When governments are in trouble, they almost always blame the BBC. It is a convenient scapegoat.

Tony Blair and his spin doctors have found the BBC unexpectedly robust during the long-standing debate over the contentious report by Andrew Gilligan - on Radio 4's Today programme - alleging Downing Street "sexed up" a dossier on Iraq to strengthen the case for war.

This row, of far greater interest to the chattering classes than to most people, might eventually have subsided, had it not been for the unfortunate death of weapons expert Dr David Kelly, after it had been suggested (correctly as it happens) that he was a source.

There is now to be an inquiry, headed by a judge, into the affair, although many may wonder why there should be all this fuss into the apparent suicide of a civil servant well used to dealing with reporters when many more people died under strange circumstances during the conflict itself.

The BBC is often blamed for its reporting under the old adage that it is easier for people in trouble to blame the messenger than to look in the mirror.

It happens to newspapers all the time. I have no idea of whether Mr Gilligan acted properly or not. It is possible we shall discover a version of the truth in time although I sympathise with him in finding experts dissecting just one of many stories he has broadcast, probably in less than ideal circumstances.

The BBC should keep its independence. Of that there is no doubt and even politicians tend to agree in the long term. But that does not preclude a debate on its role, the way it works (or doesn't) and its funding.

Starting with high ideals 80 years ago, as a small-scale radio broadcaster, the Beeb has become part of a multi-million pound communications industry, competing with commercial rivals while retaining privileges denied to them.

Why should the BBC be able to raise millions from the licence fee without greater examination of how this money is used? Despite the best efforts of the unlovely John Birt to beat Beeb bureaucracy, it still has the image of a quango not exposed to the chill winds of commerce. I always feel if you probed deeply enough, you would find people asleep in cupboards with long job titles but no discernable function.

It could easily accept ads on Radio 1 and possibly Radio 2 to bring in huge sums. There is no reason either why ads could not appear on BBC1 now that it is winning the ratings war with ITV.

Is there really a case for spending millions on such a minority station as Radio 3? Should the licence fee be spent on propping up regional TV or local radio? Every time the regional news comes on after the evening news, I wince at its lack of interest and cohesion. Its feeble jerkiness contrasts badly with the professionalism of what has preceded it.

As for Southern Counties Radio, it covers an area of Sussex, Surrey and part of Hampshire that does not fit together. No one in Guildford is interested in what goes on in Bexhill while Portslade and Farnborough are strange bedfellows.

Far worse is the atmosphere of enforced jollity, like a souped-up version of hospital radio, and the mistakes.

Last week an old news bulletin was broadcast early in the morning but it did not seem to matter. I know of no one who really listens to it and yet we are paying for it.

There are many wonderful features of the BBC, including Today, some specialist programmes, Sir David Attenborough, Michael Fish, Fiona Bruce and John Peel. They should be lauded and applauded.

But once the present furore has ended, perhaps an independent commission should suggest the changes the BBC appears incapable of implementing itself.