It looks unlikely that the government will introduce an outright ban on smacking. So where does the campaign against physical punishment go from here, asks Linda Green

Hundreds of children took to the streets to voice their support for the campaign to ban smacking earlier this month.

But an imminent victory for the campaign alliance is not on the cards as the government began its consultation process on the physical punishment of children by declaring it would not ban smacking outright.

With the consultation period on the government's Protecting Children, Supporting Parents document now over, just how far might ministers be prepared to go on this issue? The government was forced into action after the A v UK case in 1998 when the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the beating a young boy received from his stepfather breached the European Human Rights Convention. The stepfather had successfully used the defence of "reasonable chastisement" in a British court.

But when launching the Department of Health's consultation document in January, health minister John Hutton made it clear that the government was interested in amending the law rather than ending the "reasonable chastisement" defence altogether.

Leading lights in the Children are Unbeatable Alliance say the campaign to ban smacking will continue.

Kate Harper, a development officer with Save the Children, one of the alliance members, says: "We should talk to the government and make clear our concerns that they have not gone far enough in ensuring the protection of children and they have not gone far enough to meet the European Court of Human Rights' expectations."

Harper believes the government should lead public opinion on the issue. "When you look at the drink-driving ban, nobody supported that but the law came in, there was a public awareness and education campaign and now nobody ever says 'have one for the road'. If you are really going to change something that is in our culture you have to have a law to strengthen the education proposals you are putting forward."

Marcus Roberts, editor of the Children's Legal Centre journal Childright, believes the government's refusal even to consider a total ban on physical punishment was a ploy to try and pacify the pro-smacking lobby while keeping something in reserve for the anti-brigade.

"Personally, I think that before the consultation started the government had already decided to go a long way towards the position of people who wanted to see a ban. In saying it was going to do the very minimum and then consulting on doing a bit more I suspect the government will claim it has been very responsive to the representations it has had.

"But I do still think there's a serious danger that the government is going to fall short of the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights. The boy in the A v UK case hadn't suffered the sort of injuries that the government specifies it's considering banning."

So exactly what concessions might the government make? The most likely option is that the defence of "reasonable chastisement" may be refused to anyone who has used an implement against a child or hit it about the head. People charged with anything more serious than common assault may also be precluded from using the defence.

Gill Keep, head of policy at the National Family and Parenting Institute, says: "We're pleased that the government recognised the definition of reasonable chastisement needs to be redefined, but we don't think they will ban the use of that as a defence.

"We think they are more likely to take a staged approach to banning smacking and may well revisit it in a few years time to see if public opinion has shifted.

There is no doubt that a perceived public backlash against any state attempt to interfere in what goes on in people's own homes, is uppermost in ministers' minds.

But there are indications that parents' views are changing. Susan Littlemore, spokesperson for Parentline, says: "The very optimistic thing in all of this is that we know from the parents who call us that they don't want to use physical punishment but they need some support to learn not to do it. We are quite hopeful that there is a real way forward but practical measures are needed."

The biggest danger to the government would seem to be that its desire not to ruffle the feathers of middle England could see it falling foul of the European courts again.