Murdoch "unfit" to run global company Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise stewardship of a major international company after failing to investigate phone hacking at the News of the World and overseeing a culture of "wilful blindness," a committee of MPs said on Tuesday. The findings of the culture, media and sport committee could endanger News Corp's continued ownership of British Sky Broadcasting, media commentators said. But the conclusions affecting Mr Murdoch, and the passing of the entire report, were not unanimous, with findings about him, as well as the overall motion to submit the report to parliament, being passed by six votes to four, with the Conservative members of the committee all opposing. It was open to those opposing the votes to submit a minority report, but they did not do so. The Conservative members of the committee said they would all have voted in favour of the report had the amendment condemning Rupert Murdoch as unfit not been included. John Whittingdale, the Conservative chairman, said he regretted that they had not been able to achieve unanimity on the report and that its partisan nature would "dilute" its influence. But Mr Whittingdale said the committee was unanimous in its finding that it had been misled by News International executives and this was its purpose in sitting. News Corp said it was "carefully reviewing" the report and would respond shortly. But it added that it "fully acknowledges significant wrongdoing at News of the World and apologises to everyone whose privacy was invaded." In coruscating wording, the committee said that NI, Mr Murdoch's UK newspaper division, had shown contempt for parliament and it was seeking the support of the whole House of Commons to take punitive action against some individuals. The conclusions that Rupert Murdoch is not a "fit person" and that he, the News Corp parent of which he is chairman and chief executive, and NI all exhibited "wilful blindness" carry no legal weight as such. But Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator, is engaged in an evidence-gathering investigation of BSkyB's fitness to hold a broadcast licence. News Corp controls BSkyB. It is also possible that an allegation of wilful blindness could prompt police and prosecutors to launch a corporate prosecution of News International, which would in turn leave its directors open to prosecution. In its 120-page report, the committee found that Les Hinton, the former executive chairman of News International, Tom Crone, the former legal manager of News Group Newspapers, and Colin Myler, the editor of the now-defunct NoW who was brought in after the original phone-hacking case in 2007, all misled the committee. The committee did not say that James Murdoch, former head of NI, misled them, saying there was no conclusive evidence either way. However, it accused him of an "astonishing lack of curiosity on the part of a chief executive" for not inquiring more deeply about the extent of the hacking at the Sunday tabloid, which could have exposed its systemic nature in 2008. NI and its parent News Corp exhibited wilful blindness, for which the company's directors - including Rupert Murdoch and James Murdoch - should ultimately be prepared to take responsibility More seriously for those overseeing corporate governance at the companies, the committee went on to say in a statement accompanying the report: "Corporately, the News of the World and NI misled the committee about the true nature and extent of the internal investigations they professed to have carried out in relation to phone hacking." The company made false statements, failed to disclose documents and showed an instinct to cover up rather than confront wrongdoing, the report said. In failing to investigate [phone hacking] properly, and by ignoring evidence of widespread wrongdoing, NI and its parent News Corp exhibited wilful blindness, for which the company's directors - including Rupert Murdoch and James Murdoch - should ultimately be prepared to take responsibility. The criticism of the elder Mr Murdoch, who gave evidence in person last July and blamed trusted executives for keeping the truth from him, is delivered in a long paragraph on page 70 of the report. It says: "On the basis of the facts and evidence before the committee, we conclude that, if at all relevant times Rupert Murdoch did not take steps to become fully informed about phone hacking, he turned a blind eye and exhibited wilful blindness to what was going on in his companies and publications. This culture, we consider, permeated from the top throughout the organisation and speaks volumes about the lack of effective corporate governance at News Corp and NI. We conclude, therefore, that Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company. The MPs were keen to point out the offences against the parliamentary system they believed had been perpetrated. The integrity and effectiveness of the select committee system relies on the truthfulness and completeness of the oral and written evidence submitted. The behaviour of NI and certain witnesses in this affair demonstrated contempt for that system in the most blatant fashion. If the House of Commons were to pass a motion that supported the committee's finding that individuals were in contempt, the Murdcochs could be summoned to the Bar of the House of Commons to apologise, something that has not happened since the 1950s. The committee's report pours scorn over the elder Mr Murdoch's appearance before them and, last week, before the Leveson inquiry spawned by the phone-hacking scandal. It says: "In his testimony to us and [Leveson], Rupert Murdoch has demonstrated excellent powers of recall and grasp of detail, when it has suited him." It describes as "barely credible" Mr Murdoch's evidence that he had forgotten when he first knew the falsity of NI's defence that Clive Goodman, the NoW royal editor jailed for hacking in 2007, was a "rogue reporter." The notion that ... a hands-on proprietor like Rupert Murdoch had no inkling that wrongdoing and questionable practice was not widespread at the News of the World is simply not credible. The committee said it had deliberately refrained from drawing conclusions about evidence given by individuals who had been arrested, for risk of prejudicing any future criminal trial. But it added that its members intended to produce a supplementary report when all criminal cases are deal with.