Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-09-Speech-2-132"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020409.6.2-132"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
We abstained from voting on the von Boetticher report on the changes to the cross-border surveillance procedure (Article 40 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985) as it has a tendency, as I said in yesterday’s debate, to transform the right of pursuit in the area of surveillance into a more extensive right to intervene, which may mean that responsibilities become more confused in a Europe that has no internal borders.
Furthermore, the text also has a tendency to transform cross-border surveillance into a sort of isolated stopgap measure to compensate for the shortcomings of the police in some Member States, on whose territory their neighbours could intervene more easily. The European Parliament’s explanatory statement contains some surprising comments published by the German Ministry of the Interior and I quote, word for word: ‘One neighbouring Member State continues frequently to insist on the handover of surveillance at the border. Problems arise because, by virtue of restrictive national provisions on working hours, after a certain period of surveillance the surveillance units halt the surveillance and/or do not resume it the following day because of manpower shortages’.
I hope that the name of this mysterious Member State neighbouring Germany does not begin with the letter ‘F’. Whatever the case, the problem cannot be resolved by greater police intervention in the Member States."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples