Five former education secretaries have made a joint appeal to Labour MPs to back the overhaul of special education provision in English schools, calling it “a once in a generation chance” to fix a failing system.

The open letter is signed by David Blunkett, Estelle Morris, Charles Clarke, Ruth Kelly and Alan Johnson, who between them held the post for a decade from 1997.

It comes ahead of the schools white paper, due to be published on Monday, which will set out proposals to transform the special educational needs and disabilities (Send) system, in what could be one of the defining policy challenges of Keir Starmer’s administration.

Downing Street is desperate to avoid any sort of rebellion, mindful that any repeat of the chaos which followed attempts to change benefits for disabled people could fatally undermine the prime minister’s authority.

The proposed changes to Send have been received more positively by Labour MPs, not least because of the near-universal acceptance that the current system does not work.

But a number remain nervous, particularly on areas including proposed changes to how children qualify for an education, health and care plan (EHCP), which legally entitles them to support.

The letter by the former education secretaries sets out the political stakes.

“As former Labour education ministers, we know that this really is a once in a generation chance to change a broken system for good, a unique opportunity to deliver better life chances for millions of children across our country,” says the letter, also signed by Jim Knight, an education expert who served as schools minister from 2006 to 2009.

The changes to be set out by Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, “will enshrine the importance of children being confident to attend their local mainstream school and develop friendships in their local community for life”, the letter says.

“From our own experience, we know how hard it is to get reforms like these right,” the letter continues, saying the plan had been “painstakingly put together after more than 18 months of consultation”.

They added: “We must not betray the millions of children across our country who deserve the best from their government, and their politicians.

“These reforms will give those children more support, not less, after years of having the help they need supplied too little, too late, and too often not at all.

“We urge all our colleagues and every Labour member to back those changes as ministers embark on the greatest reform this government has yet laid out.”

While there will be significant political focus on changes to EHCPs, with children expected to face a review when they move to secondary school, the wider focus of the white paper will be on better including children with all but the most severe needs in mainstream schools. The schools will receive support for this directly.

One government source said: “There are MPs who are understandably nervous about all this, not least because of all the letters they get, but for the most part they like the direction of travel.

“And when they see the final proposals, they will understand and welcome where we’re going on this. This is a good Labour package, underpinned by good Labour values. We want parents to get the help they need without being forced into a legal fight with their council.

“The school system has not kept up with the pace of change that children are experiencing in their lives. We utterly reject this narrative of ‘overdiagnosis’. That needs to be banished from the debate.”

There are lingering concerns among Labour MPs on several issues, including whether parents will still have the right to make a legal appeal if they feel their child is not being properly supported.

One said: “There is understandable anxiety amongst parents, but if the reforms as a whole look to promise a better system with enough time for a smooth transition, then I think MPs will recognise that.

“Where I think the challenges may come is on the legal redress issue – if parents have enough confidence that they can hold schools and local authorities to account on the support they are supposed to be giving.”

Britain and the EU said they were assessing the implications of the US supreme court ruling against Donald Trump’s global tariffs, while business groups reacted to the court’s announcement with caution.

A spokesperson for Downing Street said: “The UK government is working with the US to understand how the overturning of Donald Trump’s tariffs by the supreme court will affect the UK but expects our privileged trading position with the US to continue.”

The UK was the first to strike a tariff deal with the US, with 10% tariffs on all imports from Britain, compared with a blanket 15% rate for the EU.

The EU said it was analysing the ruling while continuing its drive to work towards reducing the tariffs the US imposed on European exports.

The EU agreed the 15% tariff rate with the US at Trump’s Scottish golf course last July but 50% tariffs are still imposed on steel.

“We remain in close contact with the US administration as we seek clarity on the steps they intend to take in response to this ruling,” it said.

“Businesses on both sides of the Atlantic depend on stability and predictability in the trading relationship. We therefore continue to advocate for low tariffs and to work towards reducing them.”

Companies affected by the tariffs should be able to demand refunds from the US administration, though the mechanism for doing this remains unclear.

It is understood that tariffs on products such as steel will not be affected and are likely to remain in place. Some experts warned that the White House could switch to broader product-based tariffs affecting computer chips and agriculture, possibly adopting an even more draconian approach with higher tariffs.

John Denton, the secretary general of the International Chambers of Commerce, said there was “fresh uncertainty” for companies seeking to trade with the US.

“Many businesses will welcome the prospect of refunds following today’s ruling, given the significant strain that the IEEPA [International Emergency Economic Powers Act] tariffs have placed on corporate balance sheets in recent months.

“But companies should not expect a simple process: the structure of US import procedures means claims are likely to be administratively complex.”

William Bain, the head of trade policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, said that while the supreme court had clarified the use of executive powers to raise tariffs, it did “little to clear the murky waters for business”.

“If he wants to, [Trump] could use the 1974 Trade Act to impose even higher tariffs than the additional 10% levies that the UK and Australia have already been affected by in many goods sectors.

“We have recently agreed a good deal on pharmaceuticals, and we should focus on using the economic prosperity deal to ensure the UK gets the preferential treatment outlined there.”

An aerospace industry insider said: “It’s a relief that this has been declared, but I don’t think it’s that helpful for geopolitical tensions.

“We still have quite an unpredictable US administration, and I don’t think taking this sort of public chastising is going to go well for some trade relationships.”

On the stock markets, the UK’s FTSE 100 index hit a new intraday high after the supreme court ruling was announced on Friday, and closed 0.56% higher.

Exporters were among the risers, with the drinks company Diageo – whose Scottish whisky and Mexican tequila brands had been hit by Trump’s tariffs – jumping by 3.9%. The luxury fashion brand Burberry gained 3.3%.

Some European carmakers also benefited: Stellantis, whose brands include Citroën, Fiat and Vauxhall, rose by 2%.

US government bond prices fell, pushing up borrowing costs as investors anticipated a loss of income from tariffs and the possibility that US companies could be eligible for refunds on import costs. The dollar weakened slightly.

Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank shot and killed a Palestinian American man during an attack on a village, the Palestinian health ministry and a witness have said.

Raed Abu Ali, a resident of Mukhmas, said a group of settlers came to the village on Wednesday afternoon where they attacked a farmer, prompting clashes after residents intervened.

Israeli forces later arrived, and during the violence, armed settlers killed 19-year-old Nasrallah Abu Siyam and injured several others.

Abu Ali said the army shot teargas, sound grenades and live ammunition. Israel’s military acknowledged using what it called “riot dispersal methods” after receiving reports of Palestinians throwing rocks but denied that its forces fired during the clashes.

“When the settlers saw the army, they were encouraged and started shooting live bullets,” Abu Ali said. He added that they clubbed those injured with sticks after they had fallen to the ground.

The Palestinian health ministry confirmed Abu Siyam’s death from critical wounds sustained on Wednesday afternoon near the village east of Ramallah.

Abu Siyam’s killing is the latest in a surge in violence in the occupied West Bank. Israeli forces and settlers killed 240 Palestinians last year, according to the UN office for the coordination of humanitarian affairs. Palestinians killed 17 Israelis over the same period, six of whom were soldiers.

The Palestinian Authority’s Wall and Settlement Resistance Commission said Abu Siyam was the first Palestinian killed by settlers in 2026.

Mukhmas and its surrounding area – most of which lies under Israeli civil and military administration – have become a hotspot for settler attacks, including arson and assaults, as well as the construction of outposts that Israeli law considers illegal.

The Israeli military said late Wednesday that unnamed suspects shot at Palestinians, who were later evacuated for medical treatment. It did not say whether any were arrested.

Abu Siyam’s mother told the Associated Press that he was an American citizen, making him the second Palestinian American person to be killed by Israeli settlers in less than a year.

A US embassy spokesperson said they “condemn this violence”.

Palestinians and rights groups say authorities routinely fail to prosecute settlers or hold them accountable for violence.

The UN human rights office on Thursday accused Israel of war crimes and said practices that displace Palestinians and alter the demographic composition of the occupied West Bank “raise concerns over ethnic cleansing”.

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, citing findings collected November 2024 to October 2025, said Israel was engaged in “concerted and accelerating effort to consolidate annexation” while maintaining a system “to maintain oppression and domination of Palestinians”.

Residents of Palestinian villages and herding communities have been increasingly displaced as Israeli settlements and outposts expand. Since the start of the Israel–Hamas war, the Israeli rights group B’Tselem says about 45 Palestinian communities have been emptied out completely amid Israeli demolition orders and settler attacks.

Additionally, the office said Israeli military operations in the northern West Bank “employed means and methods designed for warfare” including lethal airstrikes and forcibly transferring civilians from their homes. It also said Israel “forbade” residents from returning to their homes in northern West Bank refugee camps. The operation, which Israel said was aimed against militants, displaced tens of thousands of Palestinians.

The report also accused Palestinian security forces of using unnecessary lethal force in the same areas, killing at least eight people, and noted that the Palestinian Authority had engaged in “intimidation, detention and ill-treatment of journalists, human rights defenders and other individuals deemed critical of its rule”.

Neither Israel’s foreign ministry nor the Palestinian Authority responded to requests for comment. Israel has repeatedly accused the UN rights office of anti-Israel bias.

Last year, the UN human rights monitor warned of what it called “an unfolding genocide in Gaza” with “conditions of life increasingly incompatible with [Palestinians’] continued existence”. Their report on Thursday also warned of demographic shifts in Gaza raising concerns of ethnic cleansing.

Meanwhile, the Committee to Protect Journalists said that dozens of Palestinian journalists who were detained in Israel during the war in Gaza experienced conditions including physical assaults, forced stress positions, sensory deprivation, sexual violence and medical neglect.

The CPJ documented the detention of at least 94 Palestinian journalists and one media worker during the war, from the West Bank, Gaza and Israel Thirty are still in custody, the CPJ said.

Half of the journalists, the report found, were never charged with a crime and were held under Israel’s administrative detention system, which allows for suspects deemed security risks to be held for six months and can be renewed indefinitely.

Israel’s prison services did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the report, but rejected a similar report in January about conditions for Palestinian prisoners as “false allegations”, contending it operates lawfully, is subject to oversight and reviews complaints.

The vast destruction across Gaza will take at least seven years just to remove the rubble, according to the UN Development Program.

Alexander De Croo, the former Belgian prime minister who just returned from Gaza, said that the UNDP had removed just 0.5% of the rubble and people in Gaza are experiencing “the worst living conditions that I have ever seen”.

De Croo said 90% of Gaza’s 2.2 million people live in “very, very rudimentary tents” in the middle of the rubble, which poses health dangers and a danger from exploding weapons.

He said UNDP had been able to build 500 improved housing units, and had 4,000 more that are ready, but estimates the true need was 200,000 to 300,000 units. The units are meant to be used temporarily while reconstruction takes place. He called on Israel to expand access for goods and items needed for reconstruction and the private sector to begin development.

Donald Trump on Friday railed against the supreme court justices who blocked his use of tariffs, calling the decision a “disgrace to the nation”, and later signed documents imposing a 10% tariff on all countries.

“It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think,” the president said during remarks from the White House. He cast that influence as social and cultural, saying: “I’m ashamed of certain members of the court. Absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.”

He praised the three justices who dissented in the opinion: Brett Kavanaugh, who wrote the main dissent, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. The others – including two of his appointees, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch – drew his derision.

“They’re just being fools and lapdogs for the Rinos [“Republicans in name only”] and the radical-left Democrats, and not that they should have anything at all to do with it,” Trump said. “They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our constitution.”

Referring to Barrett and Gorsuch, he described them as “an embarrassment to their families” and said they were “barely” invited to the State of the Union address next week.

Asked for evidence of foreign influence over the supreme court, Trump replied: “You’re going to find out.”

Trump said he would immediately sign an order increasing tariffs globally by 10% under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 and will begin investigations of unfair trade practices allowing further tariffs. He asserted that he had the authority to impose additional tariffs under existing statutes without congressional approval.

On Friday evening, Trump posted on Truth Social: “It is my Great Honor to have just signed, from the Oval Office, a Global 10% Tariff on all Countries, which will be effective almost immediately.”

“I wanted to be a good boy,” Trump said, describing his relative restraint in issuing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Trump said that tariffs under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 will remain “in place and in full force and effect”.