ANDRZEJ GRAJEWSKI: We are talking in the midst of a government reconstruction. Prime Minister Beata Szydło was complimented in the morning in the Sejm, and in the evening her resignation was announced. Did you feel no discomfort in this situation?

MAREK KUCHCIŃSKI: You can look at it another way - it was all planned. Giving respect and recognition to the great achievements and work of Prime Minister Beata Szydło while at the same time having to decide to change her. The second part of the current term and the government of the United Right will face increasingly difficult challenges, both internationally and domestically. I think we can expect an increase in pressure and unfair criticism from various international institutions, as exemplified by the European Commission's decision to launch the procedure related to Article 7 of the EU Treaty against Poland. However, the most important challenges lie in the economic sphere. There is a need to strengthen government action on economic issues, and I am confident that Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki will manage this. I point out that he is the first head of government since 1989 who has experience in heading a large international bank.

Will the replacement of ministers take place as early as January or will this process take place in stages?

The Prime Minister has said that he is looking at the work of the various ministries, so he wants some time before he starts making personnel decisions. The Prime Minister will also decide how and at what pace these changes will take place.

We have witnessed protests showing that some citizens are concerned about the laws on the National Council of the Judiciary and the Supreme Court. Even the Office for Analyses of the Sejm raised reservations about the constitutionality of some of the adopted solutions.

After 2015, there has been a veritable rash of expert constitutionalists unequivocally speaking out about our proposed changes. However, I have not noticed them speaking out with equal boldness and conviction when the then ruling coalition, famously, repeatedly violated constitutional norms. In Poland there is one institution authorised to confirm constitutionality of adopted laws. It is the Constitutional Tribunal. As long as the Constitutional Tribunal does not pronounce the law unconstitutional, there are no grounds to state that the law is of such character. We are bound by a principle that flows directly from the Constitution, the principle of constitutionality of legal acts. As long as they are not challenged by the Court. On the other hand, every citizen may raise their objections to the Constitutional Court. I have no concerns about the unconstitutionality of judicial acts. As for the method of selecting judges, many Western countries have long since adopted the solutions we now propose.

There is a concern that the emergency complaint mechanism may destabilize the legal system by providing an opportunity to challenge final judgments.

In my work as an MEP, I have seen many cases of people coming to my office seeking help when their cases have been unfairly judged in all instances. In several cases, I have helped - successfully - to bring a complaint to the European Court of Justice because all avenues of domestic justice were already closed. That is why I consider the creation of an exceptional possibility to reopen proceedings in a case where there has clearly been an unfair ruling to be a good solution, which simply responds to real problems.

The district court overruled the prosecution's decision to discontinue the investigation into the moving of the sessions to the Columned Hall a year ago. The notification about the possibility of committing a crime was submitted by PO and Nowoczesna deputies. What could be the consequences?

The court had the right to make this decision and I will not comment on it. I can only say that I would have taken the same decision in the same situation as a year ago. Moving the debates from the plenary chamber to the Columned Hall was in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Sejm. It was caused by an illegal protest organised by the opposition, which, breaking the law, blocked the plenary chamber. We could either break off the session of the Sejm and succumb to the unlawful actions of some MPs or continue the debates in the place where it was possible.

Those events come back in the context of the penalty imposed on TVN24 by the National Broadcasting Council for its coverage of the protests in front of the Sejm. Are high fines imposed on broadcasters a good way to regulate public debate?

I would like to draw attention to two aspects of this matter. We have the right to expect journalists to act in accordance with the principles of journalistic ethics. Mixing information with commentary is one of the most common mistakes.

Not only on TVN24, but also on public television services we have to deal with this.

It does not change the fact that it is reprehensible behavior. The incitement to organise protests around the Seym and inside it, taking sides with one of the political forces, is not a good standard for any news television. The National Council makes its own decisions and is solely responsible for them. This is not a final decision. It can be challenged and I know that this has happened. At the same time I would like to say that any action of public institutions should take into account the specificity of media as the so-called fourth power and respect their independence.

What will be the final form of the ordinance for local elections?

It will depend on the nature of the Senate amendments, and the debate is still ongoing. If the Senate makes amendments, the bill will return to the Parliament and we will be able to deal with it at the beginning of the year. I do not share the reservations of the State Electoral Commission against this project. In almost 10 EU countries the Minister of the Interior is responsible for the preparation of elections and nobody accuses of falsifying them. We must not forget that during the 2014 local elections we had to deal with something completely embarrassing. Five million votes, which represented 20 percent of those taking part in the elections, were assessed as invalid votes. This is a fact that cannot be passed over and pretended that nothing happened. Responsibility for it falls also on PKW and State Election Bureau. The project, which is in progress, is supposed to ensure greater transparency and transparency of election procedures.

 There are fears that with the new law, those in power will slice constituencies in such a way as to benefit them.

The division of districts is the right of every legislature or legislative bodies in local governments. Sejm and Senate will have no influence on it. If changes are made to the shape of the constituencies, it will happen under the control of the PKW.

What should be done so that a parliamentary dispute does not turn into insulting the other side? We witness such behavior both among representatives of the opposition and the current majority.

In this term of office, the political dispute has escalated a lot both inside and outside the Sejm. We clearly lack respect for different political views. In this matter, unfortunately, a sense of boundaries that should not be crossed has been lost.

Have you ever admonished members of your own party for inappropriate behavior?

Several times. Some Members of Parliament were not allowed to speak, for which I was criticized in my parliamentary club. But I can assure you that it is mainly the opposition's deputies who violate the solemnity of the Sejm by their behaviour and break the rules of procedure. This is so common that I have become a supporter of changing the Sejm's regulations and introducing more effective penalties to discipline MPs, for example following the example of the European Parliament. There the punishment in case of violation would be imposed immediately, without warning. But in the Sejm the procedure is such that first the warning formulas must be repeatedly uttered and only then can the punishment take place. As a rule, by the time this happens, the member is already in his seat and there is no point in punishing him. This is a bit of a cat-and-mouse game.

What next for the legal protection of unborn life? Will another social project, supported by hundreds of thousands of people, go to waste, as was the case with the project of the Committee of the Legislative Initiative "Stop Abortion"?

At the moment there are two civic projects on this issue in the Parliament. The first one, liberalizing the protection of life, will be discussed already at the first session in January, when its first reading is planned. The "Stop Abortion" bill, submitted a little later, which strengthens the protection of human life, will also be proposed to the Sejm for work in January. Over 800 thousand people have signed the second document. I believe that the project increasing the protection of life is a good proposal. The Seym should seriously consider it. An important element that would convince the MPs would be a constant action of support for it.

Let me ask you straight: won't more black marches scare off PiS MPs, as they did in 2016?

At that time, several things overlapped. It was the beginning of the debate about changes in the judiciary, there were bills taking away pension privileges from former security officers. We decided that there were too many difficult issues in the Parliament. So it had to be spread out in time.

Is now a better time?

Now it does. Also, this project is better prepared.

The Sejm will deal with the problem of obtaining reparations from Germany?

Documents from the times of the People's Republic of Poland indicate that this matter was not settled. Poles did not receive as much compensation as citizens of other European countries. In my opinion, any good neighborly relations must be based not only on trust and agreement on common interests, but above all on truth.

Will there be a resolution on this, a bill?

It will depend on the Seym, but I will look favourably on the activities of the parliamentary team which deals with these issues. Warsaw, on the initiative of President Lech Kaczyński, made a general inventory of losses, but there were many more destroyed cities in Poland. I will only mention Jaslo, which was razed to the ground by the Germans in 1944. I think that the assessment of war losses should also be done by the self-governments of particular towns or communes which were destroyed. We still do not know how much Poles lost during World War II. This should change.

What is the role of the Sejm in building international relations, especially in the Visegrad Group, but also in the Tri-City initiative? How do you assess the foreign activity of the Sejm in the current term?

Since last year's Polish Presidency of the Visegrad Group, there has been real cooperation also at parliamentary level. We are united in our position on the need to strengthen the role of national parliaments in the EU. The role and responsibility of Poland and other countries on the eastern flank of the EU and NATO are growing. Hence, the Tri-Cities or large North-South infrastructure projects, such as Via Carpathia, in which parliamentary support for the efforts of the executive authorities has a measurable role.

At the Christmas meeting before Christmas did you break the wafer with the opposition MPs?

Of course. I even heard very nice wishes from some opposition politicians. I treat it as a good sign. I would like to wish all Members of Parliament, while differing, but also respecting each other, to always think about common good, about Poland.

Sunday Visitor, 4.1.2018, page: 40

Photo: Pawel Kula