The Media Column: Why do the BBC's top brass need to be paid huge bonuses?

The hearings ofthe Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee usually offer some of the best drama in town. It could hardly be otherwise when they are chaired by Gerald Kaufman, an actor manqué if ever there was one.

But when the top brass at the BBC appeared before it last week, it was one of the select committee's lesser-known players – a character actor, if you like – the stolid Labour veteran Derek Wyatt, who stole the most dramatic moment. "Can you tell me," he asked the BBC chairman, Gavyn Davies, in a studiedly matter-of-fact tone, "why the 19 members of your executive committee earn more than the Prime Minister?" The PM earns £170,000 a year.

A cheekier chappie than Mr Davies might have played to the gallery and answered: "They need it for the kids' private tuition." But the BBC chairman gave the stock response. First, the BBC had had consultants conduct a survey of pay rises in a cross-section of media companies and had taken the median increase to award its own top staff their bonuses. Second, if the BBC wanted to attract and retain top talent, it had to compete. "The people who run the BBC", he said, "are outstanding people and have very ready access to jobs in the media industry."

To my surprise, neither point was challenged by the select committee. So, allow me. On the first point, the consultants involved must have picked their media companies carefully. They certainly didn't choose Britain's national newspapers, where pay rises have been thin on the ground, even among editors.

But more puzzling is Mr Davies's assertion that the bonuses are necessary to keep these high-flyers rooted in public-service broadcasting. The evidence, such as it is, is to the contrary. Sitting on Mr Davies's right at the committee hearing was Greg Dyke, the director general, recipient of a £97,000 bonus on his £357,000 basic salary. Is there really a danger that Mr Dyke would scarper if he wasn't given his annual bonus? Hardly. For a start, he took a large pay cut when he came to the BBC from Pearson, thus disproving Mr Davies's point. Mr Dyke even told friends he would do the job for no money. He is a wealthy man; and to be director general of the world's most famous broadcasting organisation is a dream fulfilled.

Nor does the argument hold among the just-a-little-more-than-the-Prime-Minister ranks, with their £50,000-70,000 bonuses. Take Alan Yentob (£58,000 bonus on his £221,000). Here is a BBC man through and through, who loves his job. In overall charge of drama, film and children's TV, he has overseen the launch of new children's channels and films such as the Oscar-nominated Iris, and he mixes with the glitterati. It's rumoured that he will even have his own arts show soon. I can't see him leaving all that for a better-paid but invisible job elsewhere. Indeed, I believe he was approached by a top advertising agency and turned them down. Money is not his driving force. Public-service broadcasting, with a bit of added glam, is.

And look at some of those who have left in the past couple of years. Tony Hall, head of news and current affairs, went not to a fat cat's job in the City, but to become head of the Royal Opera House. No great pay rise there. Patricia Hodgson moved from the corporation's policy unit to a quango, the Independent Television Commission. OK, Mark Thompson did double his salary when he quit as BBC director of television to become chief executive of Channel 4. But he stayed in terrestrial broadcasting and may well return to the BBC one day as director general.

BBC men and women tend to enjoy being BBC men and women. These bonuses smell more of corporate greed than any sweetener to keep the headhunters at bay. The BBC's argument doesn't hold up. Mr Kaufman should have the corporation back for Act II.

d.lister@independent.co.uk

David Aaronovitch is away