The Editor, Sir:

I find your front-page story of October 26, 2007, which was titled: "Prison swap not a significant cost to Ja" both misleading and confusing. While the headline speaks of 'swap', there is nothing in the body of the story that states that there will be any exchange of prisoners, which is what is to be expected if there is a swap. The Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Security, Mr. Scott, is quoted as having said, "The cost would be minimal really, because in effect, we would not be increasing our prison population as a result of this action."

It is odd that whereas Permanent Secretary Mr. Scott speaks of least 40 persons serving prison time in the U.K. being transferred to Jamaica, the Prime Minister of the U.K. is speaking of more than 1,000. There is a significant difference in the numbers of both gentlemen and it begs the question, what other differences are there between their understandings of this MoU? It may be that there is no misunderstanding. Someone might have just decided not to declare the real figures of the MoU and chosen to declare a politically attractive number instead. I believe your reporter had a duty to elicit from Mr. Scott information which would clarify the statements he made to the press.

We must ask of the Government:

Has an agreement already been signed?

If so, what are the terms of the agreement?

Is the transfer referring to a simultaneous transfer of prisoners between the U.K. and Jamaica which would constitute a swap of prisoners?

Would the transfer be on the basis of exchanging one Jamaican in the U.K. prison for one U.K. citizen in the Jamaican prison?

Is it an agreement for Jamaicans in the U.K. prison to complete their sentence in Jamaican prisons?

Will prisoners transferred to Jamaica be freed upon their arrival in Jamaica? If the answer is in the affirmative, is the transaction a transfer, or a deportation?

Is it possible to have a one-way movement of prisoners without affecting the prison population of the country to which the transfer is made?

When the Permanent Secretary speaks of the U.K. bearing the costs, what costs is he referring to? Is it transportation to Jamaica? Is it the costs of keeping the prisoners incarcerated in Jamaican prisons?

Since it is an open secret that we have no space in our prisons to accommodate an additional 1,000 inmates, we must be clear on what we are agreeing to do. I believe the reference to the action as transfer rather than deportation is of much significance:

agreements

The objective of the U.K. Prime Minister is clearly stated: "We will sign agreements with those countries so that we can return prisoners from our cells as expeditiously possible." Sadly, I see no clear objective from our side. The big question is, what benefit is there for Jamaica in this MoU?

The implications of this magnitude of transfers or deportations are such that neither the minister nor his permanent secretary should sign any such agreement without the approval of Parliament. Any MoU signed must have a clear provision that its validity is subjected to the ratification of Parliament. No Jamaican government should allow the political agenda of a U.K. government to take precedence above the interest of the Jamaican people.

I am, etc.,

LUCIUS C. WHITE

1 Tankerville Avenue

Kingston 6