Debate contribution: Gender-responsive Budgeting
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 14 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Gender-responsive Budgeting
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4736802
Read the official Assembly record
Text
It is very clear that part of our role is to create a balance and end the inequalities that lie within our societies. It is incumbent on every one of us to work to that end and achieve something in our time here, no matter how short that might be for some. It is very important that there are Ministers who take that on board, individually and collectively, as an Executive, but so should the Assembly. In my time here, since 2010, there have been opportunities, through the legislative process, to make changes, and there have been times when changes have been made, sometimes dragging a Department to a place. Examples of that include the laws on upskirting and downblousing; the child aggravator clause in the domestic violence legislation, which the Department did not want to touch; the stalking laws that I pushed so hard for; and, of course, the child protection disclosure scheme that I got included in one of the Justice Acts a long time ago. That seems like an age ago. There are opportunities for us to make a difference in this place, and each MLA should value their place in the Assembly because they, individually, can make a change. Do not leave it to the Executive or individual Ministers: MLAs can make changes.
Yes.
At risk of there being consensus, I agree totally with the Member. It is easy to rhyme off phrases like "gender-responsive budgeting" — does it not sound so great? — but why are we not doing it already? We have something in this place that is unique, namely section 75. Surely, gender-responsive budgeting is covered in that, so why is it not being done in practice? That is the question, and it is a valid one. If we had a Budget that was aligned to a Programme for Government that had gender-responsive budgeting as one of its key objectives, the Budget would fund the Programme for Government and we would get outcomes.
It is OK to speak in fluffy terms, but what about outcomes? This place does not look at outcomes nearly enough, so it is about time that it did. That is why I am glad that the Minister for Communities is looking at a gender equality strategy. There will be opportunities in this term. Let us see all MLAs table amendments to the employment rights Bill to help create equalities.
One of the biggest pieces of work that we have done since we returned is on the childcare strategy. I am glad to say that that strategy comes from my party. It enables women to go back to work and afford childcare. It is one of the greatest examples in this term of something that will lead to equalities. I applaud Ministers for their endeavours and hope that the Assembly will be able to make real changes and a real difference in the term ahead.
485 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 (0.86).
- 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 | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.86 | 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 | 0.61 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.39 |
| 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 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.