英國豬走向中國餐桌This little piggy went to China's ravenous market英國《金融時報》 路易絲•盧卡斯報導
Britain's ailing pig industry will be able to start exporting offal, trotters and other culinary delights to China, the world's biggest pig meat market, under a breakthrough trade deal to be sealed as early as next week.
根據最早將於下週簽署的一項突破性貿易協議，英國境況不佳的養豬產業將開始向全球最大的豬肉市場——中國——出口豬內臟、豬蹄和其他中國人喜歡的食材。
Jim Paice, the agriculture minister, is heading to Beijing this weekend to put the finishing touches to an agreement that has been five years in the making.
本週末，英國農業大臣吉姆•佩斯(Jim Paice)將赴北京，為一項磋商了5年的協議敲定最後一筆。
“I'm almost certain that during my visit we will be able to tie up the final loose ends and British pork can be on its way to China,” Mr Paice said. “We estimate we can easily sell £50m of pig meat almost at the drop of a hat.”
佩斯表示：“我幾乎可以肯定，在訪問期間，我們能夠解決最後的未決問題，英國豬肉將進入中國。我們估計，英國很容易就可以在短期內向中國賣出5000萬英鎊的豬肉。 ”
British pig farmers, abattoirs and processors are struggling in the face of high input costs and of pricing constrained by aggressive retailers trying to win over cash-strapped consumers. The industry, which generates a net contribution of £300m to the economy, has halved in the past decade.
英國養豬場、屠宰場和加工廠正在艱難應對投入成本高、售價低的問題。咄咄逼人的零售商為了贏得囊中羞澀的消費者，壓低了豬肉價格。該行業對英國經濟的純貢獻達3億英鎊，但規模在過去10年間已經減少一半。
Sales of the “fifth quarter” – tails, ears and other parts spurned by British diners – would build on a healthy trade in chicken feet and hearts already sold to China.
英國已經向中國大量出口雞爪和雞心，現在，“第五部位”——英國人餐桌上所摒棄的豬尾巴、豬耳朵和豬的其他部位——的出口將為此錦上添花。
Sell ing the bits that would otherwise be binned, at a cost, should theoretically fatten the incomes of abattoirs and farmers, said Chris Jackson, export director at the British Pig Association. It should not result in pricier bacon at home.
英國養豬協會(British Pig Association)出口主管克里斯•傑克遜(Chris Jackson)表示，這些部位原本只能以較高的成本丟棄，現在銷往中國，理論上可以增加屠宰場和農民的收入，而且應該不會導致英國國內培根價格上漲。
Chinese farmers sell their pigs for twice as much as their British peers, partly because of the country's insatiable appetite for all things pork and “because they are not being screwed by the supermarkets – yet”, said Mr Jackson.
中國農民賣豬的價格比英國同行高一倍，這在一定程度上是因為中國對各種豬肉的胃口難以饜足，還“因為中國農民還沒有被超市左右——至少目前沒有”，傑克遜指出。
According to the OECD, China produces and consumes half the global output of pig meat. Chinese demand is growing as more wealth translates into more meat on dinner tables. “There is no doubt at all – and the Chinese are quite open about this – that they cannot produce their own pig meat supplies for the foreseeable future,” said Mr Paice.
經合組織(OECD)指出，中國生產和消費全球豬肉產量的一半。隨著中國增長的財富轉化成餐桌上更多的肉製品，中國人對肉類的需求還在繼續增長。佩斯表示：“毫無疑問，在可預見的未來，中國生產的豬肉無法滿足當地需求，中國人對此並不諱言。”
British pigs have greater fertility, with the average sow producing twice as many piglets a year – up to 32 – as her Chinese cousin. That explains the next export agenda: pig semen.
英國豬的繁殖力更強，平均每隻母豬的年產仔量是中國母豬一倍，達到32只。這就滋生了下一個出口計劃——豬精液。
The UK already sells live breeding pigs to China but has struggled to jump through veterinary hoops on semen. Mr Jackson said he will invite Chinese vets next week to make inspections in late July.
英國已經向中國出售活種豬，但豬精液還沒有通過中國獸醫的檢驗。傑克遜表示，下週他將邀請中國獸醫在7月底對英國豬的精液作檢查。
He believes genetics is “what China really wants”. Despite the small size of the British industry Mr Jackson says it is a world leader. “Even America comes to us to buy genetics, mainly pigs but also sheep and cattle.” Genetics improves pig economics, he says. British pigs can be fattened up for the kill in just three months but Chinese pigs take a year – or about 260 additional days of 6kg of cereal-based feed for half-a-billion animals. “Take that away and you can see how the genetics industry can do such a wonderful job for planet Earth,” said Mr Jackson.
他認為，基因才是“中國真正想要的”。傑克遜表示，儘管英國養豬產業規模小，卻是全球的佼佼者。 “連美國人都跑過來向我們購買基因，主要是豬的基因，不過也有牛羊。”他表示，基因可以改善養豬經濟。英國豬隻要3個月就能養夠膘，屠宰，但中國豬要用1年——即中國的5億頭豬，每頭要用6千克穀物飼料多餵養260天左右。傑克遜表示：“減去這些額外投入，你會發現基因工業可以給行星地球帶來如此美妙的變化。”
While farmers applaud Westminster's efforts, even Mr Paice conceded the country has lost a head start. “The fact is we export more food to Belgium than we do to all the Bric countries [Brazil, Russia, India and China] together,” he said . “That's a pretty damning indictment of our efforts.”
儘管豬農歡迎英國政府的努力，但佩斯也承認，英國已經輸在了起跑線上。他說：“我們出口到比利時的食品都比出口到金磚四國（巴西、俄羅斯、印度和中國）的總量還多。這真是我們工作不足的明證。”
譯者/倪衛國
So where are we now? Our economy has shrunk 4.3 per cent since 2008. Conventional wisdom says it will bounce back to its historic trend rate of growth of about 2.5 per cent. The Office for Budget Responsibility, which uses a similar model to the Treasury, forecasts a return to growth of a very respectable 3 per cent in three years’ time. The chancellor needs that growth to make his projected borrowing figures stand up.
It is already clear that recovery, when it comes, will have taken longer than it did in the 1930s. The recoveries of the 1980s and 1990s were speedy by comparison. That fact alone should give us pause for thought. But conventional wisdom has been stood on its head. I don’t think there is any guarantee that recovery will come without additional stimulus here and in Europe. We are not in the same position as Spain, thank goodness. Our economy is historically more robust but we cannot rule out a lost decade, with the prospect of more recessionary dips.
Back in 2010, before the coalition took office, the economy was growing mainly as a result of the stimulus put in place in late 2008. It is true that growth was weak but it was respectable. We did what most other countries were doing and it worked. Yet on coming to office the new government set out to make a series of mendacious claims to gain support for its determination to cut the structural deficit by the end of this parliament. It said we were as bad as Greece. It said our creditworthiness was in doubt. But that overblown rhetoric had an unintended consequence. It undermined confidence, which has never really returned.
More than that, the argument was flawed. Cut public expenditure, the government said, and the private sector would move in to take its place as surely as night follows day. This has not happened because of a lack of business confidence – some businesses are sitting on mountains of cash as they wait and see what happens. In the meantime, consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises lack cash, even if confidence returns. So the economic rock on which the coalition built its fortress looks distinctly shaky – and this as its political strategy has suffered its worst month since taking office.
Governments cannot defy the forces of economic gravity but they can make a difference. Markets want deficits to be reduced but they also know that without growth this will not happen. What is needed is a credible plan. That is why I wanted to halve the deficit over a four-year period because I thought it was deliverable and would not damage the economic and social fabric of this country.
Today the government, which lacks any credible plan, is borrowing £150bn more than it intended. The elimination of the structural deficit is now running two years later than promised. We are way off-course and the government knows it. It seems to have no idea how to get growth going. I have two suggestions.
The first is investment in infrastructure. Ageing power stations need to be replaced. Investment is needed in rail and in airports. We must look urgently at constraints on growth in the south-east, including Heathrow. New housing is vital and easier to get going. This all needs government help in planning and resources. Better to borrow to invest in assets we will need than to end up borrowing more as growth falters.
Second, more quantitative easing is needed, but this time ensuring that the money gets out of the bank vaults and on to the high street. We are already borrowing more because of the lack of growth. Better to spend money on infrastructure and businesses that will ensure the recovery is soundly based.
Then there is Europe. Of course the eurozone crisis threatens us – and indeed the global recovery. The eurozone, behind the curve for two years, has now decided to go into an economic cul-de-sac. Its foolish treaty, which will result in a downward spiral for many countries and which, in effect, renders a Keynesian approach illegal, must rank as one of the biggest political and economic follies since Versailles.
Greece is still not fixed. Now Spain struggles. Even the Dutch, fervent for the austerity cause, have floundered. Mario Draghi, the president of the European Central Bank who bought time for the eurozone, rightly calls for a pact for growth. Should François Hollande win the presidency of France it would be an opportunity for the eurozone to adopt a new approach, one that finally clears up the banks and adopts a focus on growth. Painful decisions would still have to be made but at least we would be heading the right way.
It is not just the economics here. In France last week it was clear that a growing number of people were losing patience with their politicians. Something similar was going on in Bradford. We will only be able to win support for difficult economic decisions if they are seen to be fair and credible. People need a sign that there will be a world in which people can realise their aspirations and see a future for their children.
I said in August 2008 that this crisis would be more profound and longer-lasting than people thought. So, sadly, it has proved. The tragedy would be if, far from building recovery, today’s governments stuck to a failed policy of austerity that risks pitching us back to the brink.
The writer is a Labour MP and a former chancellor of the exchequer
29 April 2012 Last updated at 19:32 GMT
The prime minister has resisted demands to order an inquiry into claims the ministerial code was broken.
A Labour source told the BBC Mr Cameron needed to explain on Monday why he was "ducking his responsibilities".
He has argued that he wants to hear Mr Hunt's evidence to the Leveson Inquiry on press standards first.
But the Labour source said: "David Cameron is still trying to hide behind the Leveson Inquiry.
"With Parliament breaking up on Tuesday, Mr Cameron must come to the Commons and explain to the British people why he is ducking his responsibilities to enforce the ministerial code."
Responsibility for ruling on the BSkyB takeover bid in a "quasi-judicial" manner was given to the culture secretary in 2010.
Last week the Leveson Inquiry published emails between Mr Hunt's special adviser, Adam Smith, and News Corporation's head of public affairs, Frederic Michel, about the company's efforts to take over the 61% of the broadcaster it did not already own.
They have also accused him of misleading Parliament about whether he had published all exchanges between his department and News Corporation, part of Rupert Murdoch's media empire.
It wants the independent adviser on ministerial interests, Sir Alex Allan, to look into the matter, a call backed by some Lib Dems and Conservative backbenchers.
Mr Hunt has promised to disclose private texts and emails between him and Mr Smith to the Leveson Inquiry.
Speaking to the BBC's The Andrew Marr Show on Sunday, Mr Cameron said all the details of the row would be "laid bare" by the Leveson Inquiry - to which Mr Hunt will give evidence next month.
He said the email contact had been "too close" but said as things stood, he did not believe Mr Hunt had broken the code. But he said he, as prime minister, was ultimately responsible for ensuring the ministerial code was upheld and the issue had to be properly investigated.
"If evidence comes out through this exhaustive inquiry [Leveson], where you're giving evidence under oath, if he did breach the ministerial code, then clearly that's a different issue and I would act," Mr Cameron said.
Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman told BBC One's Sunday Politics it was "already evident" that Mr Hunt had breached the code.
Mr Hunt is set to give evidence to the Leveson Inquiry next month
She added: "Even more seriously than that, when he was
responsible for acting quasi-judicially on a hugely important takeover
bid of £8bn, he did not act impartially."
The Sun newspaper, which is owned by another company in Rupert Murdoch's News Corps empire, switched its support from Labour to the Conservatives in September 2009.
But Mr Cameron said it was "not true" to suggest there had been a deal in which he would help the Murdochs' business interests or allow the BSkyB takeover to go through, in return for their support for his party.
"It would be absolutely wrong for there to be any sort of deal and there wasn't... There was no grand deal," he said.
Britain's ailing pig industry will be able to start exporting offal, trotters and other culinary delights to China, the world's biggest pig meat market, under a breakthrough trade deal to be sealed as early as next week.
根據最早將於下週簽署的一項突破性貿易協議，英國境況不佳的養豬產業將開始向全球最大的豬肉市場——中國——出口豬內臟、豬蹄和其他中國人喜歡的食材。
Jim Paice, the agriculture minister, is heading to Beijing this weekend to put the finishing touches to an agreement that has been five years in the making.
本週末，英國農業大臣吉姆•佩斯(Jim Paice)將赴北京，為一項磋商了5年的協議敲定最後一筆。
“I'm almost certain that during my visit we will be able to tie up the final loose ends and British pork can be on its way to China,” Mr Paice said. “We estimate we can easily sell £50m of pig meat almost at the drop of a hat.”
佩斯表示：“我幾乎可以肯定，在訪問期間，我們能夠解決最後的未決問題，英國豬肉將進入中國。我們估計，英國很容易就可以在短期內向中國賣出5000萬英鎊的豬肉。 ”
British pig farmers, abattoirs and processors are struggling in the face of high input costs and of pricing constrained by aggressive retailers trying to win over cash-strapped consumers. The industry, which generates a net contribution of £300m to the economy, has halved in the past decade.
英國養豬場、屠宰場和加工廠正在艱難應對投入成本高、售價低的問題。咄咄逼人的零售商為了贏得囊中羞澀的消費者，壓低了豬肉價格。該行業對英國經濟的純貢獻達3億英鎊，但規模在過去10年間已經減少一半。
Sales of the “fifth quarter” – tails, ears and other parts spurned by British diners – would build on a healthy trade in chicken feet and hearts already sold to China.
英國已經向中國大量出口雞爪和雞心，現在，“第五部位”——英國人餐桌上所摒棄的豬尾巴、豬耳朵和豬的其他部位——的出口將為此錦上添花。
Sell ing the bits that would otherwise be binned, at a cost, should theoretically fatten the incomes of abattoirs and farmers, said Chris Jackson, export director at the British Pig Association. It should not result in pricier bacon at home.
英國養豬協會(British Pig Association)出口主管克里斯•傑克遜(Chris Jackson)表示，這些部位原本只能以較高的成本丟棄，現在銷往中國，理論上可以增加屠宰場和農民的收入，而且應該不會導致英國國內培根價格上漲。
Chinese farmers sell their pigs for twice as much as their British peers, partly because of the country's insatiable appetite for all things pork and “because they are not being screwed by the supermarkets – yet”, said Mr Jackson.
中國農民賣豬的價格比英國同行高一倍，這在一定程度上是因為中國對各種豬肉的胃口難以饜足，還“因為中國農民還沒有被超市左右——至少目前沒有”，傑克遜指出。
According to the OECD, China produces and consumes half the global output of pig meat. Chinese demand is growing as more wealth translates into more meat on dinner tables. “There is no doubt at all – and the Chinese are quite open about this – that they cannot produce their own pig meat supplies for the foreseeable future,” said Mr Paice.
經合組織(OECD)指出，中國生產和消費全球豬肉產量的一半。隨著中國增長的財富轉化成餐桌上更多的肉製品，中國人對肉類的需求還在繼續增長。佩斯表示：“毫無疑問，在可預見的未來，中國生產的豬肉無法滿足當地需求，中國人對此並不諱言。”
British pigs have greater fertility, with the average sow producing twice as many piglets a year – up to 32 – as her Chinese cousin. That explains the next export agenda: pig semen.
英國豬的繁殖力更強，平均每隻母豬的年產仔量是中國母豬一倍，達到32只。這就滋生了下一個出口計劃——豬精液。
The UK already sells live breeding pigs to China but has struggled to jump through veterinary hoops on semen. Mr Jackson said he will invite Chinese vets next week to make inspections in late July.
英國已經向中國出售活種豬，但豬精液還沒有通過中國獸醫的檢驗。傑克遜表示，下週他將邀請中國獸醫在7月底對英國豬的精液作檢查。
He believes genetics is “what China really wants”. Despite the small size of the British industry Mr Jackson says it is a world leader. “Even America comes to us to buy genetics, mainly pigs but also sheep and cattle.” Genetics improves pig economics, he says. British pigs can be fattened up for the kill in just three months but Chinese pigs take a year – or about 260 additional days of 6kg of cereal-based feed for half-a-billion animals. “Take that away and you can see how the genetics industry can do such a wonderful job for planet Earth,” said Mr Jackson.
他認為，基因才是“中國真正想要的”。傑克遜表示，儘管英國養豬產業規模小，卻是全球的佼佼者。 “連美國人都跑過來向我們購買基因，主要是豬的基因，不過也有牛羊。”他表示，基因可以改善養豬經濟。英國豬隻要3個月就能養夠膘，屠宰，但中國豬要用1年——即中國的5億頭豬，每頭要用6千克穀物飼料多餵養260天左右。傑克遜表示：“減去這些額外投入，你會發現基因工業可以給行星地球帶來如此美妙的變化。”
While farmers applaud Westminster's efforts, even Mr Paice conceded the country has lost a head start. “The fact is we export more food to Belgium than we do to all the Bric countries [Brazil, Russia, India and China] together,” he said . “That's a pretty damning indictment of our efforts.”
儘管豬農歡迎英國政府的努力，但佩斯也承認，英國已經輸在了起跑線上。他說：“我們出口到比利時的食品都比出口到金磚四國（巴西、俄羅斯、印度和中國）的總量還多。這真是我們工作不足的明證。”
譯者/倪衛國
英國四月底公布的國內生產總值，連兩季衰退，下一季也不看好，讓英國首相卡麥隆直稱「非常、非常讓人失望」。英國經濟出了什麼問題？
上週公布的英國經濟數字，想必讓英國首相卡麥隆領導的保守黨政府，大受打擊。因為英國今年第一季的國內生產總值衰退了○．二％，而這已是連續第二季的二度下滑（去年第四季的衰退幅度為○．三％）。
沒人期望奇蹟出現，但這些數字未免也太令人洩氣了。根據之前的調查，大多數的分析師認為，佔英國經濟四分之三的服務業，會有較強的表現，可推動國內生產總值回升。
結果這些專家全都錯了。服務業僅較上季微幅成長○．一％；製造業則下跌○．一％；而營造業，則衰退了三％。未來數據可能會修正，但當然，向下修正與向上修正的機率相同。假期較多的第二季前景，看來更不妙。
技術上，英國經濟是已經確定呈二度衰退，而這是自七○年代以來首見。
英國經濟復甦的速度，遠不及之前的經驗，復甦力道也不比美國。然而這是為什麼呢？
如果把消費、投資、公共支出和貿易，比喻成四架拉動國內生產總值的馬車，目前需拉動英國的這四架馬車，全都被拴住，動彈不得。
佔總消費一半比重的民間消費，在二○一一年衰退了一．二％。英國的通膨率，頑固地僵持在三．五％不下來，主要是因為燃料價格上漲。之前價格上漲的主因，是英鎊貶值及加值稅的調升，一直持續壓抑著消費。
沒人期望奇蹟出現，但這些數字未免也太令人洩氣了。根據之前的調查，大多數的分析師認為，佔英國經濟四分之三的服務業，會有較強的表現，可推動國內生產總值回升。
結果這些專家全都錯了。服務業僅較上季微幅成長○．一％；製造業則下跌○．一％；而營造業，則衰退了三％。未來數據可能會修正，但當然，向下修正與向上修正的機率相同。假期較多的第二季前景，看來更不妙。
技術上，英國經濟是已經確定呈二度衰退，而這是自七○年代以來首見。
英國經濟復甦的速度，遠不及之前的經驗，復甦力道也不比美國。然而這是為什麼呢？
如果把消費、投資、公共支出和貿易，比喻成四架拉動國內生產總值的馬車，目前需拉動英國的這四架馬車，全都被拴住，動彈不得。
佔總消費一半比重的民間消費，在二○一一年衰退了一．二％。英國的通膨率，頑固地僵持在三．五％不下來，主要是因為燃料價格上漲。之前價格上漲的主因，是英鎊貶值及加值稅的調升，一直持續壓抑著消費。
How Osborne can pull the economy back from the brink
The job as chancellor is a
lonely one. You are often the bearer of bad news. Frequently you are
depicted as Scrooge. So I do have some sympathy for George Osborne’s
position. But it is now three and a half years since the collapse of
Lehmans and if I had thought then that Britain would this week plunge
into a double-dip recession – and be engulfed in the longest downturn
for a century – I would have been appalled. The truth is that austerity
is not working.
Almost exactly two years ago austerity was launched as the sure way
to recovery. Today that central plank on which the coalition was formed
is splintering. The government has defined itself by this central
purpose. The evidence is that it is failing, badly. Like first world war
generals, it is sticking with an orthodoxy that is not working. The
question is whether it will accept the need to change tack.So where are we now? Our economy has shrunk 4.3 per cent since 2008. Conventional wisdom says it will bounce back to its historic trend rate of growth of about 2.5 per cent. The Office for Budget Responsibility, which uses a similar model to the Treasury, forecasts a return to growth of a very respectable 3 per cent in three years’ time. The chancellor needs that growth to make his projected borrowing figures stand up.
It is already clear that recovery, when it comes, will have taken longer than it did in the 1930s. The recoveries of the 1980s and 1990s were speedy by comparison. That fact alone should give us pause for thought. But conventional wisdom has been stood on its head. I don’t think there is any guarantee that recovery will come without additional stimulus here and in Europe. We are not in the same position as Spain, thank goodness. Our economy is historically more robust but we cannot rule out a lost decade, with the prospect of more recessionary dips.
Back in 2010, before the coalition took office, the economy was growing mainly as a result of the stimulus put in place in late 2008. It is true that growth was weak but it was respectable. We did what most other countries were doing and it worked. Yet on coming to office the new government set out to make a series of mendacious claims to gain support for its determination to cut the structural deficit by the end of this parliament. It said we were as bad as Greece. It said our creditworthiness was in doubt. But that overblown rhetoric had an unintended consequence. It undermined confidence, which has never really returned.
More than that, the argument was flawed. Cut public expenditure, the government said, and the private sector would move in to take its place as surely as night follows day. This has not happened because of a lack of business confidence – some businesses are sitting on mountains of cash as they wait and see what happens. In the meantime, consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises lack cash, even if confidence returns. So the economic rock on which the coalition built its fortress looks distinctly shaky – and this as its political strategy has suffered its worst month since taking office.
Governments cannot defy the forces of economic gravity but they can make a difference. Markets want deficits to be reduced but they also know that without growth this will not happen. What is needed is a credible plan. That is why I wanted to halve the deficit over a four-year period because I thought it was deliverable and would not damage the economic and social fabric of this country.
Today the government, which lacks any credible plan, is borrowing £150bn more than it intended. The elimination of the structural deficit is now running two years later than promised. We are way off-course and the government knows it. It seems to have no idea how to get growth going. I have two suggestions.
The first is investment in infrastructure. Ageing power stations need to be replaced. Investment is needed in rail and in airports. We must look urgently at constraints on growth in the south-east, including Heathrow. New housing is vital and easier to get going. This all needs government help in planning and resources. Better to borrow to invest in assets we will need than to end up borrowing more as growth falters.
Second, more quantitative easing is needed, but this time ensuring that the money gets out of the bank vaults and on to the high street. We are already borrowing more because of the lack of growth. Better to spend money on infrastructure and businesses that will ensure the recovery is soundly based.
Then there is Europe. Of course the eurozone crisis threatens us – and indeed the global recovery. The eurozone, behind the curve for two years, has now decided to go into an economic cul-de-sac. Its foolish treaty, which will result in a downward spiral for many countries and which, in effect, renders a Keynesian approach illegal, must rank as one of the biggest political and economic follies since Versailles.
Greece is still not fixed. Now Spain struggles. Even the Dutch, fervent for the austerity cause, have floundered. Mario Draghi, the president of the European Central Bank who bought time for the eurozone, rightly calls for a pact for growth. Should François Hollande win the presidency of France it would be an opportunity for the eurozone to adopt a new approach, one that finally clears up the banks and adopts a focus on growth. Painful decisions would still have to be made but at least we would be heading the right way.
It is not just the economics here. In France last week it was clear that a growing number of people were losing patience with their politicians. Something similar was going on in Bradford. We will only be able to win support for difficult economic decisions if they are seen to be fair and credible. People need a sign that there will be a world in which people can realise their aspirations and see a future for their children.
I said in August 2008 that this crisis would be more profound and longer-lasting than people thought. So, sadly, it has proved. The tragedy would be if, far from building recovery, today’s governments stuck to a failed policy of austerity that risks pitching us back to the brink.
The writer is a Labour MP and a former chancellor of the exchequer
29 April 2012 Last updated at 19:32 GMT
Jeremy Hunt: Labour demands PM statement in Commons
Cannot play media. You do not have the correct version of the flash player. Download the correct version
The PM said he did not believe did not believe Mr Hunt had broken the code
Labour is demanding that David Cameron makes a Commons statement on the row surrounding the culture secretary.
There have been calls for Jeremy Hunt to resign after it was
revealed his special adviser was in contact with News Corp during its
bid for BSkyB.The prime minister has resisted demands to order an inquiry into claims the ministerial code was broken.
A Labour source told the BBC Mr Cameron needed to explain on Monday why he was "ducking his responsibilities".
He has argued that he wants to hear Mr Hunt's evidence to the Leveson Inquiry on press standards first.
But the Labour source said: "David Cameron is still trying to hide behind the Leveson Inquiry.
"With Parliament breaking up on Tuesday, Mr Cameron must come to the Commons and explain to the British people why he is ducking his responsibilities to enforce the ministerial code."
Responsibility for ruling on the BSkyB takeover bid in a "quasi-judicial" manner was given to the culture secretary in 2010.
Last week the Leveson Inquiry published emails between Mr Hunt's special adviser, Adam Smith, and News Corporation's head of public affairs, Frederic Michel, about the company's efforts to take over the 61% of the broadcaster it did not already own.
Continue reading the main story
David Cameron insisted that "there was no grand deal" between him and the Murdochs to trade backing for their company's ambitions for their newspapers in return for support for the Conservative Party in 2010.
There will now be many thousands of words written about the evidence for and against his claim.
That will do the government no good at all but Cameron's calculation is, I suspect, that it's better to have that argument now rather than later.
David Cameron insisted that "there was no grand deal" between him and the Murdochs to trade backing for their company's ambitions for their newspapers in return for support for the Conservative Party in 2010.
There will now be many thousands of words written about the evidence for and against his claim.
That will do the government no good at all but Cameron's calculation is, I suspect, that it's better to have that argument now rather than later.
Mr Hunt has denied Labour claims
that the emails show the firm had a "back channel" of influence to his
office but his adviser quit earlier this week, saying the extent of
contact went too far and had not been authorised by Mr Hunt.
Labour says the culture secretary himself should go - because
the ministerial code says ministers are responsible for their own
actions and those of their special advisers. They have also accused him of misleading Parliament about whether he had published all exchanges between his department and News Corporation, part of Rupert Murdoch's media empire.
It wants the independent adviser on ministerial interests, Sir Alex Allan, to look into the matter, a call backed by some Lib Dems and Conservative backbenchers.
Mr Hunt has promised to disclose private texts and emails between him and Mr Smith to the Leveson Inquiry.
Speaking to the BBC's The Andrew Marr Show on Sunday, Mr Cameron said all the details of the row would be "laid bare" by the Leveson Inquiry - to which Mr Hunt will give evidence next month.
He said the email contact had been "too close" but said as things stood, he did not believe Mr Hunt had broken the code. But he said he, as prime minister, was ultimately responsible for ensuring the ministerial code was upheld and the issue had to be properly investigated.
"If evidence comes out through this exhaustive inquiry [Leveson], where you're giving evidence under oath, if he did breach the ministerial code, then clearly that's a different issue and I would act," Mr Cameron said.
Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman told BBC One's Sunday Politics it was "already evident" that Mr Hunt had breached the code.
Mr Hunt is set to give evidence to the Leveson Inquiry next month
The Sun newspaper, which is owned by another company in Rupert Murdoch's News Corps empire, switched its support from Labour to the Conservatives in September 2009.
But Mr Cameron said it was "not true" to suggest there had been a deal in which he would help the Murdochs' business interests or allow the BSkyB takeover to go through, in return for their support for his party.
"It would be absolutely wrong for there to be any sort of deal and there wasn't... There was no grand deal," he said.
Political Furor Over BSkyB Lobbying
News
Corp.'s James Murdoch, at a media-ethics inquiry, was grilled about the
company's relationship with the U.K. government minister who oversaw a
crucial regulatory review of its effort to gain full control of BSkyB.
Hints of Collusion Between News Corp. and British Minister
By JOHN F. BURNS and ALAN COWELL
Evidence presented at an inquiry suggested that the culture minister, or
an aide claiming to speak for him, worked covertly to help win approval
for a takeover of the BSkyB network.
Murdochs turn tables on British government
The Murdoch family
dramatically turned the tables on Britain’s government yesterday,
putting pressure on David Cameron and one of his senior ministers to
answer tough questions about their close relationship with News Corp.
In evidence presented to an official inquiry into the press, James
Murdoch, News Corp’s deputy chief operating officer, laid bare the
intimate relationship between his company and the office of Jeremy Hunt,
the media minister who was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity in
deciding on News Corp’s £8.3bn bid for full control of BSkyB, the
British satellite broadcaster.Mr Cameron was last night standing by Mr Hunt, the minister in charge of the London Olympics, but he is braced for worse to come today when Rupert Murdoch takes the stand at the Leveson inquiry into press standards.
“We have no idea what he will say,” admitted one shell-shocked senior Tory, although Rupert Murdoch’s recent comments on Twitter – and the editorial tone of The Sun newspaper – suggest the media tycoon is in an unforgiving mood.
The scandal over phone hacking last year put paid to News Corp’s bid for BSkyB and led to a severing of ties between Mr Cameron’s government and the media empire, but James Murdoch yesterday lifted the veil on relations in happier times.
James Murdoch revealed that he had a “tiny side conversation” with Mr Cameron about the BSkyB bid at a Christmas dinner at the home of Rebekah Brooks, the former News International chief executive, on December 23 2010.
Mr Cameron’s office had previously insisted the prime minister had “not been involved” in discussions on the bid and initially denied the Christmas encounter had taken place.
The appearance of James Murdoch at the Leveson inquiry was accompanied by the release of dozens of emails detailing relations between the company and senior politicians, including Mr Hunt.
Fred Michel, News Corp’s director of public affairs, relayed a conversation with Mr Hunt’s office saying the minister had received “very strong advice” not to meet James Murdoch but said the executive could call Mr Hunt on his mobile.
The emails are replete with private information allegedly obtained from advisers to Mr Cameron, Vince Cable, business secretary, and George Osborne, chancellor.
Mr Hunt said he had asked Lord Justice Leveson to bring forward his appearance before the press standards inquiry, adding that he was “confident that when I present my evidence the public will see that I conducted this process with scrupulous fairness’’.
Additional reporting by Jim Pickard and Kiran Stacey
小默多克證詞讓英國政府難堪
英國會聽證會 警長否認批首相 【2011/7/19 21:15】
〔中央社〕英國國會今天就媒體大亨梅鐸旗下媒體的竊聽醜聞召開聽證會，即將卸任的倫敦警察局長史蒂芬生率先上陣，他澄清並無意批評首相卡麥隆處理這起媒體竊聽醜聞的方式。
梅鐸（Rupert Murdoch）稍後也出席作證，他提早3小時搭乘Range Rover座車抵達國會，但遭到攝影記者團團包圍，車子迅速駛離。
這起醜聞席捲梅鐸的新聞集團（News Corp）媒體帝國，而且牽涉到警方，國會一個委員會召開聽證會調查，史蒂芬生（Paul Stephenson）作證時表示：「我無意批評首相。」
史蒂芬生已於17日宣布請辭，原因是倫敦都會區警察局曾聘請涉及醜聞案的華立斯（Neil Wallis）擔任媒體顧問。華立斯曾任梅鐸旗下已因醜聞案關閉的「世界新聞報」（News of the World）副總編輯。
在他的辭職聲明中，史蒂芬生似乎將自己的作為與卡麥隆（David Cameron）相比擬，因為卡麥隆曾聘請世界新聞報總編輯柯爾遜（Andy Coulson）擔任他的新聞主管。
史蒂芬生今天在委員會作證時表示，他同意卡麥隆的說法，這兩種情況不能相提並論。他說：「當然，（卡麥隆）聘請柯爾遜先生，與倫敦警察局聘請華立斯先生的情況完全不同。」
《中英對照讀新聞》Phone hacking provides opening for Britain’s Miliband 電話竊聽案提供了英國工黨領袖米勒班大好良機
◎俞智敏
After months on the back foot, British opposition leader Ed Miliband has found his voice with the phone hacking row, leading the charge against one-time political kingmaker Rupert Murdoch.
在連續幾個月處於劣勢後，英國反對黨領袖米勒班終於在電話竊聽醜聞中找到了自己的聲音，帶頭對抗曾為政壇造王者的媒體大亨梅鐸。
Responding to the announcement that Murdoch’s News Corp. had bowed to political pressure over the hacking and withdrawn its offer for pay-TV giant BSkyB, Miliband said it was a victory for a scandalised public.
針對梅鐸旗下的「新聞集團」向電話竊聽案所引發的政治壓力低頭，宣布撤回收購付費電視台BSkyB（英國天空廣播公司）一事，米勒班回應說，這是憤慨英國民眾的勝利。
But others have noted that it has also been a good week for Miliband, who had been criticised for a slow start since he beat his older and better-known brother David to the Labour leadership in September 2010.
但其他人卻指出，這一週對米勒班本人而言也是好事連連，自從他在去年9月擊敗知名度較高的哥哥大衛．米勒班、當選工黨領袖後，就一直被批評起步太慢。
"A Labour leader is born", the left-leaning Independent newspaper said in an editorial recently, while the conservative Daily Telegraph declared that "Ed Miliband’s moment has come -- as defender of a free press".
「工黨領袖誕生了，」左傾的「獨立報」最近在社論中寫道，而保守派的「每日電訊報」也宣稱，「艾德．米勒班，自由媒體捍衛者的時候已經到來。」
It was at Miliband’s request that Prime Minister David Cameron announced a public inquiry into the claims that the News of the World hacked the phone of a murdered teenager, and it was the Labour leader who tabled a motion in parliament calling on News Corp. to withdraw its offer for BSkyB.
在米勒班的要求下，首相卡麥隆才宣布對「世界新聞報」被控竊聽一名被謀殺的青少女手機一案進行公開調查，而在國會中提出動議呼籲新聞集團撤回BSkyB收購案的同樣也是米勒班。
新聞辭典
opening：名詞，指機會、成功的好時機，如She waited patiently for her opening, then exposed the report’s inconsistency.（她耐心等待機會來臨，然後一舉揭發報告中的矛盾處。）
on the back foot：英式俚語，指採取防守姿勢，居於不利地位，如Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is "on the back foot", UK Defence Secretary Liam Fox says, citing new momentum in Nato’s air campaign.（英國國防部長福克斯舉北約空襲的全新氣勢表示，利比亞領袖格達費已經「居於劣勢」。）
bow to sb/sth：指（在不情願的情況下）向某人或某事屈服，如Eventually the government was forced to bow to public pressure and reform the tax.（政府終究還是被迫向民意壓力屈服，決定改革稅制。）
沒有留言:
張貼留言