BBC licence fee could be cut for five years after Martin Bashir Panorama probe ‘tarnished’ reputation

THE BBC licence fee could be cut for five years after Martin Bashir’s Panorama probe “tarnished” the broadcaster’s reputation.

A senior government source said the Beeb’s world-class status had been compromised, and the £159-a-year licencing fee could be cut or frozen for the next five years.

PA

Martin Bashir’s deceit in his Panorama interview with Princess Diana has ‘tarnished’ the BBC’s reputation[/caption]

The Government is in negotiations with the BBC over the next five years of the fee – which normally raises £3.2billion for the broadcaster.

An insider told The Times: “At a time when every government department is being asked to tighten their belt, there’s an argument the corporation should do so too.”

The source added that the corporation had “tarnished” its reputation – and this was likely to influence the current fee negotiations.

And the Beeb could be forced to appoint a new editorial board to deal with complaints following the Bashir scandal – with Lord Grade of Yarmouth, who served as BBC chairman in the early 2000s, proposing the creation of the board.

Yesterday, Lord Dyson’s damning report found “rogue reporter” Bashir faked bank statements and used “deceitful behaviour” to trick Princess Diana into giving the infamous interview.

And it revealed the BBC “without justification” had “covered up” Bashir’s sensational lies.

The false documents also gave the impression associates of the royal family were selling stories to newspapers.

Diana’s brother Earl Spencer said if he hadn’t seen the bank statements he would not have made the introduction and the scoop wouldn’t have happened.

Bashir’s lies are blamed for fuelling Diana’s fears about her safety and privacy.

The journalist was accused of ordering a graphic artist to fake two bank statements to obtain the interview after Diana and Prince Charles’ divorce.

An ex-employee of Princess Diana’s brother complained to police he was named in fake documents allegedly used to gain access to her.

This comes after a publicity officer for Panorama was ordered by the BBC to tell staff that colleagues briefing against Martin Bashir were jealous of his success, according to The Times.

Alison Kelly said that she was told to tell staff that Bashir’s use of fake bank statements were “being leaked by jealous colleagues”.

And it’s thought that the BBC may face paying out £5million in compensation claims to people who were “smeared by Martin Bashir” amid calls for a Scotland Yard probe.

Royal aides who lost their jobs as a result of the Beeb’s deceit are considering suing the broadcaster after their reputation was tarnished, it’s understood.

BEEB FEE

Mark Stephens, a media law expert, said the BBC could face payouts of up to £5million as former employees who were caught up in the deceit could sue for libel.

Mr Stephens from Howard Kennedy solicitors told the Mail: “So you’ve got defamation for virtually everybody because they were wrongly accused by Bashir and the BBC is liable as his employer for his wrongful acts, including libel.”

He added that in the event of civil claims the BBC would be forced to disclose relevant documents and offer up BBC chiefs as witnesses.

And Scotland Yard is also facing pressure to probe Martin Bashir after the BBC’s former editorial policy chief suggested he had committed a crime.

Critics have suggested that the report has provided “clear and unequivocal evidence” that must be pursued.

Ex-chief superintendent Dai Davies, who once led the Met’s royal protection unit, said: “It seems to me there is clear and unequivocal evidence that the Met Police should be at the very least investifating these allegations.

“I simply cannot understand why they won’t investigate given what I understand from the testimony may be a crime.

“It seems there’s one rule for the BBC and one rule for the rest of us. Normally there would be a criminal inquiry before a civil inquiry.”

A Met Police spokesperson said: “In March 2021 the force determined it was not appropriate to begin a criminal investigation into allegations of unlawful activity in connection with a documentary broadcast in 1995 but should any significant new evidence emerge it would be assessed.”