Media Release

Embargoed to

Tuesday 13 March 2007

Scotland Yard alerted to EU Funding of BBC

MEP Asks:  Is it Bribery, Corruption, Fraud or Malfeasance?

The Metropolitan Police have today (13 March) received a bundle of papers from Ashley Mote MEP, Independent, SE England , detailing the tens of millions of euros received by the BBC over recent years.

He has invited Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates, Director of Intelligence at Scotland Yard, to review the BBC's sources and application of funds, excluding the licence fee.  The police have been asked to examine the evidence linking the EU as a source of these funds with the BBC’s open support of the EU in its editorial coverage, contrary to its obligations under the Royal Charter.

Recent correspondence between the BBC’s management in Brussels and the MEP has revealed a prima facie case for investigation, Mr Mote claims.  The documents show that the BBC’s senior management has, over many years, accepted money from the EU and its institutions in exchange for which they have enforced an editorial policy of positive support of the EU, contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the charter.

The BBC’s Royal Charter has the force of law.  It requires balance in the reporting of news and current affairs.  All strands of opinion on political matters must be given a fair hearing and roughly equal air time. 

Solid proof exists that this is not the case, Mr Mote says.  He has told Scotland Yard that evidence of bias has been collected by professional media analysts for Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who has funded research into BBC coverage of the EU for many years. 

“My focus has been on the money”, Mr Mote says.  “We now know that the BBC has in recent years borrowed tens of millions of euros from the European Investment Bank, an institution of the European Union.  The correspondence shows that the BBC gained these large sums of public money from the EIB on terms that would never have been available commercially.  It also acquired funding from other parts of the EU’s web of institutions, again on less than transparent terms and – sometimes – for the vaguest of reasons.

“The purpose of these soft loans and other funding is clearly intended to further the cause of EU federalism – in effect to ‘buy’ BBC support.  Some might argue that it is bribery and corruption, others that it is fraud.  At the very least I suggest malfeasance – a deliberate act knowingly undertaken against the public interest”, he wrote to DAC Yates.

(ends)

Notes to Editors:

For further information, call Ashley Mote on 07836 220223

The full text of the letter from Ashley Mote MEP to DAC John Yates at New Scotland Yard follows:

BBC Malfeasance – A Case for Investigation?

You will recall my letter of 20 February offering to provide you with evidence of the BBC’s commercial and editorial activities which conflict directly with the Corporation’s legal obligations under the Royal Charter.  There appears to be a prima facie case of malfeasance.

This letter and the enclosures represent the evidence accumulated in recent months.  If, having considered it, you need any further information I will of course attempt to provide it.

In a nutshell, the case is this: the BBC’s senior management has, over many years, accepted money from the EU and its institutions in exchange for which they have enforced an editorial policy of positive support of the EU, contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Royal Charter. 

The Charter, which has the force of law, requires balance in the reporting of news and current affairs, although it has to be admitted that the obligations to maintain balance set out in the present document are much watered down from those in the original of some 80 years ago. 

Nonetheless, even the present Royal Charter makes it clear that all strands of opinion on political matters must be given a fair hearing and roughly equal air time. 

Solid proof exists that this is not the case.  That evidence can be obtained from Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who has funded research into BBC coverage of the EU over many years.  I have no doubt he will gladly make it available to you, together with any other relevant evidence you might find helpful.

You might also find a recently published book instructive - Can We Trust the BBC? by Robin Aitken.  Mr Aitken worked for the Corporation for 25 years.  His book describes numerous horror stories of bias and political prejudice, many of them quietly buried by past generations of BBC management.

This letter and enclosures concern themselves mainly with the other side of the coin – to be precise, the provision of substantial sums of EU money on less than commercial terms and for questionable motives.

I have also taken the liberty of enclosing background reading – for example the BBC’s internal attempt to put right an acknowledged lack of balance in EU editorial policy. 

The BBC receives an annual funding of approximately £2.7 billion from the public through the licence fee system. This obliges members of the public to finance the BBC simply because they own a TV set. 

As this is a legally enforceable poll tax, the public can expect the BBC to comply scrupulously with the terms of its Royal Charter.  The governors have a duty to satisfy themselves that all activities of the BBC are carried out in accordance with the highest standards of public accountability. 

It is arguable that they have not complied with such obligations.  When reporting on the EU, the BBC routinely demonstrates a commitment to UK membership which at times amounts to little more than pro-EU propaganda. 

Furthermore, the BBC has openly admitted that their reporting of EU activities is biased.  Why else have they taken steps to redress the balance by appointing internal investigations and commissioning reports on the subject?  

Some brief points from the evidence follow, specifically:

a) Article 7(1)(e) of the Royal Charter requires the governors "to ensure that any comments, proposals and complaints made by viewers and listeners of the Home Services are given due consideration and are properly handled by the Corporation".  Lord Hutton's report on the death of Dr David Kelly clearly showed that the BBC did not comply with this Article when dealing with complaints from Alistair Campbell.  

Furthermore, the BBC has on numerous occasions refused to consider complaints from viewers and listeners about coverage of EU affairs, despite the Charter obligation for complaints to be given due consideration.  Refusing to accept complaints is not an option, and unlawful.

b) Article 7(1)(f) requires the governors "to ensure the treatment of controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality".  The BBC clearly supports Britain ’s membership of the EU and the abolition of the £ sterling in favour of the euro.  The statistical and documentary evidence is overwhelming and readily available, as mentioned above.  Much of the statistical evidence has been gathered for Lord Pearson by Minotaur Media, an independent monitoring organisation. 

Some Minotaur Media research findings have been reported on the Global Britain web site.  Other websites also support the view that the BBC has its own agenda, particularly on the EU.  In addition, scores of anecdotal newspaper articles have pointed out the BBC's bias towards the EU.

Despite all this powerful evidence to the contrary, and its own internal enquiries, the BBC continually refutes complaints about its lack of balance in reporting EU news and current affairs.  At times its denials border on calling black ‘white’, or insisting that the Emperor really is wearing clothes.

c) Rod Liddle (ex Editor, Radio 4’s Today programme) wrote an article about the Welsh National Assembly and the Scottish Parliament in The Spectator of 10 May 2003.  He stated that the BBC's attitude was…

"the result of institutionalised political correctness, every bit as corrupting as institutionalised racism.  It is result of seminars and workshops (I remember them well) where journalists are instructed time and time again that the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly are bloody important and don’t you dare suggest they aren’t". 

Such editorial ‘guidance’ in the reporting of these institutions meant that the BBC was directly and specifically supporting the EU's policy of breaking up the UK into regions which could be more effectively controlled by Brussels.  Such a policy was contrary to the BBC’s obligations under the Charter, and its implementation more propaganda than news.

d) The BBC's governors recently set up a review body under the chairmanship of Lord Taylor to examine whether or not the BBC was biased in favour of the EU.  Their main finding was that the BBC was biased in favour of the EU “but that this bias was not deliberate”. The report confirmed that bias existed in the BBC, again contrary to its obligations under the Charter.

But to claim that it was not deliberate was an absurd conclusion bearing in mind the overwhelming contradictory evidence.  Since when, for example, was the setting up and management of the seminars referred to above not "deliberate"?  Since when were such events "accidental"?

e) The BBC has in recent years borrowed tens of millions of euros from the European Investment Bank, an institution of the European Union.  These borrowings and other funding are detailed in the enclosed correspondence with the BBC’s team which is permanently based in Brussels (next door to the European Parliament building).

The correspondence also shows that the BBC gained these large sums of public money from the European Investment Bank on terms that would never have been available commercially.  It also acquired funding from other parts of the EU’s web of institutions, again on less than transparent terms and – sometimes – for the vaguest of reasons.  Indeed, as you will see, transparency in all of these dealings is notable by its absence.

The purpose of these soft loans and other funding is clearly intended to further the cause of EU federalism – in effect to ‘buy’ BBC support.  Some might argue that it is bribery and corruption, others that it is fraud.  At the very least I suggest malfeasance – a deliberate act knowingly undertaken against the public interest.

I write, therefore, to invite the Metropolitan Police to review the BBC's sources and application of funds, excluding the licence fee.  Further, to examine the evidence linking the EU as a source of these funds with the BBC’s open support of the EU in its editorial coverage, contrary to its legal obligations under the Royal Charter.

(ends)
 

From Ashley Mote  MEP

I am making the following letter public at this time because the House of Commons is debating the renewal of the BBC’s Royal Charter this week.

Regards,

Ashley

Matteo Maggiore Esq

Head of European Policy

BBC

Rue Wiertz 50

B-1050 Brussels

cc: Michael Grade, Chairman of the Board of Governors, London

cc: Mark Thompson, Director General of the BBC, London

11 July 2006

We failed in our attempt at a meeting last month, when you tried to change the time you originally proposed for our discussion on the relationship between the BBC and the EU.  I promised to write to you instead.

First, let's deal with the answers you gave to my questions of 31 January, the most important of which you chose completely to ignore.

The figures quoted in your reply of 8 May are merely a rehearsal of the figures quoted in answer to a written question in the House of Lords in June 2004.  They bear no relation to known financing of the BBC by the EU and some of its various institutions.  But you must know that already.  So the question arises...why did you attempt to minimise the sums involved?  Does the BBC have something to hide?

I referred in my original letter to the 40.4 million euros provided by the European Investment Bank in 2002, and the 96.46 million provided by the same source the following year.  These sums were in the form of loans, and are listed as such on the EIB website.  In addition to these loans to BBC subsidiaries, another 240 million euros has been 'loaned' by the EIB to other broadcasting and production units in the UK since 1989.

Several questions arise: on what terms of repayment, over what period and at what rates of interest?  Are these soft loans - meaning will they be written off quietly in a few years time because you know (and the rest of us can make an intelligent guess) that the BBC will never be in a position to repay such sums and is not expected to do so.  Even the EIB's own website admits they were made under the "most favourable of terms...financing capital projects according to the objectives of the Union ".  It goes on to declare that one of its objectives is to "contribute towards the integration of member countries"!

Within the UK , of course, strictly speaking these loans also raise questions of probity.  Are licence-payers' funds at risk?  The BBC's so-called "Information Unit" has apparently claimed elsewhere that these were loans to BBC Worldwide, which it says is a separate company, the implication being that it has nothing to do with the BBC and licence-payers. 

This claim raises another question - is not the BBC the guarantor of last resort?  Can it be shown that this is a stand-alone commercial company and that repayment would not be sought from what is, in reality, the parent - ie, the BBC as constituted under British law?

The comments of the "Information Unit" are doubly suspect since that department has itself been sub-contracted to a commercial company, Capita, which has extensive connections with the Blair government and numerous contracts with government departments.   Hardly a reliable source of objective information…especially when Capita’s BBC Information Unit tries to suggest in correspondence that these loans were not actually loans at all.  They claim that the BBC merely enjoys EIB loan facilities.

In any case, the BBC uses BBC Worldwide as its distribution channel for the sale of its programmes around the world.  So to suggest that the two are somehow separated in law is to ignore reality.  The BBC brand is a world-famous asset of the British people, and the fact that one part of it has received a soft loan from the EIB has profound implications.

But let us consider the purposes of these loans.  The 96 million euros was ‘loaned’ to build a digital broadcasting centre in London .  Note London .  Not Timbuktu , or Saigon.   London .  The digitising of the BBC's services in the UK was a demand made on them by the British government whose declared aim has been for some time to close down the use of analogue channels for TV broadcasting. 

The previous year's 40 million ‘loan’ was for the co-production of television programmes in London .  Now why make these loans to BBC Worldwide when all the benefits were lodged in the UK ?  

Even if we stretch a point and include in our considerations the BBC's World Service, which again is separate from BBC Worldwide, we find that the BBC uses reporters based all over the world but funded from London by British licence-payers.  Yet, in your letter of 8 May you admit the BBC's World Service received another £1.4 million into its Trust fund, this time directly from the EU.

In these cumulative circumstances, how can the BBC possibly continue to claim that its news and current affairs broadcasting complies with the terms of its Royal Charter?  It is the publicly stated objective of the European Investment Bank "to further the objectives of the EU..." 

Millions of UK licence-payers have a huge problem with this interference in their right to objective, balanced reporting.  Lord Pearson of Rannoch has been tireless in his efforts to have the output of BBC news and current affairs analysed objectively and tested against what might be expected under the Charter.  The distortion his researchers have demonstrated over several years is undeniable.  It is gross.

For some considerable time the BBC has conducted a systematic and persistent policy of stifling criticism of the EU, it has been in clear and permanent breach of its own Charter, and it continues shamelessly to ignore, let alone address, any of these issues.  With the tacit support of the British government, and its dependency on EU funds, it has become a brazen supporter of the European 'project', bought, paid for and tied up in financial ribbons.

I offer merely two examples of blatant bias out of thousands.  A recording of the first is still to hand.  A mere ten days after the EIB loan, the BBC's economics editor Evan Davis (who really ought to have known better) broadcast a series of supposedly objective interviews and "news" reports from around the member states about the prospects for the euro.  The tone and content of this programme were obviously a not-so-subtle acknowledgement of the loan.  Objective and balanced it was not.

During the signing of the Nice Treaty, and within the hearing of several bystanders, the BBC reporters on the scene were instructed not to record or report the significant demonstrations against the treaty going on all around them.  Such entirely legitimate opposition was literally whitewashed out of the event by BBC editorial controllers.

Journalists - and not just those reporting for the BBC - are given financial inducements by the EU to attend plenary sessions in Strasbourg .  They have transport, accommodation, camera crews and editing facilities provided at no costs to themselves.  The same facilities are provided more permanently in Brussels . 

Perhaps the last word should come from one of the BBC's own.  Jonathon Chapman, described at the time as a 'Senior BBC World News Reporter', told the Malta Press Club in March 2004 : "The UK media is broadly sceptical [about the EU] so we try in Brussels to break that cycle of scepticism.  The BBC's job is to reflect the European perspective...and make news less sceptical (emphasis added).  That is why the BBC has such a big bureau in Brussels ."

What say you to that?

Ashley Mote

Corporation's £100m loan from EU bank   By Graeme Wilson
(Filed: 12/07/2006)

The Tories attacked the BBC last night after it emerged that it has a £100
million loan deal with a European Union bank set up to promote European
integration.

MPs said the disclosure would alarm licence fee payers and raise questions about
the BBC's impartiality in reporting events in Brussels.

The BBC confirmed last night that it had borrowed £25 million under the deal
with the European Investment Bank in Luxembourg. A spokesman said it had
recently submitted an application to borrow the remaining £75 million.

The EIB was created in 1957 by the Treaty of Rome, which set up the European
Union. It proudly declares that its mission is to "finance capital investment
furthering European integration by promoting EU policies".

Philip Davies, a Tory MP, said: "Many people already believe there is a pro-EU
slant to a lot of BBC reporting. There are bound to be more questions about the
corporation's impartiality when it is borrowing from a bank set up to promote
European integration."

But the claims were rejected by Mark Thompson, the BBC director-general, during
an appearance before the Commons culture, media and sport select committee.

"This relates to various technical projects," he said. "I can give an absolute
assurance that I have no doubt that the BBC's impartiality is unaffected by
this."

A BBC statement said the money was being borrowed by BBC Commercial Holdings,
the company that handles the corporation's commercial activities. BBC Worldwide
used the money to buy commercial rights for programmes.

"The loan carries no editorial obligation for the BBC, it relates only to the
BBC's commercial subsidiaries. If it did, we would not be able to enter into
such a loan agreement."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/12/nbbc112.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/07/12/ixuknews.html

Yes, we are biased on religion and politics, admit BBC executives
By PAUL REVOIR Last updated at 22:23pm on 22nd October 2006

BBC executives have been forced to admit what critics have known for years -
that the corporation is institutionally biased.

The revelation came after details of an 'impartiality' summit called by its
chairman, Michael Grade, were leaked.

Senior figures admitted that the BBC is guilty of promoting Left-wing views and
an anti-Christian sentiment.

They also said that as an organisation it was disproportionately
over-represented by gays and ethnic minorities.

It was also suggested that the Beeb is guilty of political correctness, the
overt promotion of multiculturalism and of being anti-American and against the
countryside.

During the meeting, hosted by Sue Lawley, executives admitted they would happily
broadcast the image of a Bible being thrown away - but would not do the same for
the Koran.

Muslim leaders later condemned this approach.

Ishmail Farhat of the Muslim Association of Britain said: "We don't support this
kind of action or abuse. If they are respecting all religions - then they should
treat all religions the same."

The BBC executives also agreed that the BBC should broadcast an interview with
Osama Bin Laden, despite the offence it would cause.

Even one of the BBC's most senior journalists, political pundit Andrew Marr
admitted that the corporation was unrepresentative of British society.

He said: "The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly-funded, urban
organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities
and gay people.

"It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better
expressed as a cultural liberal bias."

BBC 'diversity tsar' Mary Fitzpatrick claimed women newsreaders should be
allowed to wear what they liked on air and went on to say this should include a
Muslim veil.

She spoke out after criticism was raised of TV newsreader Fiona Bruce wearing a
necklace with a cross on it.

'We may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness'

The BBC's Washington correspondent Justin Webb also accused his own employers of
being anti-American saying they treated it with scorn and derision and "no moral
weight".

He revealed that he had got deputy director general Mark Byford to secretly help
him to "correct" it in his reports.

Business presenter Jeff Randall said he complained to a senior executive at the
BBC about the corporation's pro-multiculturalism stance.

He claimed he was told: "The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism, it believes
in it and it promotes it."

He told how he once wore Union Jack cufflinks to work and was rebuked with: "You
can't do that, that's like the National Front!"

One senior BBC executive admitted that the summit had opened people's eyes to
how biased the BBC had become.

He admitted: "There was a widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too
far in the direction of political correctness.

"Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it
is very hard to change it."

The BBC is believed to be taking a more critical look at itself because it fears
if it does not, its regulation could be removed from its board of governors and
handed over to the independent regulator Ofcom.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411977&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=

http://scotlandonsu nday.scotsman. com/opinion. cfm?id=987322007
Scotland on Sunday - Opinion -
Sun 24 Jun 2007
Last updated: 23-Jun-07 00:59 BST
Long-suffering viewers must be freed from biased BBC
GERALD WARNER

'IMPARTIALITY is and should remain the hallmark of the BBC as the leading
provider of information and entertainment in the United Kingdom... Far from
being imposed on the BBC, impartiality has been conceived by the BBC." And to
think they said comedy was dead in Broadcasting House, that the corporation
could no longer craft good humorous material. That po-faced soundbite was
funnier than any one-liner from Fawlty Towers.

This complacent, mendacious drivel is the first of 12 'guiding principles' that
form the conclusions of a report entitled 'From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel:
Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century', published last week by the BBC.
It is the kind of Big Lie that (momentarily) defies rebuttal by its sheer
audacity. The BBC is a global by-word for partiality: its bias is notorious,
relentless and institutionalised.

This report stemmed from the famous seminar held by the corporation last
September, when the dam of complicity burst and senior broadcasters, like
alcoholics in a support group, publicly acknowledged the bias endemic at the
BBC. Andrew Marr stated that the BBC "is not impartial or neutral. It's a
publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young
people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias, not so much a
party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."

Jeff Randall, former business editor, revealed that a senior news executive had
told him: "The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it
promotes it." Executives, faced with an imaginary scenario for the satirical
programme Room 101, admitted they would permit a sketch in which a Bible was
thrown into a dustbin, but would not sanction similar treatment of the Koran.

With the genie out of the bottle, it was time for the corporation to embark on a
white-washing exercise. Last week's report was the result. Cleverly picking up
on Marr's 'cultural' bias, it disarmingly admitted the BBC had allowed itself to
be hijacked by Bob Geldof, Bono and the Live 8 concert hype at the time of the
Gleneagles summit in 2005. However, there is definitely no party-political bias.
So, what about James Naughtie's notorious slip, on the Today programme on March
2, 2005, when he asked: "If we [sic] win the election, does Gordon Brown remain
Chancellor?"

The BBC may have fallen out with Labour over Iraq, but that was a tiff in a
basically indissoluble marriage. Ask former BBC director general John Birt, now
a Labour peer; or his immediate successor, Greg Dyke, a Labour Party donor; or
anyone who has ever listened to the corporation' s output. Robin Aitken, author
of the book Can We Trust The BBC? and a former staff member, has testified: "In
25 years I met only a smattering of Tories in the organisation. " It is a fair
bet they were technicians or other non-editorial staff. Otherwise, cronyism
rules, as anybody who saw long-discredited Labour luvvie Kirsty Wark shrieking
down Alex Salmond on Newsnight will be painfully aware.

Yet Marr was right to identify the main thrust of BBC bias as cultural. The BBC
pursues a social agenda regardless of reality or even ridicule. At the time of
the first Countryside March, The Archers script had the everyday country folk in
Ambridge making no mention of it, but discussing a Gay Pride march instead. The
BBC report admits that a producer who proposed a Newsnight investigation into de
facto abortion on demand was denounced as being "anti-abortion" . The BBC's manic
Europhilia is reflected in the fact this sturdily 'independent' broadcaster
received a loan of £25m last year from the EU's European Investment Bank, whose
goal is to promote European integration.

After last year's seminar, a senior BBC executive said: "There was a widespread
acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political
correctness. Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's
culture that it is very hard to change it." BBC staff live, eat, drink and sleep
with like-minded liberals. They know no other views. The corporation is beyond
reformation. Nor should reform be attempted.

Instead, the recently renewed Charter should be torn up and the corporation sold
off. Then it will not matter if all its newsreaders are women wearing hijabs,
with a giant poster of Gordon Brown as backdrop to the news. BBC news reports
refer insinuatingly to "Iranian state television"; but we are watching biased
reporting on British state television. We are being charged a fee of £135.50 a
year to have our news distorted and our values trashed.

Imagine if you wanted to shop at Harvey Nichols, but you had to go to Jenners
first and pay them £135 for a permit to enter their competitor's premises. By
what right does the BBC act as gatekeeper to all 196 other television channels?
That is an infringement of Article 10 of the European Convention, guaranteeing
free access to information across frontiers.

Yet the tyrannical corporation broadcasts Orwellian advertisements warning of
raids on the homes of those who have not paid their licence fees. Feckless
single mothers sent to jail are effectively political prisoners.

The corporation' s pompous prating of "public service broadcasting" is risible:
EastEnders, River City - that says it all. The BBC's total disconnection from
reality is typified by its claim, quoted above, to be "the leading provider of
information and entertainment in the United Kingdom". In the week ending June 10
it had 27.4% of the television audience for its terrestrial operations and a
further 2.1% for its other channels. A figure of less than 30% is only "leading"
because there are so many other channels splitting audience figures.

The BBC's own report to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport in 2005
revealed research showing that, if the licence fee were abolished, 58% of
viewers (14 million households) would opt out of all BBC television, leaving the
corporation with £1.2bn in revenue instead of its current £3bn. It cannot happen
soon enough. Auntie has degenerated into a vicious old crone: she is no longer
welcome in our homes.