Debate contribution: Gender-responsive Budgeting

Debate contribution by Ms Sinéad McLaughlin on 14 January 2025.

MLA

Ms Sinéad McLaughlin

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 4736846

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank all those who contributed to the debate. The contributions have clearly illustrated that gender-responsive budgeting has a long way to go. In the Good Friday Agreement, a commitment was made to the full and equal participation of women in public life. More than a quarter of a century later, we cannot credibly say that that has been achieved in our society. Women still face systemic barriers to fulfilling their potential not just in public life but in our workplaces, in our communities and across all sections of society. Government policy has not recognised the impact of failing to put gender-responsive budgeting at the heart of government. Being gender-blind in budgeting has led to the gender pay gap; more women and children moving into poverty in Northern Ireland; the lack of an anti-poverty strategy; the fact that one third of women here are economically inactive; poor women's health outcomes; the lack of a healthcare strategy for women; the fact that women undertake 60% of unpaid caring responsibilities; the lack of a coherent and responsive childcare strategy; an epidemic of violence against women and girls; and high levels of maternal mental health problems. That list is not exhaustive, and none of the above happened by accident. It all happened by design through the failure to recognise the gender policy gaps and the lack of urgency to prioritise gender policy, including responsive budgeting and investment. All those challenges are surmountable, but reversing those inequalities will take deliberate design and a focused effort from the Executive. Gender-responsive budgeting has taken root in over 80 countries, and almost half of OECD countries are planning or actively considering gender-budgeting tools. Those countries recognise that budgets are never neutral and that the way that we allocate our resources has vastly different outcomes for men and women. Research by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust identified that the architecture to provide for gender-responsive budgeting may exist but pointed to the lack of a:

"high-level commitment from the NI Executive to commit to gender budgeting, which would effectively enable it to be progressed."

The researchers recommended:

"a specific commitment to gender budgeting in the ... Programme for Government".

Of course, we know that no such commitment was included. Today's motion is an opportunity for the Minister of Finance to commit to putting that right. I welcome the Minister's positive remarks and her commitment to that process. In the debate, Members referred to equality impact assessments and the new gender equality strategy, but we know from the Communities Minister that the timings of that strategy's development are still vague and undetermined.

We also know that section 75 exercises are simply insufficient. Unfortunately, they too often represent a tick-box exercise and happen too late in the decision-making process.

Let us be clear: none of the above is a gender-responsive approach to budgeting, and to think that are of them is is to not understand the concept. Gender budgeting starts from the very start of the design of policies, initiatives and plans. The DUP amendment is not acceptable, as it waters down our motion and confuses the policy intent. We also need the architecture to be fit for purpose — that point was well made by Diana Armstrong and Paula Bradshaw — because we need the right data. As chair of the all-party group on UNSCR 1325, women, peace and security, I have been told time and time again that the right data does not exist. On that note, I commend Alex Brennan from the Northern Ireland Women's Budget Group for her work, engagement and clarity in shining a light on gender budgeting. In conclusion, gender-responsive budgeting can address inequalities, improve effectiveness and enhance public scrutiny. Gender budgeting should have started here a long time ago, and the failure to introduce it earlier is a significant missed opportunity. I accept that it will be challenging to put that right in the 2025-26 Budget. However, introducing it and starting a gender-responsive approach to next year's Budget can only be a useful tool in improving equity and efficiency. It can also be a powerful signal of intent from this place that we take gender equality seriously. It is time to put our money where our mouth is.

709 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