The House of Lords voted against a proposal to abolish the legal defence of 'reasonable chastisement', following a three- line whip imposed by both the Labour and Conservative parties.
But voting was 226 to 91 in favour of a compromise amendment that bans parents from giving a smack that causes bruises, reddening of the skin or mental harm.
NSPCC director and chief executive Mary Marsh said the amendment would not fully protect children. 'It still sends out a dangerous and misleading message that violence towards children is safe and acceptable.
'Complete abolition of the reasonable chastisement defence law is the only reasonable way forward. Half-hearted law reform, which defines an acceptable threshold of violence towards children, won't work.'
Anne Longfield, chief executive of 4Children, said, 'The Government fears being accused of "nanny-statism", and ministers are right to emphasise the importance of supporting parents as the best means of protecting children.
Parents need to feel that Government and wider society respects and values their role.
'Ending the legal right to hit children need not be a measure against parents; it should be just one element of a package offering them new alternatives and additional capabilities to promote positive behaviour and healthy child development.'