineffective.

As part of loving discipline, it is neither. All children need sanctions. All decent parents use them. A calmly given smack is effective and (uniquely) over immediately.

There is legislation against verbal abuse. A taxi driver shouted at me recently, and the police are prosecuting. If we'd been married, they wouldn't. The relationship is all.
Very best wishes,
Anne

Dear Anne,
Euphemisms are always helpful for cloaking the uncomfortable realities of life, but the linguistic niceties of adults count for little.

In a piece of research by Save the Children and the National Children's Bureau, one seven-year old girl commented: "A smack is parents trying to hit you, but instead of calling it a hit, they call it a smack."

This is supported by recent neuroscientific evidence that adults tend to underestimate the physical force they exert, so that, while they may regard a smack as "light", it can feel much more powerful to someone on the receiving end.

The same research found that, as the action is repeated, the force used increases. And, of course, the emotional impact of being hit is not to be underestimated.

Clearly, not all smacking leads to more serious violence, but there is ample evidence of its potential to escalate, particularly when parents are under stress, which is when the majority of parents resort to physical punishment.

One study found that, of two-thirds of parents who hit babies when they were aged one, nine out of ten were hitting their four-year-olds weekly or more often, and more severely.

Of course, children need discipline, but sanctions don't have to involve physical punishment. Children learn from adults' behaviour: how can we expect them to believe that it's wrong to hit others if we are hitting them? The "common sense" of our law has been challenged at the highest judicial levels in Europe, and remains under scrutiny.

In Germany, the well-researched link between more frequent experience of physical punishment and youth violence and crime, something also of great concern here, was one of the reasons for their government changing its law in 2000.

However, the sky hasn't fallen in in Germany, nor in any of the other ten countries which have changed their law. The prosecution of parents has not increased, and the primary aims of legislative change have been to give children equal protection, and to change attitudes to children and child-rearing.

In framing and defining acceptable behaviour, and as a medium of communication, the law is an important influence on social norms and behaviour, which affect us all - not least children themselves, whose voices are notably absent from much of the debate on this issue.
All the best,
Mary

Dear Mary,
The fact that small children don't understand the distinction doesn't mean there isn't one. Smacking and hitting are very different. Of course hitting can escalate, because it involves losing control. Smacking does not.

Some years ago, our two middle children, aged four and five, knocked a door to bits with a hammer. When I discovered them and their pile of matchwood, and not wanting to punish genuine ignorance, I asked if they knew it was naughty. Commendably, they said yes. Did they think punishment in order? Again, yes.

I then offered them a choice: a reasonably hard smack or an hour in their bedroom (which also compromises "physical integrity"). They conferred briefly, and chose the smack. Two minutes later, they were happily playing in the garden. They never did it again (and now, as teenagers, consider a ban outrageous).

You would deny them this choice. Tell them why. What possible harm has it done?
Warmest greetings,
Anne

Dear Anne,
It's disturbing that the debate on this issue is so often distorted by focusing on whether a "calm, considered smack" is acceptable. The notion that we should calmly smack our husband, wife, mother or father instead of doing so in a rage would be absurd. Why should it be any different for children?

In fact, the evidence points in a different direction. An Economic and Social research council study found that parents who smack were both more likely to be in a bad mood beforehand, and more likely to describe their responses as automatic and "spur of the moment" - far from calm and considered.

Surveys also show that parents tend to regret such behaviour afterwards, and that they want more support and help with finding effective alternatives.

And, believe it nor not, there are many parents with well-disciplined children who haven't raised a hand to them. More positive forms of discipline can be very effective: praise, approval, kisses and hugs are good ways of reinforcing the boundaries you set.

Children respond well to explanations of wrongdoing, and to positive requests rather than negative commands. It can be hard work to be consistent in these methods, but they do pay dividends.

To reiterate, therefore, we need two things: law reform - to set a clear standard of non-violence in all relationships - and extensive support for parents, including readily available programmes of help and advice on positive discipline skills and understanding children's developmental needs.

I've spent the best part of this week at the annual social services conference in Brighton. I heard Liberal Democrat MP Paul Burstow commend his party for being the first to take the courageous step to adopt law reform and public education as party policy. I hope it will not be the last party to do so.

There is mounting pressure on the UK government to reform this anomalous law, and public opinion is moving in this direction. The issue will certainly not fade away.
All good wishes,
Mary

Dear Mary,
But you haven't answered my question! And I've never met anyone who could. When I asked Claire Rayner, she lectured me extensively on children and hammers. Which sums it up, the bossiness: parents are dangerously incompetent; Big Brother knows best.

The experts on childcare are not suits in Westminster, neuroscientists or campaigners on conferences. They are those who find plasters, and mop sick, and wake at 3am, who lose tempers and make mistakes, but would lay down their lives, and do, day in day out.

Very occasionally there is serious abuse, and we must intervene. But for the state to do so regularly undermines our trust in parents (the most important people there are), and is far more dangerous than what you seek to ban.

Would you tell me how I may make love to my husband? Yet you presume to know how I should rear my children.

No, Mary. It is those who love, not those who legislate, who understand children's needs; parents, not politicians. The overwhelming majority opposes a ban. If you won't support us in this "hardest job", at least leave us alone.
Fondly,
Anne

· Mary Marsh is the chief executive of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Anne Atkins, novelist, is the author of Split Image, a biblical study of the roles of men and women (Hodder & Stoughton). Her book on parenting for amateurs is to be published next year by Zondervan.