There were no walkouts and no immediate inflammatory accusations in the wake of Friday’s meeting of the Malta Council for Social and Economic Development – a positive sign that the country’s social partners – the government, unions and business representative bodies alike – sat down and discussed an issue as sensitive as the rising costs of living and of doing business in a productive environment.

What we had was an agreement to wait until March for a government report on inflation, after which compensation as requested for the price hikes, if any, would be given out.

But then again the failure of serious controversy to raise its head after Friday’s meeting could be put down to the fact that the extent of the inflationary threats the country and much of the world are facing has not really yet hit home.

Of course, the unions and employers both have their points in that their members are facing serious hardships, as does the government, in that a good chunk of the inflation on the products in question is, at least mainly, imported in nature. That is, however, not to say there is not also an element of government-induced element to the price hikes.

Surprisingly, or perhaps diplomatically would be a better word, the government did not immediately veto a request from unions for compensation to make good for at least a portion of the price hikes. The government effectively said it would consider the request but that no one should take it as a given that they would be made.

That report should make for interesting reading, and debate, once it is published.

Now whether the recently announced price hikes in gas and fuel the MCESD sat down to discuss are cases of imported or domestically-induced inflation, the powers-that-be have a duty to the electorate to present a clear picture of the situation, and to strive for solutions, if any are indeed possible, around a common table and with one common denominator – the impact on consumers and businesses.

Three weeks ago we had pointed out there were strong indications that such price hikes were envisaged for early 2011 as a result of this winter’s low temperatures in much of Europe and the US that were seen pushing oil and gas prices up, while droughts and floods in Australia, Russia and Pakistan decimated grain yields and in the process threatened to push food prices ever higher.

Today we report a stern warning from the United Nations’ food agency that after fuel and gas, food prices appear to be next in line for upward revisions in prices.

“Rising prices are re-emerging as a threat to global growth and social stability,” warns World Bank president Robert Zoellick, while Abdolreza Abbassian, senior economist at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation adds the warning that, “The world faces a food price shock”, and that spikes being witnessed could lead, if prolonged, to a food crisis.

True, weather events are raising commodity prices the world over but Malta, which is 100 per cent reliant on the importation of such commodities, is hit even more so – being entirely at the mercy of international markets as it is.

That much is indisputable and there is not much this government or any other government in a similar position can do about it. But, on the other hand, if there is any government-induced element in the price hikes – such as in the case of the premature removal of the government subsidy on gas or, as the Opposition pointed out after the meeting, that the government had increased the excise duty on fuel in October – those would have to be addressed immediately so as to cushion the blow to consumers and business.

The public’s right to correct information on the reasons behind the price hikes as well as the forecast for at least the near future, minus the usual spin, is paramount − more confusion will lead to further uncertainty, which serves no public nor economic good whatsoever.

Public sentiment when it comes to where workers’ hard-earned euros are going must not be used as a vehicle for political mileage – the people must be treated as the thinking individuals they are, anything short of that constitutes a disservice to the public at large – a charge both parties have been guilty of in the past.

At the end of the day, consumers have a right to know what they will be paying and why they are paying as much as they are for essential commodities. And no spate of tit-for-tat as we are already engaged in will serve that purpose − it will only serve to further obfuscate the entire issue.

Much will be awaited come March but unions and the public at large should not be holding their breath for any really significant compensation. The public coffers are stretched close to breaking point and it is highly questionable how much it will be able to spare, save perhaps rolling back any government-induced cost that is uncovered.