As the inquiry into the death of Government scientist Dr David Kelly gets underway, the careers of more than one politician and BBC executive are on the line. Nick Morrison looks at the possible fall-out of the Hutton Inquiry.

AS he was welcomed to the Great Hall of the People with a 19-gun salute yesterday, Tony Blair seemed every inch the confident world statesman. But beneath the self-assured smiles was the knowledge that his political fate rests not on what happens in Beijing, but on the unfolding situation back home, some 5,000 miles as the prime ministerial jet flies.

Yesterday, Lord Hutton outlined the terms of his inquiry into the apparent suicide of Dr David Kelly, the scientific advisor who was the source for the BBC report that a dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction had been "sexed up" to make the case for war more persuasive. This inquiry, which will largely be held in public, will look at how Dr Kelly's name became public, and his subsequent treatment at the hands of both Parliament and the media. And it is this inquiry which has the power to cast a long shadow over Mr Blair's place in history.

And it is not just the Prime Minister's fate which hangs in the balance. His communications director Alastair Campbell and Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon also have cause for anxiety. At the BBC, elevated into the Government's chief antagonist over the last few weeks, chairman Gavyn Davies, director general Greg Dyke and Andrew Gilligan, the reporter at the centre of the storm, are at risk.

Indeed, the BBC's admission that Dr Kelly was the source for their story that Campbell had tampered with the Iraq dossier has put the broadcaster's role under scrutiny. In evidence to a committee of MPs last week, Dr Kelly, whose body was discovered in woodland near his Oxfordshire home on Friday, admitted speaking to Gilligan, but insisted that nothing he said could have justified the reporter's story.

YESTERDAY'S national newspapers reserved their harshest fire for the BBC and its role in the tragedy. "How can we ever trust the BBC again?", thundered The Sun, which said the corporation should have come clean sooner, and accused it of watching from the sidelines as Dr Kelly was torn apart by MPs. According to The Times, the veracity of Gilligan's original report has now been called into question, and it criticises the decision by BBC governors to back their man before MPs had delivered their findings.

"The pressure is now on the BBC, rather than the Government, although the Government still has some important questions to answer," says Dr Nick Randall, lecturer in British politics at Newcastle University. "They may have possibly misinterpreted the material Dr Kelly gave them, given his reluctance to come out and say that is what he told Gilligan.

"And there is the question of whether Gavyn Davies and other BBC executives were determined to demonstrate their independence from the Government."

It was this fierce insistence on sticking to their guns which led BBC managers, including Davies and Dyke, to reject a Downing Street attempt to resolve the row, with an offer of face-to-face talks. And Dr Kelly's MP, former Tory minister Robert Jackson, turned up the heat on the corporation by suggesting the BBC was to blame for the scientist's death, and calling on Davies to resign and Dyke to consider his position. If even the Tories are not jumping to the BBC's defence, then it is in trouble, says Dr Randall, although not as much trouble as Gilligan, whose future must now look very precarious. But this in itself presents a dilemma for the BBC hierarchy.

"There has got to be a decision on whether they back him to the hilt, or whether he is on his own," Dr Randall says. "They have a better chance of saving themselves if Gilligan were to be forced to resign, but that could throw up problems if other senior journalists decide to jump ship as a result. They have got themselves into a real hole, particularly given the apparent opportunities they had to backtrack."

One scenario which has been floated as a consequence is a change in the BBC's position as a public broadcaster, particularly with talks on the renewal of its charter coming up, but Dr Randall suggests such talk is premature.

"There has always been talk of that, but it never seems to quite come off, and I would be surprised if something like that were to come out of it. This is more about the general attitudes of the media and government, and it could quite easily have been ITN or Sky News."

AS far as the Government is concerned, the principal question is over how Dr Kelly's name was leaked to the media, even if it was by default, with selected journalists given suggestions over where they should look for the Government mole.

One possible casualty of the inquiry is Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's right hand man for a decade, and the man accused of deliberately exaggerating Saddam Hussein's ability to launch weapons of mass destruction. Campbell has dropped hints that he may be looking to leave anyway, and while he would be reluctant to be seen to be forced out, he could decide that a dignified departure is best for all concerned, once a suitable time after the publication of the inquiry report has elapsed.

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon, whose department appears to be responsible for making Dr Kelly's name public, is also at risk, although he has a reputation as a political bruiser and may be able to withstand the pressure to resign.

But the most important casualty of the inquiry could be Tony Blair himself, although it may not be his job so much as his reputation on the line.

"I think he's relatively safe at the moment, and although there has been talk of a leadership challenge, I don't think it takes into account the mechanics of changing a leader in the Labour Party," says Dr Randall. "But what this might do, is ultimately bring forward the day when Blair does decide to give it all up.

"His image was tainted before all this, but now he is going to be seen as less trustworthy and less whiter-than-white, but although people might have disquiet about Blair as a leader, they still prefer him over the alternatives. The thing with virtue, is that once it has gone, that is it.

"He will just have to hope that this feeling diminishes. We're at least two years away from a general election, so he has got plenty of time to divert attention towards the good things he's done. He is tarnished, but he is not beyond recovery."