In the aftermath of the publication of the Egrant inquiry findings, Nationalist Party leader Adrian Delia had arguably his longest week in politics so far. While he initially called on his predecessor Simon Busuttil to suspend himself in a bid to boost the party’s credibility, eight days later he had to soften his stance amid growing resistance in the parliamentary group and fears of a split. Keith Micallef spoke to Dr Delia who insisted this was not a U-turn.

Would you agree that your decision to remove Simon Busuttil from the parliamentary group was premature, given that you have now gone back on it?

This was an issue of national importance which played a prominent part in the last election campaign whose outcome was a heavy defeat for the Nationalist Party. There is nothing in the 1,500 pages of the Egrant inquiry report, which has not been published so far in its entirety, which may alter its crystal-clear conclusions.

My decision was taken in view of the fact that this issue dealt with the party’s credibility, our insistence last year to wait for the outcome of the inquiry before a general election is called, and our complete trust in Magistrate Aaron Bugeja.

Politically, the party had to take a decision and draw a line in order to be able to move ahead, at a time when there are much more pressing issues to focus on, including other corruption cases. But we need to be credible first to raise these issues.

I reiterate that the call on Dr Busuttil to suspend himself was not taken in haste. If the Prime Minister celebrated the fact that he was not the owner of a secret Panama company, he was at the same time condemning the owners of Tillgate and Hearnville.

I also asked for the full report to be published and will take the Attorney General to court on the grounds that he is perpetrating political bias by refusing to hand the PN a copy.

You insist you did not act in haste but after eight days a decision was taken to revoke the call for Dr Busuttil’s suspension. You are now being accused, even by the Labour Party, of being weak.

Labour has obviously tried to drive a wedge which is part of the political game. However, I did not backtrack from any decision. I decided to remove the good governance portfolio from Dr Busuttil as I believed that the party’s fight against corruption should not be hindered. I would have wished that Dr Busuttil could have kept focusing on the three remaining pending inquiries. I did not retire from my position but decided not to forge ahead with my call, which Dr Busuttil did not accept, and decided to take no further action in the party’s interest.

On the other hand Joseph Muscat did nothing of the sort. Rather than focus on the Opposition, the spotlight should be on the Prime Minister’s celebrations for having been absolved by the Egrant inquiry, while doing absolutely nothing on others who have secret companies. Labour is seeking to fuel internal rifts within the PN, to divert attention from its own misdoings. Those are the real questions people should ask.

After years building up our reputation in the financial services industry, we are now seeing institutions like the European Banking Authority issuing damning reports on Malta. Rather than take action the government is attacking the EBA. This highlights the differences between the parties. We are taking action, and calling spade a spade, and are committed to shoulder political responsibility.

But your leadership has been seriously questioned, after a number of MPs publicly came out against your call on Dr Busuttil to suspend himself.

That’s a democracy. We are the party who believes in freedom of expression.

But it is embarrassing for any leader to have to face what was a rebellion within the parliamentary group.

It is definitely not the ideal scenario as that would have meant having everybody in agreement. However, a number of MPs believed I should not go further, and that’s what I did.

Don’t you think this is a sign of weak leadership?

If the Prime Minister celebrated the fact that he was not the owner of a secret Panama company, he was at the same time condemning the owners of Tillgate and Hearnville

Absolutely not. I took a decision which I weighed well and stuck to it. While nobody contested the decision to remove the good governance portfolio, there were those who wished that I do not forge ahead on the issue of the suspension. At that stage, I had not yet decided that I wanted to go further. Following a period of reflection I took a stand.

The decision showed that I am not a hard-headed person, that this was not something personal, and that my interest was to unite the party, as my aim was not to focus on internal matters but to expose crucial issues for the country. Why is it that nobody wants to talk about political responsibility? I will keep working to strengthen the party and convince people.

Do you agree with the Prime Minister’s suggestion that the Egrant affair was a frame-up by Busuttil and others?

As in the Egrant case, when I had said I would only pronounce myself on the basis of facts, it is now up to the Prime Minister to substantiate that claim. He is obliged to produce evidence to back his frame-up allegation. While Dr Muscat had challenged Dr Busuttil to resign if the Egrant claims turn out to be untrue, the Prime Minister must shoulder responsibility if it transpires that this was not a frame-up.

But what is your opinion on the matter?

To think that Dr Busuttil would commit a frame-up is something beyond the realm of possibility. It would be preposterous. I know him as a person of integrity.

What would you do if the other magisterial inquiries find evidence of wrongdoing by Keith Schembri and Konrad Mizzi?

Obviously, that would mean that people would have to be prosecuted and shoulder criminal responsibility. However, there is also the issue of political responsibility which has to be shouldered now, as it has already been established that they have a secret company by their own admission. The inquiry will only serve to determine if there should also be criminal responsibility.

Don’t you think that taking over the good governance portfolio, especially when you already have justice, diminishes the party’s effectiveness to fight maladministration and corruption, especially given the accusations that you have had to face in the past?

It is precisely for this reason that I took on good governance as I want to prove them wrong. I am keen to show that there is nobody with my credentials when it comes to the fight against corruption. Prior to venturing into politics I was involved in football. Those who worked with me can vouch that I strove to fight against corruption despite facing threats and underhand moves which had exposed me to certain risks.

I was the only politician to sue the government on the biggest scandal ever – the €2 billion deal involving three State hospitals. This deal will have huge repercussions on the people. Only those who do not know me well might harbour doubts. This will be a good opportunity for me to showcase my zero tolerance on corruption.

What are those areas on which the party should be focusing to win back popular support, with the MEP elections looming in May?

In its final years in government the PN devoted a lot of its energies to steer the economy out of the international recession but its efforts did not trickle down to the people. In the last five years, under the Labour government, we have had a situation where poverty increased. There is no unemployment but the take-home pay is not enough. Pensions have risen but purchasing power has decreased. These are the problems which people are facing at present.

We also need to address issues on traffic which will keep growing. Investing €700 million to overhaul the existing road network will not solve the problem as there needs to be an additional infrastructure.

We also need to focus on the environment – we have one of the highest levels of pollution in the EU. We also need to increase the number of students who do not drop out of the system when they turn 16. Another issue is social housing. Where is the government planning to host the 70,000 foreign workers it intends to bring over in the next few years?

What is the PN’s policy on foreign workers and over-tourism?

We should not aim to increase arrivals any more but it is now time to make a quality leap. Having more tourists will result in the destruction of the very same characterises which they come here to visit. We need to become a destination of excellence.

What about foreign workers? Employers say they are crucial to keeping the economy running but is it sustainable for one of the most densely populated countries in the world?

Let me make it amply clear. The issue of foreign workers is not meant to foment any racial and xenophobic sentiments. We are dealing with economic growth. Our economy is not growing due to increased production levels. It is growing as a result of more consumption rather than new niches like pharmaceuticals and the gaming industry. The government’s economic strategy was to attract more people to the island which in turn boosted accommodation, catering and certain sectors of the services industry. This is no long-term solution, especially for a small country.

Do we want to become like Ibiza, Monaco, Singapore and Dubai? Does the government have a plan? The PN wants to be one of the cleanest and most environmentally friendly countries in the EU. We want to find economic niches which give added value in knowledge-based sectors of industry so that you do not need a large footprint to be productive. We must seek to get the highest return from every square metre of land. But how can Malta aim to reach this target if there are not enough teachers and no plan even in booming sectors like construction?

In the latter case, the government’s strategy was simply to relax planning laws. I have nothing against this industry but this has to be within a framework and not having permits awarded due to political connections. Is the government planning how many schools, clinics and hospitals will be required in the coming years?

The PN had embarked on a programme to construct a new school every year. What happened to this programme? What type of schools, trades, areas of specialisation are required? We need to do more to increase the female participation rate, before resorting to foreign workers.

Despite the shortcomings you have just mentioned, the Labour government seems to be going from strength to strength, with the latest surveys showing it enjoys a 100,000-vote lead. How will you be approaching the MEP elections which are less than a year away?

Surveys are always an indication on the situation on the ground and it would be imprudent to ignore them. However, the party must also listen to the man in the street. The PN suffered heavy defeats in the last five years and has been in decline for over 20 years. When last year I took control of the party, I found it in a dire political and financial situation.

We need to analyse why the PN has detached itself from the people, the areas where Labour scored success and if this was part of a strategy of instant gratification to win popularity. It’s like offering sweets to the children even though in the long-term it will harm their health. I am not saying this is the only reason Labour is doing so well but it could be one of them. I want to win people’s trust and the election by persuading them that we are doing what is best for the country.

While we teach our children to separate waste, the government is ignoring all this and dumping mixed waste at Magħtab. Is this good? We should draft a plan to convert waste to energy and make Malta more environmentally sensitive. Is it a good thing to destroy trees everywhere while taking no remedial measures? If we are already aware that fossil fuel will be phased out, does it make sense to issue so many fuel station permits each taking 4,000 square metres of land.

My priority, rather than try to score an immediate success, is to unite the party

But all this is not having an effect on the government’s popularity.

This is because we have not had enough time yet to persuade the people, and lacked the necessary resources to convey the message. We need to work harder to improve our credibility. The PN’s challenge is to convince the people it can deliver on its promises.

But the election is still four years away. We need to be more constructive in our criticism and present clearer ideas on how Malta would be better, safer and enjoy an adequate transport infrastructure. We need a country with an educational system that addresses children’s needs, and one which is less corrupt.

What are the party’s targets for the MEP election? Is the party confident of retaining its third seat won in 2014?

It’s difficult. There have been reports that the gap went from 40,000 in the election, to 60,000 when I was elected leader, 80,000 and most recently 100,000. Rather than basing myself exclusively on surveys I am working every day and wish that all the party’s candidates do likewise to reach out to the people.

We need to show them we are not the enemy, listen to their grievances and work to find a solutions. Rather than work to have a good result I want to work for unity and for the common good.

Do you consider retaining the third seat as a realistic target?

It will be very hard. However, I am the type of person who always aims high as when you lower expectations you end up doing even worse. But at the moment my yardstick is not based on numbers.

But success in politics is measured in numbers, results…

You have to understand that I have only been at the helm of the party for a year. My priority, rather than try to score an immediate success, is to unite the party. The European elections are not the general election. I prefer to focus on reconstructing the party than channel all my resources to try and achieve a result while missing the opportunity to present the party as a real, strong and cleaner alternative to the government. My target is not partisan politics but to improve the country. If we can convince the people that we are able to deliver on these promises, their lives would be better.

Does this mean that you do not believe that next year’s election will not have repercussions on your political future?

I do not think this will have to do with my future. My future is the country where I live. I have to strive to have a better Malta for my family, for the people to be happier. I believe that if I focus on that, results will come, maybe not immediately. I cannot simply focus on the results alone. My target is unity, ideas and to convince the people that we can implement them and change their lives for the better. It is only then that we would start seeing the results of our work.