Tonight:
4°c
MPs accuse BBC Trust of arrogance
23 Sep 2009The BBC's governing body was accused of "arrogance" by an influential group of MPs today over its response to criticism of the corporation's commercial arm.
The House of Commons select committee on culture, media and sport said the BBC Trust had used the debate over the implications of the Digital Britain report as an excuse to avoid responding to recommendations it made in April.
The committee had published a report which said ventures by BBC Worldwide, the corporation's commercial arm, had damaged competitors and should be reined in.
The MPs were highly critical of Worldwide's acquisition in October 2007 of a 75% stake in the Lonely Planet company, which publishes guidebooks and a magazine for independent travellers.
In response, the Trust said the decision to buy Lonely Planet was approved in an open and transparent way according to four criteria laid down in BBC rules.
In a new report out today, the MPs said: "We disagree. The purchase of Lonely Planet remains the most egregious example of the nature of BBC Worldwide's expansion into areas where the BBC has no, or very limited existing interests.
"Had the BBC Trust been a more responsible oversight body, it would have given more serious consideration to the likely impact on the commercial sector. We can only speculate as to why it did not.
"Our report demonstrated that, in terms of public disclosure of the financial details of the Lonely Planet purchase, the BBC was certainly not as transparent as it claimed to us to have been.
"The BBC's arrogance, demonstrated in much that it presented in its case to us in this respect - and in the way that it ignored this aspect in its response - is self-defeating in terms of the preservation of its public reputation."
John Whittingdale, the committee chairman, welcomed Worldwide's announcement last week that its chief executive would no longer sit on the BBC executive board, as recommended by the April report.
But the report said the Trust's overall response to its recommendations "cannot be regarded as coherent", and despite spending substantial sums of public money each year, the Trust appeared to believe it had "no case to answer".
The Trust said continuing uncertainty over how Worldwide would operate in future, which it had hoped would be resolved by June's Digital Britain report, meant it had been unable to respond fully to the committee.
The MPs said they were disappointed the Trust had not responded in full.
"We were especially concerned about the apparent arrogance of the BBC Trust who appeared to believe that they had no case to answer," the report said.
"We consider that the BBC has a duty and responsibility to properly account for exactly how its commercial activities benefit the licence fee payer."
The Trust said it had been carrying out its own review of BBC commercial operations since July 2008, and would publish its conclusions once the role of Worldwide in the Digital Britain discussions had become clear.
"Given this timetable we welcomed the Committee's report in April, co-operated with their inquiry and responded as fully as we were able to at the time of its publication," the statement said.
"Although the completion of our review of Worldwide has been delayed until there is greater clarity around the Digital Britain report, we are eager to complete this work and look forward to announcing further conclusions as soon as possible."
Changes to Worldwide governance announced last week addressed some of the issues raised in the new report, the Trust said.
Reader views (8)
Alan, Carlisle. You have completly missed the point!
"Isn't the BBC in a commercial world" Yes it is, but
the BBC is not a commercial organisation. It's funded
by a compulsory Poll Tax on everyone in the country, thus
it has a guaranteed income every year - not something
that any company in the 'real' world has access to.
If the BBC wants to behave like any other commercial
company, then abolish the License fee, or make it
optional. If some people think the BBC is so good
they can continue to keep contributing voluntarily, as is
the case with PBS in the US.
"Presumably any dividend received by the BBC helps them provide decent programs, whether on TV or radio" That
is purely a matter of opinion!
- Lb, Bromley, 24/09/2009 02:14
Report abuse
In the USA we have to pay through cable or satellite fees for BBC America, who show adverts with the same regularity as US stations. The programs shown are months behind those shown in the UK, and we get endless repeats of Black Adder and Monty Python. NPR pays the BBC to broadcast World Update at 5AM. So no, the BBC is not free.
BBC America is part of the BBC Worldwide. They should show a profit. UK viewers should not subsidize the US. They have to compete for air time and viewers and hence revenue alongside the other channels. They have to buy the rights to show BBC programs just like any other station. That money makes its way back to the UK to help pay for those and other programs. A while back I called BBC America to ask about the afore mentioned repeats. They said that until the cost of production is met by sales to other channels, they are not allowed to show the program. BBC original programs are shown on every Discovery channel, History Channel, SyFy, CBC an many others, all who pay for the privilege. So when all is added up US viewers are subsidizing UK viewers.
BBC News is the most highly regarded news source in the US- Don't worry one way or another we pay for that too-and it throws CNN,Fox, NBC, CBC, ABC news into a cocked hat.
- Peter, NY, USA, London, UK, 23/09/2009 19:39
Report abuse
I agree with Alan Green. I stopped watching t.v. twelve months ago for the reasons he stated - two presenters to "read out loud" - both of them being grossly overpaid. If everyone refused to pay the licence fee the BBC would have to stop and listen to those who pay their wages.
- R.F.York, Yorks, UK, 23/09/2009 17:44
Report abuse
BBC needs to get real - we are the only country in the
world that has to pay a tax to a TV company. It is a ridiculous situation. BBC television and radio can be assessed by the rest of the world without them paying this draconian tax, why is that? Also the amount of staff required to present news programmes is way out of line. It would be interesting to see the salaries these people earn and what sort of contracts they have.
- Tax Free Tv, London, 23/09/2009 11:03
Report abuse
BBC? Arrogant? Never, just keep handing over the money for old rope and stop questioning their motives. Or else!
- Bob, Cheam, 23/09/2009 09:33
Report abuse
THERES IS ABSOLUTELY NO POINT IN THE BBC TRUST AND IT SHOULD BE ELIMINATED. WHAT USEFUL PURPOSE HAS IT SERVED IN THE LAST TWELVE MONTHS? COME TO THAT WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE BBC AFTER YEARS OF DUMBING DOWN. AT A RECENT DINNER PARTY OF TWELVE PEOPLE OF ALL AGES NO ONE WATCHED TV ON A REGULAR BASIS.
NO ONE EVER ASKS WHY IT TAKES TWO PRESENTERS TO READ THE NEWS. THE LICENSE FEE SHOULD BE HALVED. ALL THE BLOATED SALARIES OF SO CALLED CELEBRITIES, PRESENTERS, ADMINISTRATES SHOULD BE CUT BY FIFTY PERCENT, THE BBC SHOULD NOT BE SEEKING TO COMPETE WITH ITV BUT GO BACK TO ITS JOB OF BRINGING TO THE PUBLIC NOTICE MINORITY INTERESTS.
WE HAVVE TO RECOGNIZE THE DAYS OF TV ARE OVER, THIS IS THE AGE OF TWITTER AND THE NET. NO DOUBT THERE WILL SOON BE A HIGHLY PAID QUANGO TO REGULATE THAT.
- Alan Green, England. The forgotten country., 23/09/2009 09:09
Report abuse
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
- Mark Myword, London, 23/09/2009 09:08
Report abuse
Isn't the BBC in a commercial world. Aren't the BBC up against Commercial TV? Why then are the MP's and Commercial TV, up in arms over what could be described as a resounding success in a COMMERCIAL environment? Could it be that Commercial TV has a very poor management unable to identify profitable programmes or situations. It's back to we should have the profit from that not the BBC. TAlk about I'll take my ball home. Commercial TV should grow up, get it's house in order, and show what people want, not just endless soaps. Presumably Lonely Planet was up for sale to the highest bidder, not just the BBC, so why did no one else buy it? Presumably any dividend received by the BBC helps them provide decent programs, whether on TV or radio.
- Alan, carlisle uk, 23/09/2009 08:33
Report abuse
