The debate and search for some common ground on measures announced in the last budget continues. Essentially, this has kept two items on the front burner - the public holidays issue and the eco-contribution issue.

I believe the government has now put the issue squarely at the unions' doorstep, when it agreed that, if the trade unions can come up with an alternative that can be proven to lead to an increase in productivity, at least to the same extent as the non-addition to the annual vacation leave of public holidays that fall during the weekend, then it will take up their alternative.

Possibly for the first time in their existence, the trade unions no longer have to simply react (criticise or praise) to measures that are being taken. Now they must put forward concrete proposals on measures that can enhance the productivity of firms operating in Malta and hence their competitiveness.

They will find that it is not easy to be in the driving seat as their proposals have to take into account the various interests that they represent (some even conflicting with one another).

Putting it bluntly, the employee that works in a hotel does not care a cent about the vacation leave of the teachers or public service employees, if his job is being threatened because the hotel he works with has lost business because of a lack of competitiveness. The same thing can be said about employees in the manufacturing sector or self-employed people.

At the end of the day, a percentage of these people do not even take their full entitlement of vacation leave and so this specific measure announced in the budget is of little to no relevance to them. And, if faced with a choice between three or four days off and their job, I am sure they would choose their job.

I think the organisations representing the business sector should be put in the same position the unions have been put in. In the last budget, the government allocated a significant amount of money (running into millions) in the form of investment incentives. These cover not just the manufacturing sector but the services sector as well.

The business sector has for long been clamouring for incentives that would entice them to invest. Now that these incentives are being given, individual firms have to live up to their own and society's expectations and put their money where their mouth is.

Where does the issue of attitudes and behaviour come into all this? Essentially, there is no one in this country who does not claim that firms operating in Malta should strengthen their competitiveness in order to remain in operation, create jobs and generate wealth. Similarly, there is general agreement that the business sector should be the main motor of investment in this country and that the government should support it through incentives. This is the attitude of everyone.

However, when it comes to actual behaviour, we get a totally different picture.

Previously, the government would step in and somehow seek to create jobs and invest directly into the economy. The end result is known to all (inefficient public enterprises) and employees now have to pay for such inefficiencies. With the government unable to maintain its operating role in the economy, the day of reckoning has indeed come. The behaviour of all social partners to match their attitudes is evidenced through some of their public pronouncements. The economy does not need any more good intentions but real action, which gives life to these intentions.

We are facing a similar situation on the issue of the eco-contribution. There is an evident effort on the part of some to call it a tax. It may well be a tax. However, in effect we are finally having to pay the price for years of neglect of the environment on the part of everyone.

All will claim that the environment should be protected. Several will also claim that they are willing to pay a higher price for an environmentally friendly product. However, there are equally several persons (and even institutions) who would love this initiative to fail. Some may be even collecting the eco-tax and pocketing it, just as they do with VAT.

Last Friday's edition of Xarabank said it all. Peppi Azzopardi tried very hard to commit the representatives of various organisations, including political parties, on whether they agree with the eco-contribution. Sure enough, all gave fudged answers. These fudged answers sought somehow to score brownie points at the expense of the government.

The courage to say in no uncertain terms that the eco-contribution is a good thing or a bad thing to have was not evident. There is not yet the recognition that involvement and participation in the decision-making process of the country only reaps a benefit if one has the courage to shoulder responsibility for the decision.

The issues that we are dealing with in the aftermath of the budget (10 weeks later) are in effect related to two of the three main objectives of the 2005 budget, which is, after all, a reflection of the government's fiscal policy and the direction it wants to give the economy through this fiscal policy.

The three main objectives addressed the fiscal deficit while strengthening competitiveness, strengthening the education system and the protection of the environment. I consider this not to be a negative development as, at least, the economic debate is focussed on the priority issues.

However, debate alone is not enough. Nor is it a case of seeking to shift responsibility on to others such that one gets away scot free.

I believe that, whether the social partners like it or not, they will have to eventually agree on a social pact. If they do not do this willingly, circumstances will force them to. The time is over when we can display one attitude and adopt a behaviour that does not reflect that attitude. This applies both to the organisations that represent the business sector and to trade unions.