Vol. 535 No. 1
136 Mr. O'Shea asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources if he will address the concerns of three fishermen (details supplied) with regard to the £3,000 compensation paid to drift net fishermen from Cheekpoint, County Waterford; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11678/01]
As the Deputy will be aware, this issue dates back to 1992 and involved Waterford Harbour Commissioners as the predecessor body to the Port of Waterford Company. I have sought a report from the port company in the matter and I am advised as follows.
With regard to the £3,000 compensation payment made to each of 26 Cheekpoint fishermen back in 1992, compensation was deemed appropriate for those who were drift net fishing in the vicinity of Cheekpoint and might therefore be affected by the installation of the groynes in their drift zone. With this in mind, the drift net licensing authority, the Southern Regional Fisheries Board supplied licence records from 1982 to 1992, with Cheekpoint fishermen highlighted. A provisional list was drawn up from these records, which was duly amended by representatives of the drift net fishermen who were conducting the compensation negotiations to provide the final list used for the payments. The three individuals to whom the Deputy has specifically referred were not identified by the representatives of the drift net fishermen as qualifying for the compensation payments made in 1992.
A substantial lump sum fund has been offered to some 46 High Court plaintiffs from the Cheekpoint area through the offices of their senior counsel. This fund is in settlement of their claims against the Port of Waterford Company regarding the installation of the River Groynes. The settlement offer has been made on the basis that the plaintiff's legal representatives preside over the distribution of the fund. The port company has no influence over what amounts are being offered to each of the plaintiffs.
It is difficult to ascertain from the information supplied whether the three individuals specifically referred to will receive moneys from the current High Court settlement. Two of the three names appear on the list of plaintiffs in the court case, but they may not necessarily be the same individuals.
