Opposition Business – in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 3:45 pm on 14 January 2025.
I beg to move
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 2025-26 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.
The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have five minutes to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that eight minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Matthew, please open the debate.
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 —
Can the Member draw his remarks to a close, please?
— 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.
I beg to move the following amendment:
Leave out all after "recognises" and insert: "the importance of addressing systemic inequalities in our society by enhancing the effectiveness and scrutiny of public expenditure; 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; welcomes, however, the ongoing development of a gender equality strategy by the Department for Communities in conjunction with affected stakeholders; further welcomes progress in introducing gender pay reporting by employers in Northern Ireland by the end of this Assembly mandate; and calls on the Minister of Finance, having first consulted with Executive colleagues, to consider the merits of introducing gender-responsive budgeting measures, including 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 gender equality."
Diane, you will have five minutes to propose the amendment and three minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have three minutes.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to recognise the importance of addressing systemic inequalities in our society, including in respect of gender. I thank the Opposition for tabling the motion. DUP Ministers have recognised those inequalities and taken actions to date. The Communities Minister, Gordon Lyons, has paved the way for gender pay reporting to be operationalised as part of the employment Bill that is coming from the Department for the Economy. In Education, Paul Givan's childcare subsidy scheme is benefiting many female parents who would otherwise struggle to return to or stay in the labour market, which was mentioned by the leader of the Opposition.
Our Budget process is one way in which we can enable better-informed decision-making with respect to the impact of policy and spending on gender inequalities in the workplace, at home or in society more generally. My party does not see a need for there to be separate budgets for men and women in order to make that happen. However, there is clear merit in seeking to improve the evidence base that is available to Ministers and the Executive as a whole when agreeing allocations. That can, of course, extend to examining whether previous decisions have had positive or negative gender impacts. Our amendment seeks to introduce that improvement.
As a member of the Finance Committee, I know, as do many others in the Chamber, that the Northern Ireland Budget process has much room for improvement, with inconsistencies in reporting and the lack of completion of key procedural documents from Departments. My party is concerned about the motion's introduction of further procedural requirements to the 2025-26 process at this time. Departments should be encouraged to bring forward information that examines the gender impact of their budget proposals to support fairer, better-informed and more impactful budget decisions. That must not, however, be to the detriment of existing equality assessment and screening that is carried out in the context of the section 75 processes. Ultimately, if the Executive are to go down the route of gender budgeting pilots or practice, that will require a joined-up approach from senior civil servants with policy and finance responsibilities.
We need to look at others and learn from their experiences. Worryingly, in 2021, the gender equality strategy expert advisory panel that was commissioned by the Department for Communities indicated that the Civil Service locally lacked the competence and capacity to deliver on the aims through the existing section 75 process. That illustrates the challenges ahead. It would be wrong, therefore, to rush or set artificial deadlines for scoping that out. The Scottish gender budgeting pilot was evaluated by the OECD, which reported formally in July 2024. It underlined a range of challenges to implementing gender budgeting that are relevant to the situation here in Northern Ireland, not least the need for significant investment, upskilling, additional staff headcount, potentially, and tensions between some Departments in the way in which they tackle cross-cutting gender goals. Therefore, it is important that Northern Ireland takes stock of experiences elsewhere in order to ensure that any changes that are brought forward provide tangible improvements in promoting gender equality in our society.
The proposer mentioned the OECD. In 2023, it reported that 32% of countries that currently operate gender budgeting rarely use the evidence that is collected in policy and decision-making. We should not seek to replicate that precedent. Therefore, while my party understands the motion's sentiment, it is crucial that any reforms are evidence-based and command widespread support from politicians, Ministers and civil servants. A whole-of-government approach is essential. The co-design and co-development of a gender equality strategy for the Executive will be the best vehicle to take forward those proposals. DUP Ministers are committed to continuing that work in this mandate. Our amendment seeks to secure support across the Executive to bring that forward. I commend the amendment to the House.
Thank you very much, indeed.
I support the motion and commend those who brought it to the House. In welcoming the motion, I must mention the work that my party's Minister Caoimhe Archibald has already done on the issue. We know that it is vital that policies have regard to the entire population. Our society across the North is not a homogenous group, and creating policy by reference to only one group ultimately means that people will be excluded. On the contrary, when you consider the specific needs of different demographics in society, you will ultimately have a more inclusive society with more access to public services and a Budget that works better for people. Dr Archibald has reflected that in her work on this thus far.
We know that gender-responsive budgeting — taking account of the specific challenges that women face, such as unpaid care and the health issues that they have to deal with — allows for a more productive workforce and more efficiencies in our public services. It is better all round. I commend the motion to the House and urge Members to support it, and I thank the Minister for her work on this.
I thank the Opposition for tabling the motion. Recognition of gender-responsive budgeting is a vital tool in addressing systemic gender inequalities. Gender-responsive budgeting, as explained by the UK Women's Budget Group, is a way of analysing the Budget for its effects on gender equality. It aims to increase focus on assessing the impacts of spending and revenue-raising decisions on gender equality and adopt practices that can bring about equality between men and women. The approach raises awareness of the different impacts that publicly funded policies and programmes have on women and men at all levels of government. That strategy assesses the impact of government budgets and policies while striving to achieve social and economic gender equality. At its core, gender budgeting leverages fiscal policy and administrative procedures to address gender inequalities and promote the social and economic development of women.
In Northern Ireland, the statistics are stark. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency found that 67·9% of women are in part-time employment and that about 31% of working-age women are economically inactive, often due to caring or family commitments. In contrast, the main reason why men are economically inactive is sickness. Northern Ireland has the highest rate of economic inactivity among women in the UK, yet we lack a comprehensive childcare strategy to support women returning to work. The Good Friday Agreement committed to improving women's public life and promoting equality of opportunity between men and women. However, section 75, which is open to interpretation by the Executive and each Department, does not guarantee equality in social and economic development.
Despite being one of nine grounds considered in a Budget, gender equality remains elusive, and deeply embedded inequalities persist. To move towards gender budgeting, our Departments must collect gender-disaggregated data to develop evidence-based policies. Stormont has the institutional and legal architecture to implement that, yet none of the Departments practises gender budgeting freely and willingly.
I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate that the Member was not here in the previous mandate — I absolutely agree with what she is saying — but, as part of International Women's Day on 8 March 2021, the Assembly, endorsing a motion from the Women's Caucus, identified that we need to have a gender-sensitive Parliament. Part of that would be the budgeting process. I absolutely concur with her. We have already decided that: all parties agreed to it.
The Member has an extra minute.
I thank the Member for the intervention.
Gender-responsive budgeting requires collective engagement and consultation. By introducing comprehensive gender-responsive budgeting measures for the 2025-26 Budget, including thorough gender-impact assessments, proactive resource allocation and transparent monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, we can make significant strides towards gender equality. I will support the amendment to the motion.
I also support the motion. I do not wish to use the brief time that I have to speak about points that have already been made, but there are, broadly, three points on why gender-responsive budgeting is helpful and how it would fit into wider equality work.
First, despite significant strides in some cases, there are identifiable areas where we, in Northern Ireland, are further from gender equality than neighbouring jurisdictions. The most obvious of those, which we, of course, hope to tackle effectively as a priority in the Programme for Government and in the Executive Office, is that the scale of violence against women and girls here is considerably worse than in comparable places. Another is the lower rate of participation in the workforce among females, particularly at and after middle age, where there is a marked discrepancy between Northern Ireland and neighbouring jurisdictions. There are, of course, other areas.
Secondly, tied to that, there is the absence of a single equality Act in Northern Ireland. That, of course, brings us to the work of the Committee for the Executive Office, which is coming to the end of its inquiry into gaps in equality legislation. There seems to be no doubt that one area of investigation should be into whether equality impact assessments should include gender-responsive budgeting and, potentially, gender equality action plans. It would also be necessary to improve our data gathering to ensure that such assessments can be carried out effectively and with purpose.
Thirdly, there is a question about how we ensure that equality and fairness are embedded in policy in the first place. That is not just about equality in a rebalancing sense. Some of you will be aware of the Swedish example that is cited in the work of Caroline Criado Perez, where it was found that policies and practices that were put in place by committees that were dominated by men had led to snow clearing taking place on roads that were used predominantly by men, often ring roads and roads that led to factories and offices. However, roads that were more commonly used by women, notably roads to schools and care centres, were not prioritised. Footpaths and cycle paths were cleared last. That led to a scenario in which 69% of those injured in winter pedestrian accidents on Swedish roads were women because of the roads that they commonly used. Bear in mind that the roads to the locations that women were likely to want to access were not prioritised for snow clearance and the fact that they were less likely to have access to a car in the first place. Once the authorities switched that around, clearing footpaths and cycle paths first and leaving the ring roads to a later stage of the process, overall casualties in wintertime fell by half and the gender imbalance amongst victims disappeared. In other words, we should not just look at the dry bureaucratic process: it is about how we develop and implement policy from the outset and the practical outcomes of that policy.
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.
Will the Member give way?
Yes.
I agree with the Member. That is why the proposal in the motion is key. We can talk about change all the time, but we need to take action and not just consider doing so. For instance, if we make the change on gender-responsive budgeting, it will apply to everyone.
The Member has an extra minute.
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.
I call the Minister of Finance, who has up to 10 minutes.
Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]
I welcome the opportunity to speak about this important area.
As others have said, there is significant merit to be gained from implementing a Budget through a specific gender lens. I, too, fully recognise the potential for gender-based budgeting. It is an area that I am keen to see further advanced. Gender budgeting has the potential to ensure equal access to public services, opportunities and resources. It can be a tool that enables us to analyse and address the impact of public spending and income-generation policies on genders, identifying gaps and disparities and making adjustments to address the issues.
When women and marginalised groups have access to resources, the workforce becomes more inclusive and more productive. It leverages the untapped potential of women and ensures their active participation in the economy. It also improves policy effectiveness. By integrating a gender perspective into them, policies are better tailored to serve all segments of the population. That ensures targeted interventions in critical sectors such as maternal health, childcare and gender-based violence prevention.
Gender-sensitive policies lead to more inclusive and sustainable outcomes. Gender budgeting also creates a more equitable society by enabling public services such as education and healthcare to become more accessible and inclusive. Gender-responsive programmes target issues such as income inequality and lack of access to opportunities for women and disadvantaged groups. Empowering women economically helps lift families and communities out of poverty, contributing to reducing the overall gender pay gap and employment disparities.
We currently implement Budget policy through the lens of equality by looking at impacts on all section 75 categories. The gender impacts of Budget proposals are therefore captured as part of the equality impact screening and assessments that Departments complete as part of the Budget process.
Yes. Go ahead.
Apologies, Minister. I know that you are in full flow, but this is something that, as a former member of the Women's Caucus steering group, I think is important.
Section 75 outlines equality, but equity is the key. One of the things that gender budgeting can bring about, as you said, is equity. It can ensure that investment is made in places where people most vulnerable and need most help. When they are produced under the Equality Act, should those responsible for section 75 reports also be asked to confirm where that equity has been brought in?
I thank the Member for her point. I do not disagree with her. There is the potential for us to build on section 75 as it exists. As I will outline later, that is particularly the case for gender-based budgeting, which I have focused on since I came into office. I fully recognise the potential for gender-based budgeting, and I am keen to see more done in that area, given that it can contribute to better Budget outcomes for everyone, not just women. That is part of my aim for an improved Budget process in the future and will be part of the ongoing work on the Executive's Budget sustainability plan.
I met the NI Women's Budget Group and experts from Ulster University in May 2024 to discuss gender budgeting. My officials have continued to engage with Ulster University, most recently attending a training event for all public spending group staff in my Department. I recently agreed and published a Budget improvement plan road map. That road map includes gender budgeting as a key action, confirming my commitment to consideration of the matter for future Budget processes. I remain committed to advancing financial sustainability and, as I have just indicated, exploring gender budgeting.
Those initiatives are not just about managing our finances better; they are about building a more just and equitable society. The work that my officials are doing is crucial to the well-being and prosperity of our citizens. Equality, gender budgeting and financial sustainability are not just technical processes; they are about shaping the kind of society that we want to live in and ensuring that our financial policies reflect our values of fairness, equality and responsibility. That cannot be done quickly if we want to do it correctly. There are barriers that we face, some of which have been referred to. They include systems, metrics and practical and cultural barriers. Our current budgeting system is not set up to record budgetary data in a way that identifies gender outcomes or costs. I am hopeful that, through engagement with experts in the area, we will be able to put in place the necessary systems and processes.
There is also the matter of data collection. One of the key issues identified by the team from Ulster University is the lack of available metrics to appropriately assess the impact of policies on gender. It is imperative that we consider how best to collect the relevant data. We also need to understand how gender budgeting operates in practice by seeking pilot programmes that will help to identify the issues and benefits related to gender budgeting, and, perhaps most crucially, we need to grasp the nettle and address any scepticism about gender budgeting, fostering a gender-budgeting culture within and outside government that is driven by Ministers right through organisations.
It is my ambition that we will address those issues and, along with my Executive colleagues, consider how to put in place the building blocks for gender-based budgeting in future Budget processes. However, it is my view that we do not have to wait for that. There may be specific areas in which individual Ministers may wish to implement gender-based budgeting sooner — potentially even in 2025-26. The development of the Executive's social inclusion strategies, including the gender equality strategy, will be crucial in enhancing our gender considerations in Budgets and will help drive the long-term benefits of equal participation of women in all aspects of society.
Gender budgeting is not merely a financial exercise but can be a powerful tool for social transformation. By prioritising equality in the allocation of resources, it has the potential to strengthen economies, enhance policy impact and promote social justice. That is why I am committed to exploring gender budgeting as part of future Budget processes and bringing the matter to the Executive for consideration.
I call Phillip Brett to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Phillip, you have three minutes.
I thank the leader of the Opposition for tabling the motion. To quote his words, I will, hopefully, offer "constructive opposition" to his Opposition day debate.
I think that the entire House is united in wanting to end gender inequalities. I look at my constituency of North Belfast. Why is it that a woman born in the New Lodge, Rathcoole or Tiger's Bay has a life expectancy of eight years less than that of her counterpart who lives somewhere on the Antrim Road? Why is it that a young boy born in those communities is less likely to achieve any success at GCSE level and is condemned to a vicious circle of repeating those examinations? It is something that the House is united on.
The motion is clear. It calls on the Minister of Finance to bring forward:
"comprehensive gender-responsive budgeting measures for the 2025-26 Budget".
Does anyone in the House seriously believe that the Minister of Finance will do that? There has been no commitment to do that in the remarks that have been made by the Minister or Members from her party. It is a disservice to simply sit here, vote through the motion and pat ourselves on the back and say, "Job well done. We agreed a non-binding motion on something on which the Minister made it clear that she has given no commitment". We have proposed an amendment because agreeing a motion that tries to get the Minister to do something that, her party has made clear, she is not going to do does the House a disservice.
The leader of the Opposition, who proposed the motion, is the Chair of the Finance Committee. I have no doubt that he will hold the Minister's feet to the fire, because, today, her party will vote for a motion that it will wilfully ignore. I will leave that in the hands of the leader of the Opposition and Chair of the Finance Committee. However, Members, when we vote on the motion and pat ourselves on the back for passing a great motion —.
I thank the Member for giving way. He shares my frustration with this place voting through motions that are not acted on. I certainly intend to hold the Minister to account for the delivery of gender-responsive budgeting. She has indicated her broad support for it. The Member can take my assurance that we will hold the Finance Minister and the rest of the Executive accountable for it through our role as Opposition and my role as Chair of the Finance Committee, of which he is also a member.
I welcome that commitment. I will do so too. We will, obviously, vote for our amendment, but let the record show clearly that the Minister and her party are making commitments that they will bring forward:
"comprehensive gender-responsive budgeting measures for the 2025-26 Budget".
That Budget is currently out for consultation. I will leave it to Members to judge whether the Minister of Finance will deliver on what she is about to vote through.
I call on Sinéad McLaughlin to finish the debate. Sinéad, you have up to five minutes.
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.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the debate.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Assembly divided:
<SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"> Ayes 28; Noes 43
AYES
Ms D Armstrong, Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mr Crawford, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Robinson
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Bradley, Ms Forsythe
NOES
Dr Archibald, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Ms Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Ms Hunter, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Ms Mulholland, Ms Á Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson
Tellers for the Noes: Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone
Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
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 2025-26 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.