LOCAL Conservative MPs Gary Streeter and Dr Sarah Wollaston have landed on different sides of the fence after the publication of the Leveson report into the culture, practice and ethics of the press.

Lord Justice Leveson has suggested an independent self-regulatory body for the newspaper industry – backed up by legislation – as one of the main points in his report.

But it has split the political parties with Labour and Liberal Democrats calling for it to be implemented in full, while Prime Minister David Cameron says he has 'serious concerns and misgivings about legislation to regulate the press'.

MP for South West Devon Gary Streeter does not share his misgivings and said: 'I support LJ Leveson's main recommendation and believe that independent regulation of the press – with statutory backing – is vital. I will back an amendment to that effect.

'The national press have wreaked havoc on many families in recent years and there is now a need to ensure greater responsibility.

'This can be done while still guaranteeing press freedom.'

But Totnes MP Dr Sarah Wollaston said: 'The British press may have enjoyed the longest pub crawl in history through last chance saloons but they have also protected our freedoms, entertained and informed us.

'I wouldn't want to live in a country where the press are at risk for criticising the powerful.

'If our newspapers are over-regulated we will simply drive more people to seek their scandals from the internet with almost no accountability at all.

'If newspapers become irrelevant who will buy them in any case?

'Leveson's most controversial recommendation is for legislation to recognise or 'underpin' a new self-regulatory body. The question is whether this represents statutory regulation of the press?

'Once that is written into Law it is all too easy for the lines to be redrawn to regulate what the press can or cannot say or to exclude those whose views are unsympathetic to the Government of the day.

'While Leveson states he does not feel this would be the case, and also suggests that we could legislate for the independence of the press, it should concern us that once a line has been crossed to 'underpin' the regulator in law, it may result in a press that is directed or restricted.

'In my opinion, it is right that we should be wary. Any compulsion to join a regulator would amount to State regulation, threatening free speech and democracy and that would be a high a price to pay. The clamour for action has been driven by activities which were already illegal.

'There are those who point to Ireland and say that their regulatory underpinning has not gagged their press, but neither has it provided protection for the innocent victims. Only this summer the Duchess of Cambridge suffered a gross intrusion through publication of photos taken with a snoopers long lens published in an Irish paper.

'Cameron is right not to rush to accept Leve-son. We need a full debate about the wider implications – not a rush to change the law on the say-so of a single judge.

'For Labour to accept all the recommendations before even reading the report was, in my opinion, an extraordinary misjudgement.'

In his report Lord Justice Leveson praises the role of local newspapers saying: 'In relation to regional and local newspapers, I do not make a specific recommendation but I suggest the Govern-ment should look at what action it might be able take to help safeguard the ongoing viability of this much valued and important part of the British press.

'It is clear to me that local, high-quality and trusted newspapers are good for our communities, our identity and our democracy and play an important social role.

However Adrian Jeakings, president of the Newspaper Society, has warned that local newspapers will still have to adhere to any new system of press regulation.

Mr Jeakings said: 'The UK's local media had nothing to do with the phone hacking scandal which prompted the Leveson Inquiry but we have been all too aware that hundreds of responsible regional and local newspapers would inevitably be caught up in any new system of press regulation.

'However, local newspapers have always been vehemently opposed to any form of statutory involvement or underpinning in the regulation of the press, including the oversight by Ofcom proposed in the report. This would impose an unacceptable regulatory burden on the industry, potentially inhibiting freedom of speech and the freedom to publish.

'Newspapers are ultimately accountable to their readers and must abide by the laws of the land.

'But, as the Prime Minister has acknowledged, a free press cannot be free if it is dependent on and accountable to a regulatory body recognised by the state.'