Despite the razzmatazz, despite the showbusiness, one of things the BBC has always been - and in my view always should be - is a part of the wider public service. We may often find ourselves operating in commercial markets, whether it is to secure key talent, or rights, or the technology and services we need to deliver outstanding services to our audiences. But we should never forget that the BBC is a public, not a private, concern and that we must discharge all the responsibilities that go with that public status.

One of the most important of those responsibilities is the duty to be accountable to the British public and to be as open as we can be about how we operate and how we spend the public's money. The BBC is one of the most regular users of the Freedom of Information Act to inform our journalism, but as a public body we ourselves come under the Act. This year we expect FoI requests to the BBC to exceed 2,000.

Other duties - to protect journalistic sources or commercial confidentiality - sometimes mean a balance has to be struck between disclosure and other important responsibilities. Where possible, we have come down on the side of disclosure and, as a result, much information has been released about every aspect of the BBC's operations. My expenses and those of other senior managers have been asked for frequently in the past and have been disclosed.

But the environment in which the debate about accountability takes place is changing with extraordinary speed. Public expectations about openness, trustworthiness and every kind of value for money are more insistent than ever before. While we've benchmarked ourselves against similar public bodies and against the public sector as a whole, and believe our current policies on freedom of information and disclosure are at the forefront of our sector, we want to, and will, do more in this area.

Last autumn, months before the furore about MPs' expenses, the BBC executive committed itself to regular publication of all expenses incurred by members of the executive board. That publication schedule is due to start in September. In recent weeks, the BBC Trust has strongly encouraged us to see whether we could go farther.

Yesterday I set out a big change in the information we disclose to the public. I believe we have managed to strike the right balance between providing information so the public can see not just how we spend our money but who spends it, while limiting disclosure about named individuals to include only those who are clearly public officers and key decision-makers inside the BBC. Those, in other words, who have a direct say in BBC policy and how the public's money is spent.

This is what we intend to do. First, on executive salaries we intend to publish an exact breakdown of pay, by name, not just for executive directors as now, but for two other groups - the top 50 earners in BBC management and the top decision-makers. The total number will be around 100 people beyond the executive board.

Second, on executive expenses, we will extend publication to include everyone in this group. Each quarter, we will publish individual, line-by-line expenses, as well as a hospitality and gift register. Inevitably the press will have fun with individual line items, such as a bottle of champagne for Bruce Forsyth's 80th birthday or a particular lunch for a star. But this level of detail is important to demonstrate how money is being spent. Some people will never accept that any expenses should be paid, but I hope the vast majority understand that some expenses are inevitable because of the business we are in.

The third area of increased disclosure concerns presenters' and performers' pay. The overwhelming majority of people you hear and see are paid pretty modestly. But it's true that we do employ a small number of people who earn a great deal for what they do.

It has been our view that it does not make sense for the BBC to disclose individual performers' fees. We operate in an industry where confidentiality is the norm. If the BBC were the only broadcaster forced to reveal these fees, there is a real danger that the most talented would migrate to other channels and independent producers, leaving the BBC and its public service programmes the poorer. Our experience suggests that disclosure of this kind is likely to lead not to better value for money, but to fresh upward pressure on pay. And of course our in-house stars are not public decision-makers or public officers of the BBC.

We recognise that the public have a legitimate interest in how much the BBC spends on talent, including top talent. Moreover they have every right to expect us to deliver on our commitment to reduce the amount of the licence fee spent that way. So in future we will disclose the total amount spent on talent and do it each year, so the public can monitor the trend over time.

We will also commit ourselves to looking systematically for further ways in which we can open up the workings of the BBC to the public.

Taken together, we believe that this represents a very significant advance in transparency and places the corporation where it should be, at the forefront of openness in the public sector.

All of us, including relatively well-funded parts of the public sector like the BBC, face some difficult years. The wider downturn and the level of public indebtedness will inevitably colour the entire climate for public spending decisions. But I believe that public bodies will weather this period most successfully if they can bring the public with them. That in turn will depend on taking the public's new expectations on openness and accountability seriously and making real and substantive changes in order to meet them.

Mark Thompson is Director-General of the BBC

Times Recommends

• We have kit and leadership. Let’s go
• Behind the scenes at the biggest deal
• Conferences — what a waste of money