I have an appeal to the heads of the radical opposition to do so - otherwise they are breaking the law; not only the rules of the Sejm, but they are also violating the criminal code. They should consider this and give the Sejm the opportunity to work. However, if this does not happen, I have no intention of using the forces of the Marshal's Guard," says Sejm Speaker Marek Kuchciński in an interview with the wPolityce.pl portal.

wPolitics.pl: Mr Marshal, what, in your opinion, was the reason for the jump in tension on December 16 during the session of the Sejm, and later in front of the building and in the plenary hall? Could something have been done differently, could the conflict have been avoided, or was the action planned?

Marek Kuchcinski, Speaker of the Sejm: In my opinion, this action was planned. With the benefit of hindsight, one can easily find some international inspirations. Nevertheless, the political forces of the opposition were used, the radical opposition, which has not been able to come to terms with its defeat since one year, that is, since the parliamentary and, earlier, the presidential elections.

Could this have been counteracted? This will always be an open question... In my opinion rather not. The moment of Mr Szczerba's exclusion from the parliamentary hall and the postulate to defend the media are substitute arguments and result from the need to misinform and mislead the public. This is an MP who behaved irregularly, offensively, violated the solemnity of the Sejm and was punished many times. It was a stroke of luck that when he appeared as another Member of Parliament during the session on 16 December, speaking out of turn and violating the solemnity of the Sejm, he was excluded by me. If not for him, an hour or two later, others would have done the same. This was about preventing the passing of the budget, not a dispute between me and some MP.

You raised the issue of the media, which was one of the reasons for the whole conflict. Couldn't and shouldn't those in power have acted a bit more prudently here as well?

This problem is a big misunderstanding. Our intention was to find decent forms of cooperation with journalists and to enable them to work under decent conditions. We used standards from the European Parliament here. However, this has been misread and misinterpreted. The opposition has used it for its own purposes and we must find a solution here.

The previous rules have been restored, but not completely. There are problems with one-time passes, and the gallery is closed.

The rule was that media representatives with various types of passes were allowed in during the sessions of the Sejm and the Senate. In the meantime, they are rather not present in the parliament, because there is no need. Additionally, due to the fact that the Sejm is occupied, it is a special situation, the Marshal's Guard has to take double care of the security of the Sejm. Hence the cautious approach to this issue.

But as of today, all journalists who also have one-time passes may enter the Sejm, although we will make sure that they behave with dignity - as befits the Sejm.

The public also has doubts about the quorum during the debates in the Columned Hall. Are you sure that there was an appropriate number of MPs and that the opposition MPs were informed about the debates and could participate in them?

Definitely. All accusations are unfounded. The decision to move the session of the Sejm to the Columned Hall was made because I was prevented from conducting the session in the plenary hall. The Chancellery of the Sejm and the lawyers made sure that all the statutory procedures were observed: there was a quorum, secretaries were appointed to count the votes (the hall was divided into eight sectors), they authorised all the results with their own signatures. There were also two additional secretaries who counted the votes.

It took a very long time because the count was manual. The quorum was maintained. There were 237 Members. In fact, during the first vote, one of the deputies was present PSL - later, there were 236 members in the House; usually two opposed or abstained...

There is also an objection to formal motions, but again: the Speaker of the Sejm allows formal motions if they concern the current business of the session. If this is not the case, the motion cannot be considered formal.

The first formal motion, still submitted in writing by Mr. Sasin, was a motion on the budget voting formula. It was not a precedent. The motion was adopted. I then announced that I would allow Members who had made formal motions to speak after the first motion had been carried. And this is what happened: after the votes, no one repeated their motions.

Mr. Speaker, how do you see the scenario for what happens next? What about those Members of Parliament who are occupying the plenary chamber? Is it possible to use force, the Speaker's Guard?

From the formal point of view, I have this power, which is given to me both indirectly by the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure of the Sejm: I have the Marshal Guard at my disposal to restore order in the chamber. It has happened more than once in the Sejm that the Speaker's Guard has removed Members who were blocking the rostrum. In this case, I decided not to do so - I chose another option, namely moving the sitting of the Sejm to the Columned Hall.

The use of the Speaker's Guard could cause even more nervousness and would not serve the solemnity of the proceedings. It is my duty to uphold the law and maintain the solemnity of parliament.

Opposition representatives, however, argue that the protest in the plenary hall will also continue during the session to be convened on January 11.

I hope that the MPs occupying the plenary hall will change their minds and end their protest. I have an appeal to the leaders of the radical opposition to do so - otherwise they are breaking the law; not only the regulations of the Sejm, but they are also violating the criminal code. They should consider this and give the Sejm the opportunity to work. However, if this does not happen, I have no intention of using the forces of the Speaker's Guard. But the parliament must work. It is my constitutional duty to allow parliament to work in any situation.

source: wPolityce.pl