HWAC view: two government reviews in one year, one for schools and one for the NHS, share the same blueprint. Both put the IHRA definition at the centre and tighten professional conduct rules. Teachers are now raising the alarm that doctors and nurses have been raising for months.
What the Bell Review recommends
On 21 October 2026 the government published Sir David Bell's independent review into antisemitism in schools and colleges in England. It makes 27 recommendations. Central to them, according to the review's executive summary, are:
- "wider adoption by schools and colleges of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism"
- making clear in Keeping children safe in education that antisemitism may raise safeguarding concerns
- "amending the Teachers' Standards to explicitly reference antisemitism"
The review also recommends changing Part Two of the Teachers' Standards so that discriminatory behaviour is incompatible with professional conduct "within and outside the school, including online". It found "significant uncertainty" among staff about political impartiality and discussion of Israel and Palestine.
Education Secretary Lucy Powell accepted all 27 recommendations and said she would write to schools and colleges asking them to adopt the IHRA definition. The review stopped short of recommending a ban on political symbols such as pro-Palestine badges. Sir David called a ban "unworkable" and "untested legally", but said schools could set rules through codes of conduct (The Independent; LBC).
What the NEU said
The National Education Union is the largest education union in the country. Its general secretary, Daniel Kebede, responded that antisemitism "is on a steep rise and must be tackled", and that robust action "is certainly needed". But he warned:
"Recommending the IHRA definition for schools risks deepening the problem rather than tackling it, and actively undermining efforts to confront antisemitism. It is the wrong approach. The IHRA's contested framing risks blurring the line between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of the Israeli government and the genocide in Gaza, leaving teachers with uncertainty when they need clarity."
"Recommending the IHRA definition risks tightening the chilling grip already stifling classroom discussion of the Gaza genocide."
He added that the report "wrongly calls into question the professionalism of teachers". He also said there have been "vanishingly few examples of the Teacher Regulation Agency holding up a complaint of lack of impartiality in the classroom". The NEU welcomed stronger safeguarding guidance and staff training, but warned that tackling antisemitism without an equal commitment against all racism "risks creating a hierarchy of racism".
The Mann blueprint for the NHS
Healthcare workers have seen this before. In November 2025 the government asked Lord John Mann to carry out a rapid review into antisemitism and other forms of racism in the health service. The first part of it was aimed at the GMC. In March 2026 the Department of Health put Mann's first recommendations out to consultation as part of the draft GMC Order 2026. They would:
- keep the GMC's right to appeal tribunal decisions
- give the Professional Standards Authority new powers to challenge interim decisions made by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service
- require regulators to share information with the PSA
The government's stated aim was to make it "easier for regulators and oversight bodies to act where decisions are not strong enough". HWAC is crowdfunding a legal challenge against the GMC and DHSC over these reforms.
The full Mann review notes that NHS England has formally adopted the IHRA definition and asked trusts to consider doing the same. It also asks DHSC to agree a common approach to definitions across health regulators, including the GMC and NMC. The government accepted the recommendations. It promised national guidance with "examples of the types of incidents that may require a regulatory referral" and guidance on uniforms "free from any perception of bias".
The parallels
- IHRA at the centre. Bell wants schools to adopt it. Mann notes that NHS England has adopted it and wants regulators to align their definitions. The NEU's warning that IHRA blurs the line between antisemitism and criticism of Israel applies just as much on the ward as in the classroom.
- Conduct codes reaching beyond work. Bell's change to the Teachers' Standards covers conduct "outside the school, including online". Mann's GMC reforms came out of concern about doctors' language "particularly on social media", as the government put it.
- Symbols and dress. Bell leaves badges to school codes of conduct. Mann's response promises national NHS guidance on uniforms. In both cases, how visible solidarity with Palestinians is treated depends on guidance that has yet to be written.
- More referrals, more oversight. Schools get new incident recording and a support service. Healthcare gets referral examples and stronger PSA powers over tribunal outcomes.
Both reviews say criticism of Israel is legitimate. Mann's states plainly that criticising the Israeli government, or supporting "the plight of Palestinians, does not in of itself constitute antisemitism or contradict IHRA". In HWAC's view, that safeguard counts only if it is applied in practice, and it is not what doctors are experiencing. Pulse has reported rising GMC referrals over Israel–Palestine comments. Novara Media has described a crisis of institutional discrimination against NHS doctors who speak out on Gaza.
Our view
The NEU is right, and its warning is a lesson for healthcare. Antisemitism is real and must be confronted. But a contested definition, conduct rules that follow professionals online, and an ever-growing referral system will create a climate in which a teacher or a nurse thinks twice before speaking about mass death in Gaza. Teachers have their union saying so loudly. Doctors and nurses deserve the same clarity: humanitarian testimony and criticism of a state are not misconduct.
If you are a healthcare worker facing a complaint, read our Know Your Rights page and download the free HWAC rights guide (PDF). It includes new guidance on taking the GMC to an employment tribunal.
