Mr. John Finucane:

I will answer Senator Landy very quickly. I appreciate he may have to leave. Regarding education, unfortunately, my client's specific course requires that it must be completed online, by way of a computer. Other prisons facilitate this, and blocks can be put on the computer very easily so that one cannot communicate or use the Internet for nefarious purposes. This is another example of how security in Maghaberry is not based in reality.

I have not been involved in any cases that have reached Strasbourg yet. One would need to exhaust quite a lengthy process, first within my jurisdiction and second the Supreme Court in London, and then seek leave or get permission before bringing a case to Strasbourg, but it would not surprise me. Again, the overarching issue that is not being treated as the No. 1 priority here is the dignity with which all sides should be treated. That should be at the heart of all this.

I think the cost has been touched on in previous reports. Maghaberry is one of the most expensive prisons in western Europe, and the taxpayer is not getting value for money from it. Budgets, no matter what the financial context, should not be infinite. There is a set amount of money, and I do not see any prospect whatsoever that a security-based regime as oppressive as that at Maghaberry, and which generates as much case law as Maghaberry does, will represent value for taxpayers' money.

There has been talk about the background or the perception as to who runs Maghaberry. As an example, a remand prisoner who wants out can apply for bail. If bail is denied and something specific happens - for example, a death - he can apply for compassionate bail. In the case of a sentenced prisoner, that must be granted by the jail and is called compassionate temporary release. The jail constantly cites that if it is a Catholic funeral in a Catholic area, then for security reasons the prison staff cannot escort the inmate, that they are very sorry, that they are sure the prisoner will be disappointed by the news but that they cannot do it. This causes challenges through the courts. More often than not, the prison loses those challenges and, therefore, the taxpayer is faced with a legal bill that the prison will take on with taxpayers' money.

Regarding what questions could potentially be put to either a Secretary of State or the Minister of Justice, he or she should be asked to try to find out a clear figure as to how much a security-based regime costs the taxpayer. We have been involved in cases in which people are strip-searched on their way to video link consultations with a solicitor. Think about that: somebody leaves his cell, does not come into contact with anyone apart from a prison officer, talks to me through a screen - I am in Belfast; he is in Maghaberry - then he leaves and goes back to his cell. He is strip-searched in that context. Nobody can tell me there is any rational basis for that to happen, but it costs money and it then leads to further challenges, and those further challenges cost. The controlled movement has more prison officers than I think are necessary, who could be better placed doing other things in other areas of the jail that require that attention.