What now for the BBC?

By Torin Douglas BBC media correspondent

The Hutton report is deeply serious for the BBC.

Sir Paul Fox, a former managing director of BBC Television, says it is the most serious charge against the BBC for decades, and it has already claimed its first scalp.

Gavyn Davies, the chairman of the BBC governors, resigned within hours of its publication.

And Downing Street's former director of communications Alastair Campbell, for one, has said further resignations should follow.

In his sights are the director general Greg Dyke, the director of news Richard Sambrook and the journalist whose report started the row, Andrew Gilligan.

What consequences will Lord Hutton's report have for the BBC?

But there have even been suggestions that the whole board of governors might tender their resignations.

The political fallout has already begun to engulf the BBC.

The Leader of the Opposition, Michael Howard, immediately questioned whether the BBC board of governors was the right body to regulate the BBC.

He asked whether it should be replaced by the new media regulator Ofcom.

HAVE YOUR SAY I feel Gavyn Davies falling on his sword is more than enough Nigel Collins, Brighton, England How should the BBC react? Send your views

Tony Blair responded that this would all be looked at in the current review of the BBC Charter, which expires in 2006.

Ofcom has only been in existence for a few weeks and already has powers over the BBC.

It could fine it up to £250,000 for serious breaches of the editorial guidelines on taste and decency, harm and offence.

But it is not the BBC's overall regulator and the corporation has fought hard to maintain the independence of its board of governors.

A previous chairman threatened to resign when the government proposed putting them under Ofcom.

Twin roles

Even so, the Kelly affair demonstrated the problems of the governors' twin roles.

They are both champions of the BBC, defending it against attacks from government, and its regulator, upholding the public interest and acting as an important arbiter on complaints.

The BBC governors are accused of not taking the complaints seriously, and of not investigating whether the original report was accurate Torin Douglas

It may be that a clearer separation from the management of the BBC will be required.

But beyond that, Hutton has reached damaging conclusions about all levels of the corporation.

The BBC governors are accused of not taking the complaints seriously, and of not investigating whether the original report was accurate.

The BBC management is told that its editorial and complaints procedures are defective.

And the reporter Andrew Gilligan is told that the very serious charge he made against the government was unfounded.

All of these are serious criticisms, though the director general Greg Dyke says the BBC has already acknowledged several of them in its evidence to the inquiry.

Steps have been taken to address them by instituting a new complaints and compliance procedure under a new deputy director general, and by restricting the writing of newspaper columns by BBC journalists.

Other changes are already in the pipeline - but more will be necessary after the strength of Hutton's criticisms.

As to how far the public's faith in the BBC may have been shaken, we need to await the judgement of the public themselves.

Public acceptance

They heard the evidence as much as Hutton himself and those in government did.

Before the publication of the report it was widely thought that the government as well as the BBC had questions to answer.

THE HUTTON REPORT Full Report (PDF file 2MB) Hutton report in full (html version) Chapter 12: Summary

It remains to be seen how far the public still takes that view, or whether it accepts the Hutton Report in its entirety.

Journalists generally expected a more balanced report, and the National Union of Journalists has already come out very strongly against it and in favour of Andrew Gilligan.

Though it was always recognised that Lord Hutton, as a Law Lord, did not fully understand the processes of journalism, his attack on the BBC has gone much further than expected.

And here Gavyn Davies, in his resignation statement, has taken a lead by raising what he calls important questions.

Sound conclusions?

Can Lord Hutton's "bald conclusions" on the production of the dossier be reconciled with the balance of evidence presented to him?

Are his conclusions on restricting the use of unverifiable sources based on sound law and would they constitute a threat to the freedom of the press? Torin Douglas

Did his verdict on the Gilligan reports take sufficient account of what was said by Dr Kelly on tape to Susan Watts?

Did his criticisms of the BBC take sufficient account of the "extenuating circumstances" created by the public attacks on the BBC during and after the war?

And are his conclusions on restricting the use of unverifiable sources based on sound law and would they constitute a threat to the freedom of the press?

But Mr Davies went further in his statement: "The BBC is the finest entity in world broadcasting. It has a deep regard for the truth and is trusted by hundreds of millions of people worldwide.

"It is not owned by any government, but held in perpetuity by its governors and management for the British people. The public should not take its existence entirely for granted."

Nor should it forget that it is the government that will appoint the new BBC chairman.