Tomorrow is Children's Day, when the NSPCC launches its new campaign to outlaw smacking. Today, we air the case for and against a parent's right to smack their child.

YES

Former nurse and social worker Sue Woolmore is the NSPCC's Public Policy Adviser in the North, championing the needs and rights of children

As a child, I was smacked. As an adult, I used to believe that smacking was acceptable, even though as a social worker I was only too aware of those tragic cases where a parent crosses the line from smacking to abuse.

It was only as a mother that I started to see things differently and began to question that old wives' tale about sparing the rod and spoiling the child. The reason was my daughter Katie.

Like new mums everywhere - it was love at first sight. But when Katie was a toddler she went through a phase of hitting out. Despite my professional training, I had always thought that I would smack my children if they needed punishing.

Like the vast majority of loving parents, my mum and dad had smacked us when we misbehaved. I remember feeling it was unfair, and on occasions completely unjustified.

I now realise this was when my parents were completely exasperated. I know that as a child I sometimes hit my two younger sisters, and I'm certainly not proud of that.

But when little Katie hit out, I explained to her that hitting was wrong.

It was then obvious that I could never hit her without confusing her with a very mixed message.

From this experience I started questioning what so many of us accept without question - that smacking is a good way to discipline children.

I have never smacked my own children, but I understand why so many loving and caring parents do. It's the norm. It's socially acceptable. It's what good parents have always done.

But I am now totally convinced of three things: Smacking is not good for children, it's not good for parents and it doesn't work.

After coming to this conclusion, I have found myself noticing when other parents smack, a bit like a reformed smoker notices smokers.

Like so many social workers involved with children at risk, I remember the times when I had to say to colleagues: "We can't do anything until the child is injured."

The parent or carer makes the point that how they punish their children is their business, and as long as the law allows "reasonable chastisement", there is very little you can do however much you fear for the safety of that child.

After working in child protection with a local authority and then the NSPCC, I took on the role of Public Policy Adviser with the NSPCC in the North because I want to help change the way we treat children.

From my experience as a mum and as a social worker, I believe a ban on smacking is the one thing that will do the most to bring about that change.

No one blames loving parents for smacking. They are only doing what we have all been taught is best for children. But we are appealing to all parents to rethink smacking for the sake of the small number of children whose parents or carers beat and thrash them within an inch of their life.

If loving, caring parents help us to create a society where hitting children is no longer acceptable, that will help us to protect those children whose parents too often go too far.

NO

York mother and grandmother Heather Causnett smacked her children when they were small and believes smacking can be a useful disciplinary tool

To smack, or not to smack? That is the question, and the answer is simple: some children learn from the short, sharp shock treatment, others do not, and other forms of effective punishment must be found.

This is why a blanket rule not to smack children is totally wrong; it makes good mothers feel guilty about smacking a naughty child when necessary, and gives irresponsible, unworthy mothers an excuse to opt out completely from disciplining their children.

Children need to learn the principle of cause and effect. They put their hand in a flame or hot water, they get burnt.

They misbehave, hurt someone, are rude or abusive and they get punished, by the most effective means.

As mothers, we ignore this at our peril. Left to their own devices, children become out of control, learn how to manipulate the adults in their circle and can become bullies and delinquents.

The person administering any punishment has to be the one who has daily contact and care of a child, is loved and trusted and is there when needed, and the best alternative to a parent is a grandparent, not one of a string of temporary father figures who may abuse, or worse.

Children have to learn, long before their teens, that they cannot always get their own way and to recognise authority and that refusal to do this will have painful or unpleasant results. The end, which is to bring up well-behaved, considerate and law-abiding citizens, justifies the means a thousand-fold.

What definitely are not acceptable are mothers who declare "I beat them black and blue", such as the mother of the two boys acquitted for the murder of Damilola Taylor. This is the sort of inflammatory statement which encourages the non-smacking brigade.

A smack administered on the spot, hard enough to sting but never injure, and never "when your father gets home!" can work wonders.

But a violent hiding, indulged in by parents who lash out at their children to cover up their own failings, only causes bitter resentment. It can lead to withdrawal from a child who has possibly become cowed over the years, or violent rebellion and a lapse into worse behaviour from more stalwart characters.

"Spare the rod and spoil the child" rather depends on the nature of the child, and who wields the rod.

Once a child is old enough to reason with, it should be sufficient to deprive him of an outing, or a favourite TV programme, or the use of his computer, but knowing right from wrong must start at the first sign of a child misbehaving.

The truly appalling results of the wrong sort of chastisement, or simply opting out of looking after a child's mental as well as physical development, are seen every day in the media.

Unfortunately our over-tolerant attitude to wrongdoing of any nature has created a second generation underclass, who only understand violence, lack decency, compassion, morals and standards, and drain our society of resources.

If the tide cannot be turned now, and it may already be too late, the very future of life as we know it will be too terrible to contemplate.

Updated: 12:47 Tuesday, May 07, 2002