Motion or amendment: Gender-Responsive Budgeting
Motion or amendment by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 6 January 2025
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Gender-Responsive Budgeting
- Assembly identifier
- Document 422736
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Gender-Responsive Budgeting
That this Assembly recognises the role of gender-responsive budgeting in addressing systemic gender inequalities, enhancing the effectiveness of public expenditure, and improving public scrutiny; notes with concern that previous budgets and programmes for government have not adequately supported the advancement of gender equality, resulting in missed opportunities to address and reduce gender disparities; and calls on the Minister of Finance to work with Executive colleagues to introduce comprehensive gender-responsive budgeting measures for the 2025-2026 Budget, including the introduction of thorough gender impact assessments, the allocation of resources to proactively address and reduce gender inequalities, and the use of transparent monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to assess measures aimed at improving gender equality.
113 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.05 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.78 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.22 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:01 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.