I propose to take Questions Nos. 222 to 224, inclusive, together.
In relation to Clew Bay my Department considered reports from its Marine Engineering Division and the Marine Institute both of which in summary concluded that:
1. The estimated number of escaped fish was not considered significant.
2. The escape was caused by a torn net.
3. The operator was required to arrange for testing of the damaged net to determine the cause of its failure.
4. The operator was required to arrange for additional testing on all nets for similar weaknesses.
My Department was satisfied from correspondence received that these matters were receiving necessary and appropriate attention by the operator.
In relation to Inver Bay, in late 2010 a significant fish escape occurred at this site which was investigated by the Marine Engineering Division of my Department and the Marine Institute. The escape was caused by the failure of mooring bridles during stormy conditions. On 12 July 2011 the operator advised my Department that all recommendations in the engineering report had been implemented. This information was conveyed to my Department at a scheduled meeting with the operator covering a wide range of issues.
Engineering reports form a very important part of the regulatory function. The aquaculture industry is heavily regulated and subject to complex and detailed national and EU legislation. Operators are required at all times to keep cages and ancillary equipment in good repair. My Department is alert to ongoing technological changes which enhance the security of all structures on licensed sites and in this regard my Department is currently preparing a draft protocol for the structural design of marine finfish farms.