David Lammy parenting: what he gets right and wrong

When the justice secretary spoke plainly about family responsibility, it landed like a surprise from an unlikely source. David Lammy’s recent comments — that parents must be accountable for their children’s behavior — struck a chord in a country wrestling with rising youth crime, high-profile inquiries, and a growing sense that too many institutions are dropping the ball.

The remark came as part of a wider pitch to reform the youth justice system, following the Southport inquiry into the 2024 massacre at a Taylor Swift dance class, where 17-year-old Axel Rudakubana killed three girls. The inquiry’s chair, Sir Adrian Fulford, told investigators that if Rudakubana’s parents had reported his alarming behavior — including a cache of weapons — the tragedy might never have happened. That conclusion has reignited debates about where responsibility for children begins and ends.

Why Lammy’s Statement Resonated with the Public

Many people feel neighborhoods have grown less safe and that teenagers figure prominently in incidents of petty crime and public disorder. Recent incidents — teenage mobs causing havoc in Clapham, south London, and a group raiding an east London shop — have intensified calls for adults to reassert control. For a lot of readers, Lammy’s line that parents must accept responsibility sounded like common sense.

There’s a straightforward emotional logic: when kids act out, people want to know who will step in — family, community, or the state. Lammy’s words appealed to that impulse, even if the solutions he proposed are more controversial than the principle itself.

What Lammy Wants to Change: Tougher Parenting Orders

At the heart of the proposed reforms are stricter Parenting Orders that force parents to participate in counseling or classes and can carry the threat of jail for willful noncompliance. These measures aren’t brand-new — they trace back to policies of the 2000s — but the addition of enforcement through incarceration marks a tougher approach.

How these orders are intended to work

• Courts could mandate parents attend structured parenting programs.
• Failure to comply could lead to fines or custodial sentences.
• Programs would be supervised by local authorities and the courts.

Critics argue this risks punishing struggling families rather than helping them. For parents already stretched thin by low income, long hours, or mental-health issues, mandatory classes — and the threat of jail — may not solve the underlying problems.

When the State Fails: Lessons from the Southport Inquiry

The Southport inquiry didn’t just single out Rudakubana’s parents. Sir Adrian Fulford was equally critical of public agencies that passed responsibility around and failed to act decisively. Lancashire Police, the government’s counter-extremism program Prevent, and certain NHS mental-health units were all found wanting. If one of those bodies had intervened effectively at an earlier stage, the sequence of events could have been altered.

This exposes a critical point: assigning blame to families alone ignores systemic lapses in child protection and public services.

How Public Services Can Undermine Parental Authority

There’s a growing sense that some public programs, while well-intentioned, displace rather than support parents. Government campaigns that champion school-based tooth-brushing or subsidized breakfast clubs sometimes send the message that parents are unable to fulfill basic caregiving tasks. At the same time, policy debates over corporal punishment and bans on mild physical discipline in Scotland and Wales have been framed by some as a blanket distrust of parents’ judgment.

• Public programs that replace rather than partner with parents can erode confidence.
• One-size-fits-all parenting guidance undermines family-specific approaches to discipline and care.
• Experts’ condemnation of informal parental instincts (like light physical discipline in some contexts) can leave caregivers feeling powerless.

Parenting classes may help some families, but when they are promoted as the only right way to raise kids, they risk delegitimizing parents’ lived experience and instincts.

When Institutions Do Worse Than Parents

There are alarming examples of official bodies failing the children they were supposed to protect. In Kent, a police force so bewildered by policy constraints reportedly logged a one-year-old as a suspect after a minor incident — a sign, critics say, of priorities gone awry. Even more troubling are accounts from survivors of organized sexual abuse who say they were exploited while in residential care.

One woman from Bradford claimed staff at her care home told her to “go out and see them,” referring to older men who later abused her. Such testimonies highlight a grim reality: in some cases, the state or its contractors are a worse guardian than imperfect parents.

Why Community Networks Matter as Much as Parental Rules

Raising children doesn’t happen in isolation. Parents depend on relatives, neighbors, teachers, coaches, faith groups, and informal community figures to offer oversight, support, and social norms. Lammy is right to put responsibility on parents, but it’s equally important to rebuild the social infrastructure that helps families thrive.

• Extended family and neighbors can provide day-to-day monitoring and moral guidance.
• Local youth programs and sports clubs create prosocial outlets for energy and peer bonding.
• Community-led responses to anti-social behavior often restore order without criminalizing families.

Reinforcing community ties could reduce the need for invasive state interventions and strengthen the informal mechanisms that keep young people on track.

Rethinking Remedies: What Works and What Doesn’t

Good policy should combine accountability with practical support. Rather than defaulting to court-ordered classes backed by punitive measures, policymakers could prioritize:

• Targeted family support for households with mental-health or substance issues.
• Investment in early-intervention youth services and mentoring programs.
• Clearer lines of responsibility among police, health services, and schools to prevent bureaucratic buck-passing.

Any program that aims to improve outcomes must recognize that coercion and embarrassment rarely create lasting change. Programs that engage families respectfully, offer tailored help, and involve local communities are likelier to succeed.

Responsibility Is Shared — Not Simply Transferred

Lammy’s call for parental responsibility taps into a wider unease about public order and child safety. But turning that unease into policy demands nuance. Assigning blame to parents without fixing systemic failures lets agencies off the hook, while relying on the state to rear children strips communities of agency. What’s needed is a recalibration of responsibilities — one that restores parents’ authority while bolstering the institutions and neighborhood networks that keep children safe.

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

You might also like:

• Keir Starmer’s social media ban could harm young people
• Spanking ban would be a slap in the face to parents
• Overprotective parenting linked to rise in anxiety among young adults
• Helicopter parenting robs kids of a normal childhood and independence
• Lucy Connolly’s daughter punished over mom’s tweet

Robert Johnson

Robert Johnson is a dedicated columnist focusing on political and social debates. With twelve years in editorial writing, he provides nuanced, well‑argued perspectives. His commentaries invite you to form your own views and engage in critical issues.