With a significant procedural motion concerning the NI Troubles Bill expected on Monday (27 April), the picture is supposedly complicated by the expected absence of the Armed Forces Minister Al Carns, who is believed to be visiting troops engaged in defensive missions against Iran in the Gulf.

His absence from a key Commons moment raises questions in some minds about:

• Ministerial ownership of the Bill
• The internal balance being struck within government
• The extent to which veterans’ concerns are shaping the final legislation

Carns became Minister for Veterans and People at the Ministry of Defence on 9 July 2024, shortly after being elected as the Labour MP for Birmingham Selly Oak in the 2024 General Election, and was appointed Minister for the Armed Forces in September 2025.

As an MoD minister, Carns would not in any event be expected to lead for the Government in Commons proceedings on a Northern Ireland Office Bill, though his presence on the front bench might have carried some political weight given his role as the Government’s principal veterans-facing minister.

Al Carns was alleged to have 'been on resignation watch' for much of last year over the decision to replace the 2023 legislation. He is also said to have been closely involved in the drafting of the new protections which have yet to be published. According to The Times,

Many veterans believe he remains ambivalent about the overall plans and has stopped short of endorsing them. He has previously described protecting veterans as his “red line.

As one would hope given his Royal Marines and SBS background and his roles to date in government, Carns is said to have been one of the most prominent voices within government on the impact of legacy processes on veterans, and the need for stronger safeguards against repeated or unjustified investigation.

Ultimately, as long as he remains in government Al Carns must - and surely does - accept collective responsibility for the outcome of this saga.

The very fact that he is a veteran and yes, a rather distinguished ex senior officer, means that there has been criticism on social media of his role in what some have seen as 'letting down the veteran community'.

Other service-veteran MPs have been subjected to similar criticism over their perceived stance on this legislation based, in at least one case to our knowledge, on misinformation and a profound misunderstanding of the process which, to be fair, has been no means straightforward.

We can only hope that Monday's Commons business will generate a little more light then heat.

See also: Continuing troubles with the 'Troubles Bill' (April 2026)

The saga of Northern Ireland Troubles legislation continues in Parliament on Monday (27 April), following a statement by the NI Secretary Hilary Benn last week.

Mr Benn's written statement confirmed that the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill remains central to the Government’s approach, describing it as an effort to finally address a long-standing failure to deal with the past. Nearly three decades after the Good Friday Agreement, successive attempts'in London and in Belfast' had not delivered a system capable of commanding confidence across victims, families and former security force personnel.

The Bill would enable information sharing by the Irish Government with the Legacies Commission.

The statement went on to say that '...unlike the false promise of the 2023 Legacy Act, the Troubles Bill does not offer immunity including for those who committed heinous acts of terrorism, and will be compliant with our Human Rights obligations, has been welcomed by all the main Northern Ireland political parties and indeed by many Operation Banner veterans.'

Crucially the Bill does not provide immunity for Troubles-related offences, in contrast to the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. The 2023 Act, passed under the Sunak government, was to establish an Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) and introduce a controversial conditional immunity scheme for Troubles-related offences

Mr Benn's statement does not introduce new policy so much as confirming the Government's settled direction for this legislation:

• The 2023 Act is effectively being dismantled
• The replacement framework will centre on a reformed Legacy Commission
• The emphasis is on information recovery and investigation without amnesty

Alongside the statement, ministers have made clear that a substantial package of amendments is still to come.

The direction of travel is now reasonably clear, even if the full text has yet to be published. The Government is expected to focus on procedural protections for veterans, rather than any return to immunity. Likely elements include:

• Greater anonymity protections in proceedings
• Limits on compelling veterans to give evidence or be repeatedly questioned
• Measures aimed at preventing intrusive or unnecessary investigative approaches
• Additional safeguards reflecting the age and welfare of many veterans

There are also indications of further, as yet unpublished, provisions intended to provide “additional reassurance” to those who served.

In essence, the emerging model is one of no immunity, but enhanced procedural protection.

The gap: veterans’ objections

These proposed changes have not, however, resolved the core concerns raised by many veterans’ groups and individual veterans.

The principal objection is not about process, but about principle. Critics argue that:

• The Bill still allows for investigation and potential prosecution
• Procedural safeguards do little to prevent individuals being drawn into the system in the first place

From this perspective, protections are seen as assisting those already under scrutiny, rather than addressing what is viewed as the central problem: the reopening of historic cases.

A commonly articulated alternative is a much higher bar for any reinvestigation — for example, requiring credible new evidence before a case can proceed.

This concern has been voiced across parts of the veterans’ community, including organisations such as the SAS Regimental Association, which in a letter to Labour MPs has responded to Mr Benn's statement.

The SAS Regimental Association's letter has been widely reported, but for ease of access we will provide it here.

What happens next?

The Government is expected to seek a 'carry-over motion' for the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. This allows the Bill to continue into the next parliamentary session rather than falling at the end of the current session.

The vote is expected on Monday (27 April).

While such motions are often routine, in this case it matters because:

• The Bill is controversial and incomplete
• Significant government amendments are still pending
• The Bill's survival depends on continued parliamentary support at a rather sensitive political moment

If the motion failed to pass, the current legislative effort fails and the process would have to start again.

A system still in flux

Taken together, Benn’s statement and the forthcoming parliamentary stage reinforce a broader point:

the UK’s approach to legacy investigations remains in transition.

• The old framework (2023 Act) is politically and legally discredited or anyway, abandoned
• The new framework (Troubles Bill) is still incomplete and subject to amendment
• The courts continue to shape what is legally permissible

The Government’s position is now clearer than it was—but the operational detail, and its real-world consequences, are not.

The immediate question is whether Parliament allows that system to proceed.

The more important question is whether (or how) what emerges can command confidence not only across communities in Northern Ireland, but also among those who served there.

Following and evidence session with her on Wednesday (26 Mar), the House of Commons Defence Committee has recommended the Defence Secretary to proceed with the appointment of his preferred candidate for Armed Forces Commissioner, retired RAF Air Commodore Polly Miller-Perkins.

Ms Miller-Perkins is expected to take up the role on an interim basis for one year from April 2026, as a direct appointment without competition. A previous full and open recruitment process was unsuccessful in appointing a candidate. The Ministry of Defence has announced its intention to re-run that process shortly.

The MOD announcement also says that

Former RAF Air Commodore Polly Perkins served for over 30 years in the Royal Air Force, specialising in logistics and holding senior leadership roles including Deputy Commander and Chief of Staff, British Forces Cyprus. She deployed on operations in Kosovo and Afghanistan and worked with NATO partners to improve multinational logistics. She holds an MA in Defence Studies from King’s College London and was awarded a CBE for her service.

Tan Dhesi MP the Defence Committee chair rightly said that 'The success of the Armed Forces Commissioner depends on being visibly independent', but it seems in principle welcome that Ms Miller-Perkins has substantial experience of the armed forces.

The person-spec for the job did not require applicants to have served in the armed forces, but the 'desirable criteria' included 'Knowledge of the Armed Forces operating model, and the complaints procedures.'

The relevant legislation is the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025. The Interim Commissioner will take responsibility for the existing Service Complaints Ombudsman and, says the MOD, 'ensure there is no break in that service.'

We wish Ms Miller-Perkins all the best in this new appointment. BAFF should take a close interest in how this develops.

The Labour Party's 2024 General Election manifesto included a commitment to "strengthen support for our Armed Forces communities by putting the Armed Forces Covenant fully into law", and in June 2025 following a Defence Committee report on the Armed Forces Covenant, the Government committed to extending the Covenant’s Legal Duty to all UK Government departments and the devolved administrations.

Specifically, the Armed Forces Bill now before Parliament would extend the Covenant Legal Duty to cover all UK Government Departments, all Devolved Governments (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland), and the following wide policy areas:

• Housing
• Education
• Healthcare
• Social care
• Childcare
• Employment and service in the armed forces
• Personal taxation
• Welfare benefits
• Criminal justice
• Immigration
• Citizenship
• Pensions
• Service-related compensation
• Transport