- 11
11 -
As to how much we have paid, Mr President, it is worth noting that the allowances paid totalling some $101 million have already been paid to affected fishermen since 1992 and we expect that a further $80 million will be paid in the current financial year. For the most part, payments in individual cases have ranged from $6,000 to $300,000, according to the claimant's dependence on the affected area for his fishing income, the type and length of his vessel and the total notional value of the fish catch in that area. Most claimants have been able to claim more than once as they depended upon more than one affected area. The average payment is in the order of about $30,000 per claim.
Members have referred to the low payments of $400. There are four such cases out of a total of 2,856 eligible claims. The claimants in question declared that they rarely fished in the affected areas. These isolated cases may have given Members the impression that payments are too small to be of any real value to the affected fishermen. However, our assessment is that, generally speaking, fishermen are satisfied with the payments made. Those who have complained are mainly owners of some small fishing boats whose allowances have been at the lower end of the range. But this outcome simply reflects the claimant's declared financial dependence on the affected area. We can't say that it is actually a fault of the survey or the basis for calculating the allowance. As I said, my concern now is whether in fact in some of these affected areas at the time the wrong data was given.
An important point of course is that claimants can in fact have a right of appeal to a Board composed of members of the government departments represented in the working group responsible for considering claims. Today Members have criticised the appeal system as lacking in transparency and some have suggested that non- government members should be appointed to serve on the Board. My colleague the Secretary for Planning. Environment and Lands is prepared to consider this suggestion favourably and I think this will help at least increase transparency if not fairness and
accuracy.
In short, Mr President, our policy for providing ex-gratia assistance to tishermen affected by port and airport related works has been implemented on at least as sound, as rational, as scientific and as fair basis as we could have devised on the bases of the data given to us during 1989 to 91.
Nevertheless, I agree with Members that it is now time to conduct a new survey of fishing operations at least to provide current data on the pattern of fishing operations and fish catches in Hong Kong waters.