Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/863487
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 20 AUGUST 2017 15 Interview PN leader aspirant ADRIAN DELIA deflects suspicions surrounding his financial circumstances, and insists that his 'new way' will bring the party closer to its people most of them) used to give a ser- vice that they hold one share. 1%. That doesn't make him a 'business partner'. It's a service that lawyers used to provide. Why does the press insist? Do you want to know the truth? I have a 1% share, from 24 years ago, in a company that I never made a cent from. I never took any dividend... because it was a service provided as a lawyer at the time. You can argue that the connection made in that article may have been exaggerated... but not that it doesn't exist. What is my connection? You said so yourself: a 1% shareholding going back 24 years... Not with her [Simon's sister]... No, with Eucharist Bajada, her ex- husband. The reference to Simon's relative wasn't even given much importance... It made it sound as if the interest is not in who I am or what I have to offer, but in trying to concoct a story which has nothing to do with me or Simon Busuttil. [When I en- tered politics] I was prepared to be as transparent as this [glass] table. I expect to be scrutinised about eve- rything pertinent to me. But not about somebody who has nothing to do with me at all... The interest was also to know more about your business links. And not without reason. There is a public perception that politics tends to attract people with extensive business interests, precisely because political stature can 'service' the business side of things. Do you agree with the existence of this perception, at least? No, I don't. I think the perception existed that there were people who used politics to achieve something. With me, it was a case of some- one new to politics... so it certainly wasn't to achieve anything. A sec- ond perception, which tried to be created, is that I have amassed and accumulated wealth. Suddenly, that changed to 'I have indebted myself and my family with mas- sive debt'. So I don't know which of these perceptions is true. As a matter of fact, neither is. I'm a normal person who has lived my life in privacy, as a private person; not coming from a wealthy fam- ily; and everything I have, I have [achieved] on my own, with the help of the education given to me by my parents, and by a National- ist government which fought for free education and open university doors. I have purchased property, and I have sold property. I have built a firm; I have worked, earned money – legally. I have invested in a company, and that company is still there. It has properties which it has sold; and properties which remain. That company – not me – has €7 million in debt. But it also has much more in assets which are its business to sell. In a few months, that debt will be reduced substan- tially. And the remaining portfo- lio is more than enough to satisfy that debt. I'm not worried at all... I am only a 9% shareholder. And the company has enough assets to sell the properties and satisfy the debt. Not properties which have been held or grabbed by the bank because it is in distress. But be- cause it's a development company. It built apartments... and they are there. [...] With each apartment that is sold, part of the debt will be settled. This is a story that has been concocted by somebody in the me- dia who wants to create a story. Maybe because it's August... Is it true that you cannot relinquish the 9% shareholding until all the debt has been cleared? Absolutely not true. As in any other agreement with the bank, when you sell off an asset or reduce what the bank has in guarantee or collateral, you need the consent of the bank. In this case, the bank has not been asked yet. I am working actively to dispose of this [share- holding], and I will be attempting – and I think will achieve – a sale for those 9%. If you try to do this hurriedly, as in a forced sale... you will lose money. I was negotiating with interested parties, and obvi- ously biding my time to get the best possible price. Nothing illegal. Is that wrong? No. There is noth- ing untoward there at all. The bank will be asked, if need be, whether we need consent or not. It could be that we don't need it. Because there is no property of mine, per- sonally, which is hypothecated with the bank. So the bank, at most, will be asked to waive my general hypothec. Period. This is normal business, it happens every day. In business, perhaps, but the context here is politics. Originally, you said you would make a full disclosure – like you're doing now – only when elected. Why are you so surprised that this would raise suspicions? Suspicion has been raised, yes. Someone had the intention to raise it before. The party counsellors are asking the question now. No prob- lem. I'll make the full disclosure before. In fact, I've done it already... Moving on to your ideas and beliefs. You have said you want to instil a 'new way of doing politics' within the PN. Can you give any concrete examples of what you change? Name your sector, and I'll an- swer. Let's start with electioneering. As leader of the Opposition, how would you approach an election campaign against Labour in the current political landscape? Perfect question for me. Elections are not just 'against the Labour Party'. Elections are there to show that a party does not have a right to be [in government]... because that presumes arrogance. A party has to earn – in the most humble of manners, but also through inspira- tion – the vote of whom they need to represent. Sadly, I think in the last years the PN in government did very well for Malta... but in so doing, sometimes it neglected its own people. There is a difference between the country doing well... that sectors are being created... and that your own people feeling that they're being abandoned. [...] I believe that a politician is there to serve. This has been said over and over again. In Maltese, the word sometimes creates a bit of a dichot- omy. 'Taqdi'. If you wish to cor- rupt the sense of that word, 'taqdi' means preferential treatment, dis- crimination, untoward favours, and all that. However, in its clear understanding, the word means 'to serve': to be there for others. None of this is really 'new', though, is it? No, it's not. But the way it is being executed, to my mind, is. I have been hearing over and over from Nationalist members that they feel abandoned; that they're not being listened to. Their pro- posals are being ignored. So the 'new way' is to actually be with your people: to listen to them. To construct political proposals, not from the top downwards, but from the bottom up. The Nation- alist Party has a structure, which is quite networked and sophisticated, of sections in every locality. So by actually sitting down with your people – and I'm informed that, sadly, politicians very often don't sit down with their own local sec- tions – to understand what society is. Let's start by understanding that society has changed. Maybe the PN, when it was very busy in gov- ernment, did not stop to reflect [on those changes]. We're not looking at society anymore. [...] So the new way in opposition is not to criticise only: but to actually be effective, to improve people's lives even from the opposition. The question becomes how to achieve that in practice. Can I give a practical example? This is just one of loads of ideas I'm coming up with: the creation of a 'business clinic'. A clinic, not a hospital. A political party in op- position doesn't have the resources to be a hospital... you need to be in government to do that. A hospital cures... hopefully. A clinic gives first aid. So small businesses and the self-employed can come to the party – to the actual headquarters of the party – and there they'll find help to structure their business. Advice to access structures of fi- nancing and banking, which today is very complicated... But that sounds like a job offered by a financial consultancy firm, not a political party... Sometimes – and this comes from my experience as a business advisor – there are hurdles which would be considered normal for bigger businesses, which have their own in-house expertise. But for small businesses, they are hurdles which can simply never be over- come. It's too expensive for them to even access funding from banks. Today, with EU rules and regula- tions, it's become next to impos- sible to prepare an application, for example. Now: will this be in com- petition with professionals? No... we will rope in professionals. Rath- er than donating money, profes- sionals would give hours for small businesses to have access to them... and that's a win-win situation. One potential pitfall is that the idea seems to concretise the perception I mentioned earlier, of political parties being deeply intertwined with the business sector. You'd have businesses depending directly on the PN for help... Absolutely not. I said 'profession- als', not business people. We will be getting accountants, auditors, tax advisors, consultants, financial comptrollers, to the table, to do- nate their hours so that small busi- nesses and entrepreneurs can find help to overcome hurdles that are impeding them from actually do- ing their business. But that would create an automatic obligation on the part of those small businesses that got help from the party for free. If they go on to become successful, wouldn't they feel indebted to the party that helped them? No, absolutely not. You are sug- gesting that a government which is actually legislating for a country should not legislate, because it is doing that for a number of people... That's not at all what I suggested. We were talking about political parties in opposition... But it's the same thing. If you bring up an idea to help self-em- ployed small businesses in the hur- dles of everyday life, you are show- ing that, as a party, you can have an effect of the lives of people even in opposition. When we are elected, the 'clinic' becomes a 'hospital': in government, we can do so much more. We will take those little ideas and projects, and make them mainstream. We will develop and build on those ideas, develop them, and actually make them accessible to all. What's wrong with that? It sounds like a very clientelistic approach to me. It would make private businesses dependent on having a particular party in government... No. It goes back to the definition of politics. Politicians are there to serve... to help... to give a voice to the people. To improve their lives. If you are in politics to serve, and you start serving from the opposi- tion... there is nothing wrong with that. Small businesses and the self- employed can come to the party – to the actual headquarters of the party – and there they'll find help to structure their business The company has enough assets to sell the properties and satisfy the debt [...] With each apartment that is sold, part of the debt will be settled. This is a story that has been concocted by somebody in the media who wants to create a story DEBT SERVICE