What David Lammy gets right – and wrong – about parenting

Something incredible happened on Monday. David Lammy, the gaffe-prone and intellectually challenged secretary of state for justice, hit on common sense. Intentionally or not, he stated the blindingly obvious: parents should be responsible for their children.

Lammy’s announcement came as he outlined plans to overhaul the youth justice system in England and Wales. His comments were made in the wake of the Southport inquiry, looking at events leading up to 17-year-old Axel Rudakubana slaughtering three young girls in a Taylor Swift dance class in 2024. Last month, inquiry chair Sir Adrian Fulford said that if Rudakubana’s parents had done ‘what they morally ought to have’ and reported his suspicious behaviour, which included amassing an arsenal of weaponry in his bedroom, he would not have been free on the day of the attack.

Lammy’s declaration lands because many people feel that society is becoming more lawless, and that youths are behind some of the rise in petty crime and anti-social behaviour. Last month, gangs of teenagers rampaged through Clapham in south London, while residents cowered in locked-up shops. Last weekend, a dozen young men raided a shop in east London, pushing staff out of the way before taking off with armfuls of clothes. Adults urgently need to regain control. In this context, it is hard to disagree with Lammy: parents need to take responsibility for their children or face consequences themselves.

But Lammy’s proposed solutions are likely to make things worse. His main idea is to beef up Parenting Orders and to give courts greater power to compel mums and dads to attend counselling or parenting classes. These orders are not Lammy’s brainchild, but the product of the New Labour government of the 2000s – all that’s new is the threat of jail time for parents who wilfully refuse to comply. This will do little either to persuade feckless parents to take charge or to help those who are struggling.

None of this is to say we should let state institutions off the hook. The chair of the Southport inquiry not only criticised Rudakubana’s parents but also, crucially, the ‘culture’ of agencies passing responsibility between each other or downplaying their own involvement. He condemned the actions of Lancashire Police, the government’s counter-extremism service, Prevent, and various NHS mental-health services. Despite the recalcitrance of Rudakubana’s parents, if staff at one of these institutions had taken responsibility for the teenager, things could have turned out very differently.

Currently, many public services are not just useless in a crisis – they also actively undermine parents. The current government is quick to boast about providing tooth-brushing lessons in schools, and the prime minister never stops banging on about breakfast clubs. But until two minutes ago, parents were assumed capable of giving their children both a toothbrush and breakfast. Parents are told off for being irresponsible, even while responsibility is being taken away from them.

Likewise, when parents do assert their authority, child-rearing experts don’t always approve. Professionals and celebrities call repeatedly for a ban on smacking, and although the government has not yet enacted such a measure in England, smacking is now illegal in Scotland and Wales. Not only does this assume parents are too dumb to know the difference between disciplining and harming a child, but it also suggests there is one textbook-approved way to get children to behave. Parenting classes promise more condemnation, along with tips and tricks distinct from a family’s circumstances. Telling parents not to trust their own instincts kills their self-confidence and hinders them from acting authoritatively.

Parents might not be perfect, and some need reminding of their responsibilities, but even the worst parents are often better than the state. In Kent, the police force is so confused about how to deal with children that it recently recorded details of a one-year-old girl suspected of committing a criminal offence after allegedly leaving a toddler with a minor injury. When the police turn a blind eye to gangs of teenage shoplifters but investigate squabbling babies, you know they have lost the plot.

More disturbingly, many of the victims of rape gangs report having been in care homes at the time their abuse took place. Despite being just children, they were free to come and go, and no one stepped in to ensure their safety. One woman from Bradford said care-home staff would see the older men of Pakistani heritage arrive and tell her to ‘Go out and see them’. Lammy wants irresponsible parents to attend classes and be made to listen to so-called parenting experts. But the state proves at every turn that it is a truly terrible parent, too.

What’s missing from Labour’s analysis is community. Parents do not operate in a vacuum, and families do not exist as independent units cut adrift from the rest of society. Even the best parents need extended family members, neighbours, friends, well-meaning busybodies and community groups to help raise children and keep unruly youngsters in check. Lammy is right that parents must take responsibility for their children, but other adults must also play a part.

Parenting classes are not the answer to criminal or anti-social behaviour. Instead, institutions charged with protecting children from themselves and others must stop passing the buck and do their job properly. And then the state must step back and let parents – and communities – rise to the challenge of raising the next generation without interference.

Joanna Williams is a spiked columnist and author of How Woke Won. Follow her on Substack: cieo.substack.com.