Q&A: Hutton's impact on the BBC

Lord Hutton has allowed interested parties 24 hours to read his report

As the BBC and other key parties scan the Hutton report into the circumstances surrounding the death of Iraq weapons expert Dr David Kelly, the BBC's Nick Higham takes a look at what the report could mean for the corporation.

Q: How tough a week is this likely to be for the BBC?

A: That depends on what criticisms Lord Hutton levels against both the BBC and the government.

It is clear the BBC's journalism, editorial procedures and management systems will all be criticised - if only because the BBC itself admitted during the evidence to the inquiry that it had made a series of mistakes.

If Lord Hutton confines himself simply to revisiting those errors it will be uncomfortable for the corporation but probably not disastrous.

But it would be very bad news for the BBC if he decided the corporation was wrong to run Andrew Gilligan's original story.

He might say this on the grounds that, although we know from evidence to the inquiry that much of what David Kelly told Andrew Gilligan was broadly true, the BBC did not and could not know that with any certainty at the time of the original broadcast.

Since the BBC has argued all along that the story was justified and, despite errors, broadly accurate, in these circumstances it might refuse to accept the inquiry's conclusion.

That would bring it into conflict not only with Lord Hutton himself but with much of the government - where reports suggest many ministers would privately like revenge on the BBC.

Alternatively, if Lord Hutton turns his fire especially on the government or the Ministry of Defence, the BBC might escape widespread damage under cover of the ensuing political row.

Q: What is at stake for the BBC?

A: The BBC's reputation for impartiality, accuracy and general trustworthiness is at stake here.

A highly critical report from Lord Hutton could damage that reputation, which is especially important abroad.

Ironically, perhaps, the corporation's very public clash with government has helped to disprove the view held by some overseas that the BBC World Service is little more than a government mouthpiece.

Also at stake is the BBC's independence from outside regulation and the reputation of its Board of Governors.

The corporation's critics - including many commercial rivals - have seized on the willingness of the governors to back the management in a clash with government as evidence that they cannot act as both the BBC's defenders and its regulators.

There are likely to be renewed calls for the new communications regulator Ofcom to take over regulation of the BBC's output.

On the other hand the BBC's defenders argue that the governors' very closeness to the organisation makes them better informed, more flexible and so better able to regulate.

The BBC's reputation for impartiality, accuracy and general trustworthiness is at stake here.

Q: Is the Hutton report likely to change the way people view the BBC?

A: It will, if the BBC's general reputation for trustworthiness is questioned by Lord Hutton's findings.

On the other hand, both the BBC's critics - who think it is arrogant, slapdash, politically-biased, insufficiently accountable or a combination of all of those - and its defenders are likely to find something in Lord Hutton's report to fuel their prejudices.

Q: What changes are likely to be made in the light of Hutton?

A: The BBC has already announced a number of measures in response to the likely criticisms.

A new deputy director-general has been appointed, whose job includes overseeing the way the BBC responds to complaints; there has been a crackdown on BBC journalists writing for newspapers; and new guidelines are promised on the handling of controversial stories.

It is possible there may be more changes in the light of Lord Hutton's conclusions.

It is also possible there may have to be resignations: the BBC's chairman, Gavyn Davies, the director-general, Greg Dyke, the director of news, Richard Sambrook and the reporter who broke the original story, Andrew Gilligan, may all be criticised personally in the report.

The BBC has said there will be "no scapegoating", but one of the corporation's own programmes, Panorama, has criticised the judgement of governors and senior executives.

It said that in deciding to back their reporter without fully investigating whether his story stood up - they "bet the farm on shaky foundations".