Debate contribution: Gender-responsive Budgeting

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 14 January 2025.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

14 January 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Gender-responsive Budgeting

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4736767

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is the final debate in a series of debates on Opposition day on motions that have focused on violence against women and girls and the broader urgent crisis that we face in this society around tackling violence against and abuse of women. Our motions are constructive, the debates have been rigorous and constructive, and I think that we have made progress. There has been significant consensus but also a thorough exchange of views. I hope that progress arises out of today's Opposition day. The final motion is about gender-responsive budgeting. The motions today have been a mix: we have dealt with the downstream consequences of misogyny, tolerance of hateful attitudes towards women and tolerance of misogyny and awful behaviour, particularly among men; but we have also dealt with and discussed upstream policy interventions to stop those outcomes. The final motion is about one particular form of upstream policy intervention, which is gender-responsive budgeting. What does gender-responsive budgeting mean? In simple terms, it is making sure that all budgetary, financial and significant expenditure decisions are made, or at least analysed, through the lens of their impact on gender equality. It is important to say, first of all, that this measure is not some abstruse, left-wing preoccupation. Actually, it is normal practice. The majority of OECD countries now practise some form of gender-responsive budgeting. It is also important to say that gender-responsive budgeting can feel a little bit like a relatively abstruse, slightly academic framework that interests people who pay attention to and look closely at the detail of public expenditure or those of us who serve on the Finance Committee and take a close interest in these things. Actually, it is about the delivery of the most urgent policy priorities that our society faces, that Stormont confronts and that our people want delivery on. Childcare, the health service, economic inactivity and crime all have vastly differential gender impacts that, bluntly, the women of Northern Ireland deal with every day. They deal with the differential consequences of policy priorities and policy delivery that have not properly prioritised them and their needs. We know, for example, that, disproportionately and historically, the burden of caring responsibilities, whether for children, elderly parents or disabled family members, has fallen and still falls on women. We know that the consequences of caring for career prospects, financial position and, indeed, mental health, also fall disproportionately on women. When we talk about childcare, we are talking about a gender-based issue. When looking at how we finance childcare, we are talking about an issue that should be looked at through the lens of gender-responsive budgeting. It is, however, also true to say that, in a number of specific areas, analysing policy outcomes through a gender lens will also require us to look at specific differential impacts on, for example, Protestant working-class boys. When it comes to the differential in their educational outcomes, gender-responsive budgeting would be able to uncover, analyse and unpack that. This is a hugely important development in rigorous and impactful policy development in most developed countries. I will not go through all the details, but a whole range of toolkits and frameworks has been produced by organisations such as the OECD to advise countries that wish to pursue gender-responsive budgeting. It is also true that the UK, of which we are a devolved part, is an outlier, in that it has not pursued it. Gender-responsive budgeting is pursued in Scotland in a devolved context. We think that this is a hugely important way in which we can improve how we address the gender inequality in our public policy outcomes. We also think, as our motion says, that the Executive should introduce this promptly. It may not be possible to do it for the 2025-26 financial year, but we hope to hear from the Finance Minister about how she wants to make progress. We have many concerns, to be honest, about the amendment. Although I understand some of what the amendment seeks to do, it also seems to seek to negate the motion entirely.

Gender-responsive budgeting presents a hugely important opportunity for us —

— to address significant gender inequality across a whole range of policy outcomes. We commend the motion to the House and look forward to a constructive debate.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:50 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