Debate contribution: Supporting Service Leavers, Veterans and their Families

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 4 November 2025.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

4 November 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Supporting Service Leavers, Veterans and their Families

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5216963

Read the official Assembly record

Text

We will not be supporting the motion. I want to put some context to that, offer some clarity and engage in an honest way with the text of the motion but also reflect on some of the challenges of the motion and why we cannot support it. However, I acknowledge some of the issues and concerns, and why people are so understandably passionate. First of all, I acknowledge the importance of service, and the bravery and courage of many service personnel and their families, what they go through and the sacrifices that they make. Those are real things. I would not diminish them in general, and I certainly would not diminish them, particularly when talking to veterans. John Stewart is right that we are talking about veterans who are not exclusively from a unionist background, but it is true to say that it is deeply resonant for people from the unionist community, and we are coming up to Remembrance Day. Having acknowledged all that context, and the challenges that people from veteran backgrounds, including people in the Chamber, have faced, I just do not think that we can support the motion because we have to acknowledge the many and real ways that Northern Ireland is different. That is not to say that veterans who are from here and live here do not deserve equal right to services. They absolutely do, and let us be clear and on the record in saying that of course they do, and that includes to do with issues that have arisen from their service. However, Northern Ireland is different from other parts of the UK. Northern Ireland is, of course, the site of the longest deployment by the British military anywhere. That was Operation Banner. That has created a post-conflict context, and having acknowledged, as I did sincerely, the service of many personnel, it would be wrong of me and others not to acknowledge the fact that many people's experience of the British military here in the North of Ireland is not quite the same as that of people in England. That is to put it mildly.

As I said, I am not diminishing the service of all individuals, nor am I saying that those people do not deserve fair treatment and equal service. They do, absolutely. However, I am saying, and I stand by this point, that we are in a different context here. This is a more contested space, and it is true to say that the legacy of the conflict runs deep in many communities. I also said — I took time to say it and I meant it sincerely — that I acknowledge the very real service of individuals, their families and, indeed, the broad affinity with the history of service, particularly for the British military, and I will be laying a laurel wreath myself next week, out the front of this Building. It is true to say that we have equality provisions in law here. It is also true to say that the military covenant does actually apply to Northern Ireland. What the motion is calling for is, in a sense, to go further than that and create — I know that people dislike this comparison — a special category of individuals to have access to additional rights or additional support. I want all serving and former personnel to absolutely get fair provisions —

I will in one second. I want all serving and former personnel to get absolutely fair access to services. Inevitably, however, the question will be asked as to why we would create a distinct category of support for that one group in the context that I talked about.

I did not use the word "disadvantage". I believe that Paul Givan used that specific word earlier in the debate.

Apologies. Sincere apologies.

It was Paul Frew. I put my sincere and genuine apologies to Mr Frew on the record. I really did not mean that. Mr Frew talked about perceived disadvantage.

The perception is not always quite the same as reality, but I acknowledge that there are service personnel who face real challenges. I have tried to be respectful in this debate.

I gently say to some colleagues across the Chamber that, in recent weeks, there have been a couple of moments when they could have been so much more generous and thoughtful in how they talked about a particular issue in relation to service personnel in Derry. I do not want to go there in this debate, but it is important that we talk respectfully about such things.

We will not be able to support the motion, but that is not to say that I do not acknowledge that service personnel and their families face real issues. In the context of Northern Ireland, we cannot support the text of the motion or the armed forces covenant being given an excess of status. That is not to say that I do not acknowledge that there are issues that service personnel face. We will not support the motion, but I hope that the debate continues in as respectful a tone as possible.

854 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:45 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification