WRITTEN QUESTION E-1378/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Regional fisheries organisations.
Date: 2001-05-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, administration of the Institutions, common fisheries policy, fishery management, operation of the Institutions, protection of animal life

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/141

(2001/C 350 E/151)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1374/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Formal recognition of British Sign Language

(7 May 2001)

There has long been a campaign for the recognition of British Sign Language. For the deaf community this
is an issue of cultural and emotional as well as practical significance.
In 1998 and 1988 European
Parliament resolutions on sign languages for the deaf were passed, calling on the European Commission to
make a proposal to the Council on the official recognition of sign languages.

Can the Commission advise what stage this proposal has reached?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2001)

The Commission is aware of the importance of sign language for people who are deaf or have a grave
hearing impairment.

In 1997, the Commission supported a far-reaching research project carried out by Bristol University
(United Kingdom). The purpose of this research was to draw a precise picture of the use of sign languages
in the Community and to determine the comparative status of sign language in the different Member
States.

The study highlighted the fact that sign languages can achieve official status in different ways and that
there are major variations between Member States in terms of their experience and provision of sign
language.

British sign language is not an officially recognised language in the United Kingdom. There is no officially
recognised language in the United Kingdom.

Given that the primary responsibility for action in this area rests with the Member States, there are no
plans at this stage to present specific proposals on the matter.

(2001/C 350 E/152)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1378/01

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Regional fisheries organisations

(7 May 2001)

In its answer to my Written Question E-0025/01 (1) the Commission admits that it does not have the
human resources required to meet its external fisheries policy obligations, especially when it is called upon
to represent the EU(cid:146)s interests and defend them as and where necessary at meetings of regional fisheries
organisations (RFOs) such as ICCAT.

That being the case, and given that RFOs are vitally important for the future of the common fisheries
policy, does the Commission not believe that it should increase the technical and human resources
employed to defend the EU(cid:146)s fisheries interests within the RFOs?

Bearing in mind the importance and great economic value of highly migratory species, especially tunas and
related species, and hence of the RFOs that manage them, does the Commission not consider that it should
set up a specialised unit within its Fisheries DG? Does it not take the view that, if such unit were to be set
up, the EU(cid:146)s interests could be defended far more effectively in the RFOs concerned and that, as regards
negotiation of bilateral tuna fishing agreements governed by RFO rules, a permanent team of officials with
the proper expertise would provide consistency and continuity in the Commission(cid:146)s action?

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 93.

C 350 E/142

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2001)

The Commission has already stated many times that multilateral management of deep-sea fishing is a key
issue for the future of the common fisheries policy.

Because the Community has exclusive jurisdiction on this matter, the growing and complex involvement
of the regional fisheries organisations (RFOs) presupposes equal commitment by the Commission.

The recommendations adopted by the RFOs have been incorporated in order of priority, the greatest
importance being attributed to technical and inspection measures concerning stocks of highly migratory
fish.

As regards human resource allocation to the RFOs, the human resources available meant
the
Commission was represented at the latest meeting of the International Commission for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) by a team of six officials who, in often difficult circumstances and by dint of great
personal effort, succeeded in bringing the various negotiations to a successful conclusion. The Commission
is also represented at the other RFO meetings and, subject to the number of officials available, plays a full
part in the work of the standing committees, working parties and plenary meetings.

that

From now on a single unit will monitor all the RFOs, with the exception of a few North-East Atlantic
organisations, thereby ensuring that the Commission acts with the requisite consistency and continuity
within these international bodies. In addition, the new structure of the Directorate-General for Fisheries
should make it possible to respond more effectively to new demands and to deal more effectively and
consistently with issues such as those which the Honourable Member mentions.

(2001/C 350 E/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1388/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: The Aachen hamster

Does the Commission have any information on the mysterious case of the disappearing Aachen hamster?

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2001)

The Commission has been dealing for five years with the question related to the conservation of the
hamster (Cricetus cricetus) in the area of Aachen. The issues arise from concerns as to the impacts of
the
development on the protection of
Commission by the Petition case 685/96 being considered by the Petition Committee of the Parliament
and by several complaints relating to development proposals.

this species which have been brought

to the attention of

The Honourable Member is referred to the communications (1) which the Commission has made to the
Parliamentary Committee under that Petition number which provides a full account of the issue and state
of play.

(1) Last communication: PE 221.901/REV/III.