Tackling antisemitism in the NHS

The Government has accepted Lord Mann’s recommendations on tackling antisemitism in the NHS. In the wake of a series of attacks on the Jewish community, including intimidation and abuse within the NHS, in October 2025 the former Secretary of State and the Prime Minister commissioned Lord Mann to lead an urgent review into how the NHS and its regulatory system recognises, reports and tackles antisemitism and other forms of racism.

The results of the review have now been published, with a comprehensive set of recommendations to strengthen accountability, to improve reporting and investigation processes, and to embed an anti-racist culture across the health system, better to protect patients and staff from discrimination and abuse. Lord Mann:f

• sets out recommendations to tackle “routine ostracism” of Jewish people in the NHS, including stronger accountability and mandatory training;
• reemphasises the role of NHS employers as the first line of defence against racism and discrimination for patients and staff;
• recommends that NHS employers should be required to meet new staff standards and complete mandatory anti-racism training to tackle antisemitism; and
• calls upon the Government to make it clear that all racism in the NHS is abhorrent.

A specific recommendation is to prohibit staff from wearing “political symbols”.

The Government says that it is clear that all racism in the NHS is abhorrent, and NHS employers are the first line of defence and must take urgent action. With 16% of Muslim staff and 20% of Black and minority ethnic staff also reporting discrimination in the last year, and it believes that the reforms will benefit everyone who experiences hatred or abuse in the health service. Secretary of State for Health, James Murray, said:

“The NHS was built on the principle that everyone should be treated equally and with respect. Racism and discrimination betray everything the NHS stands for and its ability to provide safe, world-class care. Lord John Mann has made a series of robust and practical recommendations which we are accepting.”

A fairer end to relationships

The Government has launched a consultation on A fairer end to relationships. The consultation covers three discrete but linked areas:

• financial remedies on divorce and dissolution;
• financial provision for cohabitants on separation; and
• inheritance provision for cohabitants on death.

It invites views on:

• “a ‘codification-plus’ model of reform, which would bring settled case law principles, such as those of ‘needs’ and ‘sharing’, into statutory form”;
• further targeted reforms, including introducing qualifying nuptial agreements which would enable couples to make binding financial arrangements in advance of divorce or dissolution;
• introducing a statutory framework of rights and protections for eligible cohabitants at the point of separation; and
• proposals to modernise the law affecting cohabitants on intestacy and on access to financial provision from a deceased partner’s estate.

The accompanying press release explains that the proposals support the Government’s manifesto commitment to “strengthen the rights and protections for women in cohabiting relationships”. The consultation closes on 14 August.

A longer analysis by Professor Russell Sandberg, Why the consultation on cohabitation rights is to be welcomed, will be posted early next week.

Other Lords Spiritual??

In a rather strange written question, Lord Patten (Con) asked HMG “why leaders of faith groups such as Jewish, Muslim and Roman Catholic leaders in the House of Lords are not considered as Lords Spiritual”.

To which Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, Parliamentary Secretary in the Cabinet Office, replied on Tuesday (carefully avoiding the obvious answer, “Because they aren’t”) as follows:

“The presence of the Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords reflects the constitutional position of the Church of England as the established Church and the Sovereign as the Supreme Governor of the Church. The Government believes the House of Lords benefits from having a membership with a wide and diverse range of backgrounds including faith and religion.”

MPs to debate e-petition after lack of progress with assisted dying bill

The Hansard Society reports that, tomorrow, MPs will debate an e-petition calling on the Government to ensure that bills supported by MPs and the public have sufficient time to complete their passage through Parliament. The petition, e-petition 752673, which was published on 4 February 2026, has attracted more than 115,000 signatures. It was prompted by concerns that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – commonly known as the assisted dying bill – ran out of parliamentary time after more than 1,000 amendments were tabled in the House of Lords. The petition will be debated in Westminster Hall at 4:30 pm on Monday, 8 June.

The Society notes that whatever one’s view of assisted dying, questions remain about whether and how the Bill could be re-introduced in the new parliamentary session. Its recent briefing examines whether the Parliament Act could be used to secure its enactment. It explores the constitutional issues involved, reviews previous uses of the Act, and considers the procedural lessons they offer for the future of the Bill.

Freedom of assembly and Falun Gong

In Serbian-Chinese Friendship Society FDH v Serbia [2026] ECHR 105, the Third Section held that the Serbian Government had violated Article 11 ECHR (freedom of assembly) when it banned a demonstration to protest against the Chinese persecution of Falun Gong that had been planned to coincide with the visit of the President of China to Serbia.

It noted at [46] that the ECtHR requires that domestic law provide for “adequate and effective legal safeguards against arbitrary and discriminatory exercise of the discretion left to the executive” and that “This ‘judicial review’ must make it possible to obtain an assessment of the proportionality and necessity of the impugned restriction” in accordance with Article 11(2). In the present dispute, there was no evidence in the case file that the relevant Serbian authorities had carried out any specific security assessments before deciding to prohibit the public gatherings planned by the applicant society [72] and:

“Even if there had been a genuine risk of violent confrontation between the protestors and counter‑protestors, this, in and of itself, should not have resulted in the decisions to prohibit the planned public gatherings, without the authorities having first complied with their positive obligation to try to ensure the peaceful conduct of the planned events and the safety of all persons concerned”… [73].

There had therefore been a violation of Article 11 and of Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 11. [With thanks to Religion Clause.]

The rule of law and why it matters: Key Stage 1

The Council of Europe has published an explainer on the importance of the Rule of Law. Obviously, no regular or even occasional reader of this blog needs any such explanation; unfortunately, however, many others clearly do.

News from the auction houses

As a segue to Shirani Herbert’s guest post, Sale of church treasures: Re St Peter, Little Budworth, we were informed by David Turner KC that the painting in question, “The Good Shepherd” by William Dyce (1806–1864), was sold at Bonhams on 25 March 2026 for £267,100 inc. premium.

This week, there have been stories on the movement of artwork in the opposite direction; the BBC reported that a hatchment stolen from St Leonard’s Church, Flamstead, Hertfordshire, had been identified  and will be unveiled on 4 June as part of the Flamstead Arts Festival. There are similarities with the hatchment from St Margaret’s Church on the Felbrigg estate in Norfolk, stolen in 1993 but eventually returned by the Essex Police Rural Engagement Team.

Whilst the illegal introduction of items into a church (and their subsequent removal) falls within the ambit of the faculty jurisdiction, does the reinstatement of stolen goods require equivalent consideration? – presumably, only if its initial installation was illegal or the replacement results in harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest.

Quick links

• Jasjit Singh, The Conversation: Who can carry a kirpan in the UK? Religion, law and the question of risk.