When Paul O'Grady defected from ITV to Channel 4, his decision was motivated largely by money. At ITV he was paid a salary, working for a programme produced by the commercial broadcaster. By jumping ship to Channel 4, O'Grady set up Olga TV, with the help of Lord Alli, and he could double his money by taking not only a talent fee but a production fee, too.

Talent-led independent producers are widespread, with Simon Cowell, Graham Norton and Jamie Oliver all owning some, or all of their production vehicles - but in the wake of the Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross affair, there are some in broadcasting who worry that their influence is too great. Brand's now infamous Radio 2 show was made by Vanity Projects, of which he owns part.

One BBC executive board member told The Times that the corporation wanted to look at how independent producers handled compliance with taste and decency rules, as it dealt with the backwash from the Brand/Ross affair. The concern is that when the talent owns the business, producers have even less incentive to tell the famous name what they are not allowed to do in an industry where those behind the scenes often bend over backwards to accommodate its stars. “I think it's something we'll have to examine,” the board member said.

Nor has it been lost on BBC executives that this is not the first time that the corporation has run into trouble when an independent producer has been involved. RDF Media, although not a star-led production company, was the group behind the misleading footage that led to the Queen editing row. One argument is that the longer chain of command, when an independent producer is involved, increases the risk of problems emerging.

However, it is an argument that it is easy to criticise. Eileen Gallagher, the chief executive of Shed Productions, makers of Waterloo Road, said: “We don't want to go back to the situation we had with the phone-in scandals, where broadcasters and producers blamed each other. In the end, broadcasters and producers have to co-operate, ensuring that programmes come to acceptable standards.”

Under present rules it is the broadcaster, not the producer, that is wholly responsible for the programme. In the case of The Russell Brand Show, the programme with the offending calls to Andrew Sachs, was pre-recorded and only lightly edited by Radio 2 before going to air. It is easy to argue that, while it is not unexpected for a comedian to be edgy, the BBC's job was to maintain decency.

However, that does not exonerate Brand and his production company, or any other star-led producer, in the future. The phone-in scandals exposed a loophole in the compliance rules - namely, that a broadcaster is liable for the penalty, including fines, even if the fault lay entirely with the independent producer. They then have to recover money from the producer - and, indeed, Endemol did give Five some recompense for phone-in abuses on the daytime gameshow Brainteaser.

More important, there are reputational risks, too, which at one time were not understood by celebrities as they chased production riches. Ant and Dec were forced to apologise after it emerged that programmes partly produced by their Gallowgate company were involved in a £6.5 million phone-in deception on Saturday Night Takeaway and Gameshow Marathon.

It still seems unlikely that the nagging worries about the role of star-led production companies will lead to a significant tightening of the rules aimed at them. Yet, as stars wield more and more power over broadcasters, the risk that they can ride roughshod over their production teams remains. In an industry of big egos, it is only a matter of time before problems caused by an out-of-control star will recur.

Times Recommends

• C&G axed - 1,660 jobs to be lost
• UK house prices rise 1.1% as buyers return
• Mixed reaction to US banks repaying bailouts