Friday's debate in the House of Assembly was curiously disappointing. It would have been reasonable to expect a spirited debate on an issue as fundamental as economic empowerment.

But anyone expecting that would have been let down. To be sure, there were moments of drama, but on the whole this was a curiously muted affair.

Much of the blame for that lies with the Government, which seems to be unwilling to match its words with action on the subject. To some degree, that's not surprising since this is a political minefield, but given the amount of time the Progressive Labour Party spent on the stump at the last election warning that a vote for the United Bermuda Party would put black Bermudians "back on the plantation", one would have expected the Government to have a plan.

But it does not, and as its own MP and former Minister Renee Webb said, it has done nothing about the issue during seven years in Government.

Ms Webb, of course, did not throw her weight behind the UBP either. How could you have an empowerment plan that failed to mention blacks, who have been historically disadvantaged, she asked. That same point has been made in this editorial as a potential flaw in the plan, and it was up to the Opposition to explain its position on Friday.

To some extent it did, and it shows one of the major differences between the parties on the question, at least to the extent the PLP has an informal position on the question.

Nonetheless, the UBP's position seems to be this: A Government, rather than supporting some form of "positive discrimination" that could prove to be as dangerous as the negative discrimination of the past, should guarantee equal opportunities for all in the economic field.

What's more, by making capital available to small businesses, setting aside a fixed number of Government contracts for small businesses and funding training and education, it should be possible for entrepreneurs, whether they are black, white, male or female, to get ahead without facing the kinds of barriers that are created by institutionalised discrimination.

The alternative, as proposed by Ms Webb, is more problematic. When she was Telecommunications Minister she actively sought black businessmen to give licences to, and she believes, as in the case of Pro-Active Construction and the Berkeley site, that once granted a contract, a black contractor should somehow be prevented from failing to fulfil it, regardless, apparently, of their performance.

This alternative is worse than the UBP's, and inevitably gives rise to rumours of cronyism and corruption, which whether true or not, damage the integrity of the Government. It is no coincidence that the empowerment legislation from South Africa that Ms Webb has championed has been faulted for these very reasons.

But at least Ms Webb put forward some ideas on the subject, which was more than her erstwhile Cabinet colleagues did. Finance Minister Paula Cox thought the legislation put forward by Opposition spokesman David Dodwell was "patronising", but failed to produce any better ideas.

The one suggestion she did make, that the private sector should be forced to distribute contracts more widely, was surprisingly na?ve. Why not just nationalise everything? The overall point is that Government can play a role in opening opportunities, and if the playing field is even, then people of talent and ability, regardless of their race or background, can get ahead.

But at some point, they have to stand on their own two feet and succeed on their merits. Some will fail, some will make mistakes and learn from them. And some will succeed.

But doing nothing, or engaging in "stealth empowerment programmes", cannot be the answer.