Buoyant from his recent rehabilitation into the Government's mainstream, John Dalli makes it clear he still has some old scores to settle.

How have the past three years been for you?

Hard and difficult for me and my family. It was hard to accept that years of hard work and the substantial achievements in the Government were destroyed by a premeditated attack and media spin. It was difficult to bear the shadows cast by fraudulent stories and outrageous accusations invented and spun by people for their own gain, be it pecuniary, political or career advancement. On the other hand, they were educational because they were three years in which I could work closely with people and get first hand experience of the decisions, most of which I had taken myself. Plus, today, I think I understand better the crunch of bureaucracy on businesses and the man in the street.

And how do you feel now?

At peace. I have been insisting for the past three years that things were not done correctly. I think now there's recognition of this fact. I feel at peace with myself and with everybody else. Now I feel I can put all this behind me and look ahead at what can be done in order for me to make a full contribution to the political sphere.

Don't you feel that your appointment as a consultant, at this time, is dictated by electoral considerations on part of the Prime Minister and the Nationalist Party?

Absolutely not. I don't think so, because this was a long process.

When did discussions start?

Discussions started when I had first met the Prime Minister two years ago. So, it has been a process which took a long time, unfortunately.

Why do you think it took so long?

Because I wasn't the one who had to take the decisions. But it's not a question of the decision being taken now because it's election time.

It's still not really clear why such a decision had to take so long.

If it were up to me, the decision would have been taken three months after I resigned, but obviously the things that were done were done for certain reasons...

What do you mean?

When I resigned it was obvious. The stories that were coming out back then. The real reason was also obvious...

That is?

Joe Zahra's report.

So you're still contending that...

Not only am I still contending this, but I insist, so much so that I have now sued Simed and all those who took part in this defamation.

Fine but...

For me it was clear, perhaps it wasn't so clear to others... but I cannot answer for other people. Ask those people those sort of questions.

But you were given this appointment in relation to the air tickets affair.

No, the appointment was related to everything. If you read what the Prime Minister said, you'll find that it was based on everything. Every insinuation that was made in my regard.

The Joe Zahra report has long been regarded to be a fraud by the courts.

We knew that report was fraudulent since July 2004 but I insist that decisions were not taken back then.

So weren't you bitter that the issue dragged on needlessly?

When you reach a certain maturity you learn that you have to leave aside the bitterness. We have to look forward. I am happy today that I've been exonerated before the Maltese people. I had been exonerated a long time ago before the people but now it is formal. Now I have the possibility to present myself before the Maltese people as a person who has worked a lot for his country... who helped transform this country from an imploding Socialist state into a state that is economically active. I can keep serving the Maltese people.

What about this consultancy post you've been given. Don't you feel this is purely cosmetic? What change can you bring about in the dying months of an administration?

First of all, I'm already providing the Government with consultancy.

On what?

These are confidential matters. But that aside, it is a big mistake to view the political process and policymaking between one election and the next. The Government's policymaking is medium to long-term. Therefore, the consultancy on issues and problems that may arise are not bound by the election. There are a number of issues on which you can provide ideas on which one can later develop policy.

Do you think it will spark a comeback into the mainstream for you personally?

Comeback? I never went away really.

Sure, but you recognise that you weren't at the centre of things any longer. You were one of the most prominent ministers in the PN Cabinet before resigning...

I'm not at the centre of the decision-making process now even though I think that the effect of my input on the decision-making process will increase compared with the past three years.

You think that after the coming election you could be...

It depends on a lot of things. First of all it depends on whether the PN will win the election. It will depend on the sort of help, team and experience the Prime Minister will deem he will need to deliver his plans. In addition, there are my personal circumstances to consider. I do most of my consultancy work abroad because of the problems I mentioned earlier. Yet now, thank God, I managed to build a consultancy (business) that's doing well. So a lot depends on whether I will be in a position to delegate my work to someone else so things can keep going: otherwise I will destroy what I have managed to build over the past three years, which is a very big consideration for me.

But it's not a decision you have now?

Absolutely not, and it depends on a lot of things. But the fact remains that there is a lot of work to be done in the party... I mean in both the Government and the country. As I've always been, I want to be the objective voice.

What about your prospects?

My prospects depend on what the people think. I never presented myself for an election and said I'm sure to win...

But you must have expectations?

Well, if I thought I wouldn't be elected I wouldn't contest, let's put it like that. I am offering people my services. I believe I have a lot to offer but ultimately they have to decide.

And what's the feedback?

The feedback is positive as it was before... but in the past weeks it has been a little more positive than it was before.

Do you still feel that the PN is detached from the people?

Since I made those statements I think the party has taken a number of steps to come closer to the people.

I think the Budget was one of those measures. There was a better understanding of the people's situation. Then there's the issue of the alternative. The alternative is a Labour government, run by a person who was not able to hold together a Government and whose decisions... all the decisions he took over the past years were wrong, and wrong on his own admission, since he always ended up accepting the alternative position. So what choice is there really? But beyond a negative analysis, from a positive perspective, the Nationalist Government is the one that delivered, and that will determine that the PN will again be in Government.

If the party loses the election, though, will you be interested in the leadership?

First of all there needs to be a contest for the leadership. (Lawrence) Gonzi has been there for four years and one would have to see. Secondly, I would say I have the same consideration as the first time...

So you don't exclude it then?

It's not a question of excluding or including. If I had to decide today I would not contest but it doesn't mean that certain circumstances cannot change in the future. Nobody knows what will happen in the future. If someone asked me to take on the party's leadership today, I would say that I am not in a position to do so...

But if the PN loses the next election it could be a possibility...

It could, but again, when is this election going to be held? So, as I explained, there are a number of circumstances which one would have to consider. But the position now is that I am absolutely not interested.

So, in the discussions between you and Dr Gonzi, there wasn't any talk of the sort.

Absolutely not, there was absolutely no condition.

Why do you think it took the Auditor General so long to produce this report?

I have no idea. It's a report that should not have taken more than a few months. The fact that it took so long is beyond me. If I try to extrapolate the reason, I won't be talking about facts. I don't know.

Do you suspect ulterior motives?

If I have suspicions of wrongdoing in someone, should I go and splash it in the papers if I don't have any facts in hand? I don't think it would be ethical. I would be doing as they did to me.

What are the report's findings with regard to the air tickets issue?

We'll know the findings of the report once these have been published. But the Auditor General spoke about the report in the press and with the Prime Minister.

So you know what is known in public. Nothing more, nothing less...

Nothing more, plus I was given an inkling by, of all people, a member of the Opposition. How they get this sort of information I don't know, but...

Who told you privately...

He told me privately that the report had been ready a while ago and that...

Who is this?

I can't say. He said that the report had been completed a while ago and that there was nothing in it that could cast a shadow on me.

When did he tell you?

He told me at the start of the year. This more or less emerged in the press last July from what the Auditor General was reported as saying, and I know he confirmed this to the Prime Minister. That is all I know.

The Auditor General's investigations look at the legal aspect of the matter. While this report may exonerate you legally, the issue was always a political one - whether it is acceptable for a minister to buy air tickets from a company in which relatives of his have an interest.

It's not the case. My family does not have an interest in the company from where (the foreign ministry) bought air tickets. This is a completely wrong concept.

Your daughters have a shareholding in a company which in turn owns...

No, no, it's not the case. Absolutely. This is the way the spin was done and it was all spin.

Spin, with what goal?

To create a diversion from the real fact, which was that the person behind this spin had Joe Zahra's report in hand.

Are you referring to the Prime Minister?

No, I'm referring to the people who were with him. I'm referring to (then Dr Gonzi's Communications Co-ordinator) Alan Camilleri who gave the spin to Steve Mallia (who at the time was a journalist with The Times)... and (Where's Everybody? journalist) Lou Bondi. That's what happened...

And the Prime Minister had nothing to do with this?

Only the Prime Minister knows what he had to do with it, but Alan Camilleri can answer these things, as can Mr Mallia, who used to work with Mr Camilleri back then... The idea given to people back then was that my children were shareholders in the company. Even though they didn't say that, that's what people understood.

The story was quite clear, I don't have the exact text with me but...

The story was that my children's company and the company that used to supply the quotations for the air tickets were separate...

So what was the relationship?

There was company X (Gauci Borda Shipping Ltd in which Mr Dalli's daughters were shareholders) in which company Y (Tourist Resources Ltd which sold air tickets to Mr Dalli's ministry) had a shareholding. But company X had nothing to do with air ticketing. It had nothing to do with air ticketing and never had any Government contract.

So why didn't you sue for libel then?

How can you sue for libel? Those were the facts. You know libel law.

Yes, but the implication was always that...

Yes, but the way they used it in their spin were the real facts...

It's not a question of spin. This is black and white, not spin.

That's not how it was; it was that Tourist Resources Ltd (TRL) had a shareholding in this company (the one owned by his daughters) and not the other way round.

But people, as you seem to be understanding now, understood it the other way round and said it was untenable for that reason. The truth is that there was nothing wrong. No money ever went from TRL to Gauci Borda Shipping Ltd.

That's why it was spin and was understood wrongly. These were diversionary tactics to hide where the real attack was coming from and the real attack was coming from Joe Zahra and his report. That was Alan Camilleri's spin.

You're accusing the former secretary of the Prime Minister...

Not secretary...

Yes but...

He could have been working of his own accord.

And the Prime Minister knew nothing about this.

The Prime Minister, they may have squeezed him as well, but the interest was there.

If they had the Joe Zahra report...

It beats me why it wasn't shown to me.

And why didn't they come out with this report?

I have no idea.

Why come up with a separate story?

I have no idea.

Yes, but you're the one working on this thesis.

I am working on this thesis. I wasn't even shown the report. Is it normal that I am not shown a report even to be given a chance to defend myself?

So, if the Prime Minister had nothing to do with this, how do you explain that he is still insisting that the air tickets issue led to your resignation?

The Prime Minister, today, I continue to believe, acted in good faith. That is what I want to think.

Yes, but the Prime Minister is still insisting that it was the air tickets...

Ask the Prime Minister.

Fine, but if you're saying he acted in good faith...

I am stating the facts. Someone with a certain amount of intelligence should evaluate the facts and decide for himself without having to act as the judge myself. I think you have enough; I don't think we have to keep repeating and going round in circles. Those are the facts, there is the Joe Zahra report and after the Joe Zahra report there is nothing left.

Of course there is. The Prime Minister is still insisting that you resigned because of the air tickets issue.

The Prime Minister is saying that even on this issue he is convinced that there is nothing.

And that is why you were were appointed as a consultant and not because of the Joe Zahra issue.

Whatever, whether it's because of Joe Zahra or not, the fact is I was exonerated from everything. That's what's important and there is nothing left hanging.