Comments about the gender equality bill by The Times correspondent I.M. Beck last Saturday drew an angry reaction from MPs from both sides of the House yesterday.

Nationalist MP Dolores Cristina said Beck had effectively called the bill "rubbish" but had shown he did not know what it was about.

Labour MP Helena Dalli said that the fact that Beck was a well known industrial relations lawyer underlined the need she had insisted upon earlier in the debate for people appointed to the equality commission and the industrial tribunal to be well aware of gender issues.

I.M. Beck wrote last Saturday:

"A new law is being discussed in the House. The law will provide for gender mainstreaming, ensure positive action in defence of inherent rights of positive enhancement of self-awareness, eliminate psychological imbalances in the psyche of the perceived abused and provide a warm cup of milk in the morning.

"In other words, it aims at outlawing discrimination against women.

"It seems that it is holy writ that just because your chromosomes are arranged just so, you need the full force of the law to get you somewhere. Ability, competence, skill and intelligence are irrelevant. You are female and therefore, because the male of the species has dominated for years, you have to be helped.

"Cow dung, if I might make so bold. If you are good, you get ahead, if you are not, you don't and there's an end to it. I work in two professions (well, I enjoy myself in this one and work at the other one) and in both the genetic arrangement of the individuals concerned in neither here nor there.

"Why should things be different in other areas?

"And why should the presumption of innocence be thrown out of the window in the matter of discrimination, may I ask? Is everybody to be held hostage to anyone who might be inclined to make an allegation?"

Ms Cristina said the article lacked sensitivity. I.M. Beck was, through his article, calling the bill "rubbish" and no one had a right to do so. He was even "vile" enough to speak of "perceived abuse."

What he had written showed that he did not know what the bill said and he did not know the meaning of positive action and perceived abuse.

She said that positive action in terms of this bill did not mean handouts for women to move forward. The people concerned had to show ability, competence and intelligence.

The bill only said that nothing shall be deemed to constitute discrimination in so far as such treatment "was given to grant special protection to women during childbirth or pregnancy" or it "constitutes measures for the purpose of achieving substantive equality for men and women."

This concept of positive action was not being invented by Maltese women. It could also be found in the United Nations Convention on discrimination against women, which spoke on positive action to balance out mistakes of the past whose consequences were still being felt.

It was positive action not to allow maternity to be used by those who wanted to exploit women or sideline their potential, Mrs Cristina said. Nowhere did the bill provide for assistance to anybody who was not suitably qualified.

Mrs Dalli said she wanted to associate herself with Mrs Cristina in her criticism of I.M. Beck, who, she said, everybody knew was Dr Borg Cardona, a lawyer specialising in industrial law. Dr Borg Cardona, she said, could one day be defending employers in Industrial Tribunal cases instituted in terms of this bill by employees, in most cases female. One could just imagine the employee's chances with Dr Borg Cardona having such a frame of mind. His article showed that he did not know what the real situation was.

It was for this reason that in her speech she had insisted that people appointed to the Equality Commission and the tribunal should have a track record of gender awareness.

Mrs Dalli said that Mrs Cristina and herself had a good sense of humour but they did not view his remarks as humorous.

Earlier in the debate, Labour MP Evarist Bartolo said that unfortunately, when the economic situation deteriorated, gender equality often suffered as well.

Since October 1998, at least 58 factories from all sectors of manufacturing industry had closed down. Had anyone analysed the reason for these closures? In a year up to last September, the gainfully occupied had dropped by 1,484. The unemployed included 3,289, or 44 per cent, who were aged under 30. Men and women in this age group shared the same characteristic - they lacked skills and their employment was therefore difficult. It was not this gender equality which society wanted.

The fact that the government had abandoned vocational training for years meant there was now a mismatch with what industry needed. Indeed MCAST was still not offering enough places for those wishing to follow its courses.

The problem existed also in the primary schools sector. In Gozo, only a third of Gozitan boys passed the Junior Lyceum exam. The problem, though less serious, existed with regard to nine-year-old boys in Malta as well. Indeed, boys were falling back even in practically every sector of education. This was as bad as when it was the girls who were lagging. Indeed, girls needed to have greater exposure to science and information technology.

Every study conducted so far showed a parallel between the performance of primary school students and success later on in life.

Mrs Cristina said the bill was necessary because all research showed that inequality was real and not perceived. Even in the US, very few women were in senior positions.

In Malta, women had had the right to stand for election for 50 years, yet very few were doing so. That was not because they were not interested, but because there was always "a but." Although there was equality on paper, the situation was far from equal.

The same applied to the medical profession. Although the number of female doctors was growing, few were consultants even though they were competent, even more than their male counterparts in certain instances.

One had to ensure, Ms Cristina said, that money being invested in women was not lost along the way.

Mrs Cristina said the government was following a gender mainstreaming policy. This was not an EU concept but a concept promoted by the UN which governments were being encouraged to adopt. This was what the Maltese government was doing.

Gender mainstreaming meant that female issues were now on the country's general agenda. Every policy and decision had to be considered both from the male and female perspective.

The bill was aimed at removing discrimination. A worrying matter was how some recruitment boards asked women whether they planned to get pregnant, which was unacceptable.

This bill was also protecting women who worked in family businesses. Too many of them were ending up empty handed.

Women were being given new rights which should be accompanied by an educational campaign.

Women, she said, had to be given easier access to facilities to start their own business. Bank loans were currently denied to women just because they were women.

The bill was also strong on sexual harassment, particularly on the obligations it imposed on employers. However it would not be enough for trade unions to insist on a harassment free environment. They had to ensure that their members knew where they could seek redress when they had complaints and how they could ensure that their employers gave them the protection they were entitled for.

She suggested the setting up of an Equal Opportunities Tribunal which would not be there just for gender discrimination but for any discrimination, be it race, culture, sexual orientation or other.

Mrs Cristina said that in separation cases, wives should be entitled to part of their husband's pension.

The Nationalist MP called for the appointment of more women on public boards and commissions and a proper structure for childcare centres.

However, she disagreed with a Women in Business article in the Sunday Times of October 27, which stated that childcare should ideally be provided by the state. This was not the case in any country, she said, adding that this was a sector which created a lot of work for women and women cooperatives.

The state, Ms Cristina said, should regulate the facilities and not provide them.

Other speakers will be reported in another issue.