In his resignation letter Al Carns, the former armed forces minister, said the government’s Northern Ireland Troubles bill was “unfit for purpose”.

He explained:

The same instinct, that serious problems can be managed rather than faced, runs through the Northern Ireland legacy bill.

I have worked to fix the bill from the inside, but it remains unfit for purpose. It risks failing the very veterans it claims to protect. Men and women I served with, those I buried friends alongside, people who did their duty under conditions most individuals in Westminster will never have to imagine.

I set out the changes I believed were necessary, and the lines which I could not in good conscience go beyond. Those lines have not been accepted. I have run out of room to argue this case honourably from inside government. A serving minister cannot ask fellow veterans to trust a process he no longer trusts himself.

The bill will replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act passed by the last government. The Tory legislation gave an effective immunity to members of the armed forces and members of terrorist organisations facing prosecution over Troubles-era allegations, provided that they gave information about those incidents to a new reconciliation commission.

The act was welcomed by former members of the armed forces, but opposed by all the main parties in Northern Ireland. In broad terms, nationalists were unhappy about former soldiers being exempt from prosecution, and unionists were unhappy about the same protection being extended to former terrorists.

Labour says it is replacing the Tory law because it was not fair to victims and survivors and because it is potentially unlawful.

Carns always made it clear he was unhappy about the bill. But he did not resign when it was published last year. It passed its second reading last November, and is one of the bills carried over from the old session of parliament into the new one.

Carns’ comment about the bill echoes what the Conservative party has been saying about it. Last night James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, praised Carns for resigning over this issue. He said:

Huge respect for Al Carns and the manner of his resignation - giving such a passionate and principled excoriation of Labour’s deeply damning NI Troubles Bill.

As he says, the Bill is “not fit for purpose” and betrays our veterans.

Up to 90% of asylum seekers in Ireland may have entered the country via the Northern Ireland land border in the last three years, figures suggest. Lisa O’Carroll has the story.

As armed forces minister, Al Carns was not involved in work on the defence investment plan (Dip). In his resignation letter, he said it was flawed not just because of the amount of funding involved; he also claimed it focused too much on the wrong capability. He said (and I’ve highlighted the key phrases in bold):

The character of conflict is changing faster than our procurement can keep up with. We are still purchasing capability suitable for the last war while our adversaries arm for the next one. Platforms that cost billions can be defeated by systems that cost thousands. Any serious defence investment plan has to start from that reality.

While I had no hand in the defence investment plan, that distance does allow me to say plainly that it is not built for the threat we face.

It is neither transformative enough nor sufficiently funded. We are asking our armed forces to operate in a more dangerous world on a budget written for a calmer one.

In an interview with GB News, asked to explain what he meant about the MoD buying equipement for the last war, not the next one, he said:

I want to see a higher percentage for uncrewed systems, AI, data – data is the new gunpowder – and we’ve got to move that forward if we are going to win the next war.

Al Carns also indicated that he has leadership ambitions in the resignation letter than he released last night.

Carns resigned as armed forces minister around eight hours after John Healey resigned as defence secretary and for both of them the key issue was Downing Street not committing as much money as they wanted for the defence investment plan (Dip).

But Carns’s letter went much further than Healey’s. Carns complained not just about the money being allocated to Dip; he complained about how the money was being spent too.

He said he could not support the Northern Ireland Troubles bill.

These are issues that you might expect a defence minister resigning from government to raise. However, Carns also suggested that the government was failing across the board – and this is where he sounded like someone pitching for the leaders.

Here is the key passage. I have highlighted the most telling passages in bold.

Too many working people in this country feel insecure even when they are doing everything right. They work hard, contribute, pay their taxes and still feel one setback away from trouble. Public confidence in our institutions is weakening and politics increasingly looks performative while everyday life gets harder.

The machinery of government itself has been left to decay. Decisions that should take days, take months. Departments fight each other instead of the problem. Officials and ministers who know the truth are not always rewarded for telling it. We are trying to govern a more dangerous world with processes designed for a calmer one, and the gap is now showing in the things that matter most.

National resilience is about more than defence in the narrow sense. A strong country is not simply one with capable armed forces. It is one where working people feel economically secure, public services function, energy is resilient, communities are stable and young people can see a future worth working towards.

If my resignation accelerates the transition towards resolution, then the impact will far outweigh the act. We need a new way of governing and we need it now.

For my own part, I will keep arguing for a politics rooted in resilience, seriousness and national renewal. For a country where working people can once again feel secure about the future. And for the service personnel and veterans this government still has a duty to.

The deal this country makes with the people who serve it, in uniform, in classrooms, on building sites, is broken. I’m going to spend my time on the backbenches trying to fix it.

This reads like a critique of Starmer’s method of governing. The allegation that under his leadership the government takes too long to take decisions is one that has been made frequently.

Defence policy is not the only area where there has been bad news for the government. As Heather Stewart reports, growth figures out today show the economy shrinking in April.

Here is her story.

And this is how it starts.

The UK economy contracted by 0.1% in April as the Iran war began to take its toll on growth, official figures show.

As energy prices have risen as a result of the conflict, after Iran closed off the strait of Hormuz – a vital shipping route for global trade – the UK’s strong expansion in the first quarter slid into reverse.

The fall in gross domestic product in April, which had been expected by economists, followed a 0.3% increase in March, according to the Office for National Statistics.

Global growth is slowing to lowest level since pandemic, says World Bank

The data will underline fears that the UK economy will contract in the second quarter of the year.

Al Carns, who resigned as armed forces minister last night, has not ruled out standing for the Labour leadership.

In an interview on LBC this morning, asked if he would consider standing for the leadership if “the ball comes out from the back of the scrum”, Carns replied:

I’m good at rugby and football, but we’ll see what happens … I’m always up for playing.

And on the Today programme, when asked about if he had resigned from the government out of personal ambition, Carns replied:

People get confused about ambition and service. My whole career has been put to service. If I wanted to be ambitious, I wouldn’t have got into politics. If I wanted to make more money, I wouldn’t have got into politics. I left the military not because my career was faltering, but because I decided I wanted to make change, because I think we’re a pivotal moment in the history of the United Kingdom.

So, this is about service to me. I’ve been really clear.

I haven’t even received my P45 from the last job yet and we’ll see what happens in the future.

Carns only became an MP at the 2024 election, less than two years ago, and he had no experience in politics before that, and so many would regard the thought that he could become Labour leader any time soon as preposterous. Only a handful of MPs seem to be in favour of the idea.

But Carns has been promoting his credentials as a potential leader, setting out his vision in an article for the New Statesman last month. His record in the Royal Marines was highly impressive, and he was regarded as someone who could have gone right to the top of the armed forces.

There is also a history of political parties turning to former servicemen as leaders partly because voters generally admire soldiers. Sometimes this works out well (eg President Eisenhower and Colin Powell in the US) and sometimes this doesn’t (eg Iain Duncan Smith).

Peter Kyle, the business secretary, told Sky News this morning that he was loyal to Keir Starmer, but not “blindly loyal”. He said:

It is a purpose that brought me into politics, not a person.

That purpose is to get growth into our economy, to make sure the hard work is rewarded anybody who should get on in life and has the aptitude to get on in life and the approach to get on in life should be able to be rewarded for it.

We need to make sure we have a country that is respected around the world, and public services that are there for everyone, because they’re too often not.

This is the mission that I came into politics in order to deliver and Keir Starmer has delivered on these things.

He has earned my loyalty. I’m not blindly loyal to him. He has earned my loyalty, because we are aligned in the purpose of this government.

Al Carns has delivered a withering assessment of the government’s defence plans after quitting as defence minister, accusing ministers of not spending enough money on the military and spending it on the wrong weapons. Kiran Stacey has the story.

Good morning. This time yesterday Keir Starmer’s leadership was already in peril, with many in his party assuming that he will be replaced by Andy Burnham at some point later this year, but there was a consensus that, on defence and international security, his record was impressive. John Healey’s surprise resignation as defence secretary blew that apart. Later, after 8pm last night, Al Carns, the armed forces minister, also resigned over the defence investment plan.

Here is our main story, by Pippa Crerar and Dan Sabbagh.

Here is an analysis by Jessica Elgot.

And you can read the exchange of letters between Starmer and Healey here.

In his letter to Healey, Starmer defended the defence investment plan (Dip), which has not been published but which prompted Healey’s resignation because, when he saw what he thought was the final version on Monday, he concluded that it did not commit enough money to the armed forces. Starmer said:

You are also right that we have to go further. The defence investment plan does just that — delivering an unprecedented increase in defence spending in a sustainable way. It will provide the resources our military needs to keep us safe and the clarity the British defence industry needs to plan. It will make the big strategic investments we need for the long term and give the certainty which private finance needs to invest. It will allow our armed forces to transform and modernise and back them with the tools they need to change the way we fight — and to deter our enemies. And crucially it will ensure the money spent is spent wisely and used to back jobs and growth here in Britain.

That implied the version of the Dip that was unacceptable to Healey would not be changed.

But this morning Peter Kyle, the business secretary, has been giving interviews on behalf of the government – and he implied it was still being finalised.

Kyle told Times Radio “the plan is being developed” and “we are determined to get it right”. And on Sky News he said:

We are setting [the Dip] out before the Nato summit, [in] early July, what that looks like, and we are just finalising those plans.

At one point the government was expected to publish the Dip this week. The Nato summit does not start until 7 July, and so Kyle’s comments imply publication has been held back.

In his Times Radio interview, Kyle also rejected a suggestion that the government’s defence policy was “in tatters”. When this was put to him, he replied:

No, the plan is being developed. We are determined to get it right. We are talking about an enormous amount of money going into defence at a period of time where we have to modernise the way we think about defence, but also make sure that we do so in a way that benefits British jobs. This is highly complex.

Last night Dan Jarvis, the former security minister, was appointed defence secretary. We don’t know yet whether, as a condition of taking a job, he insisted on a revision of the Dip spending figures that Healey criticised so strongly. But he is due to attend an event at a drone factory in Swindon this morning, and so we might get some clarification there. Earlier this morning he arrived at Downing Street.

(According to Politico, the visit to the drone factory was planned some time ago, and at one point it was thought this could be where Healey would be announcing the publication of the Dip. But on Wednesday the Commons speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, said that releasing such an important announcement when the Commons was not sitting would be “an utter disgrace and an utter kick in the face” to MPs, and – before Healey resigned – the government abandoned plans for an annoucement today.)

We will also get a lobby briefing at 11.30am which may – or may not – provide some clarity. Otherwise, the political diary for the day looks quite empty.

I’m afraid we’re not expecting to be able to have comments open today because the moderators are particularly stretched with other duties. But, if you want to draw something to my attention, do use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.

I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.