Written Answers. - Compensation Claims.
Brian O'Shea
Question:
70
Mr. O'Shea
asked the
Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources
if he will give details on the terms of arbitration applied regarding a recent compensation settlement between persons (details supplied); the reason substantial deductions were made from individual payments; if the process is complete; the amount of compensation paid; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[31262/01]
Brian O'Shea
Question:
73
Mr. O'Shea
asked the
Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources
further to Parliamentary Question No. 103 of 27 November 2001, the name of the person who appointed the representatives of the drift fishermen; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[31265/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 70 and 73 together.
As the Deputy is aware the Port of Waterford Company is statutorily responsible under the Harbours Act, 1996, for the management, control, operation and development of the harbour as a commercial State port company. I have sought a report from the port company in relation to the issues raised by the Deputy and I am advised as follows: A settlement offer of £200,000 together with costs was made to the Cheekpoint fishermen with a view to resolving these actions without any further court hearings. I am advised that it was made quite clear to the plaintiff's representatives that the port would not involve itself in the distribution of funds and that each fisherman would have to agree to the distribution of funds between themselves and "sign off" by way of a discharge or waiver form.
The port company further informs me that the plaintiffs appointed Mr. Tom Greene to act as arbitrator and that the arbitration has taken place. The matter of deductions from individual payments and the amount of compensation made are matters appropriate to the arbitrator and-or the plaintiffs' legal advisers.
I am advised that a settlement agreement has now been signed by the plaintiffs' legal representatives and the port company which will, subject to the terms of this agreement, enable the settlement to be paid to the said legal advisers. As regards the issue raised by the Deputy regarding the appointment of drift net fishermen representatives, this dates back to 1992 and involved Waterford Harbour Commissioners as the predecessor body to the Port of Waterford Company and representatives of fisherman from Cheekpoint.
The Port of Waterford Company has informed me that it has no knowledge or had no involvement in the appointment of the representatives of the driftnet fishermen.
As stated in previous replies to the Deputy, in the course of protracted negotiations, no objections were raised to those representing the fishermen and in these circumstances the port authority conducted negotiations and agreed the eventual settlement in good faith and in the belief that the negotiators were representatives of all the effected parties.
I trust that this finally clarifies the position for the Deputy.
