Competitors to the BBC have criticised plans for governors to publish a table of policy promises, and to employ extra staff to advise the governors on independent decisions.

Writing in the Financial Times, chief executive of ITN, Stewart Purvis, said: "The idea that these same governors will somehow bring BBC management to heel in the future through an annual statement of promises, when they have conspicuously failed to hold them to specific promises in the past, is frankly laughable."

Forum Response: BBC

Gavyn Davies, chairman of the BBC, told ePolitix.com: "The BBC has no desire to stand aloof and separate from the new regulator. We welcome the proposed establishment of Ofcom and look forward to working with it.

"The government's plans already place the BBC 'under Ofcom' in many crucial areas, including all forms of economic regulation, basic standards on matters like taste and decency, and quotas on regional, independent and original production.

"There have also been misunderstandings about the public service remit of the BBC and other broadcasters like ITV. Here, the government intends to create a more level playing field, not by altering the position of the BBC, but by shifting the position of ITV (and others) decisively towards the BBC's current arrangements.

"In future, both the BBC and private broadcasters will be primarily subject to self-regulation in this crucial category, creating a more level playing field than the industry has ever known. The only difference is that back-stop powers will rest with Ofcom for the private broadcasters, and with the secretary of state for the BBC.

"We believe that this difference is justified. A 'light touch', largely commercial, regulator like Ofcom is suited to wield back-stop powers over the increasingly relatively limited public service remit of private broadcasters. However, in the case of the all-encompassing public service remit of the BBC, a light touch regulator is not sufficient.

"Detailed regulation by a board of governors is necessary. And it is surely also sensible that the ultimate back-stop powers for a publicly-owned and publicly-funded organisation should rest in the democratic process, subject to frequent and direct parliamentary scrutiny."