A regional editor believes the future behaviour of national newspapers will determine the fate of the industry’s new regulator.

The South Wales Argus’s Kevin Ward is convinced that the newly-installed Independent Press Standards Organisation has only been necessary because of the shortcomings of the national press.

But while he is certain the regionals will uphold the best traditions of the former Press Complaints Commission, he’s worried the actions of the nationals could yet lead to state control of the industry.

Kevin, picture left, says the new Ipso body may not be the “perfect answer” to the problems unearthed by the Leveson inquiry but the best anyone can hope for – without heralding the end of the free press.

Said Kevin: “I do not doubt for a second that my colleagues in the local and regional newspaper industry across the UK will respect Ipso and the Editors’ Code of Practice. Why? Because we always did when the PCC was in existence.

“Whether the new regulator will succeed or fail depends entirely on the behaviour of Britain’s national newspapers,” he added. “If they heed the lessons and warnings from the phone hacking scandal and the Leveson inquiry, then Ipso has a chance.

“If they do not, then it has none and the next step will be state regulation of the Press. I do not believe anyone wants that.”

Through his ‘Editor’s Chair’ – the newsroom chief admitted to his readers that the PCC was a “busted flush” after the Leveson inquiry into the behaviour of some national newspapers.

The PCC worked well for the local and regional press, but “unfortunately, the failure of some national newspapers to take the PCC seriously added to the PCC’s inability to hold those newspapers to account meant the organisation was fatally discredited in the eyes of the public,” he went on.

Ipso works differently to the PCC with more powers than its predecessor and complying with the new body is certainly a more onerous task for local and regional newspapers, he added.

Kevin takes a different stance from the Hacked Off group who believes a Press-financed regulator is flawed.

He added: “My view is a regulator paid for by the industry it regulates is better – providing those who sign up to it abide by its rules and adjudications – than expecting the taxpayer to fund it.”

Maintaining the “utmost sympathy” for the Dowlers, the McCanns and Christopher Jeffries, who he admits were “all treated appallingly by some national newspapers” – he says the final message on the regulation outcome is: “Over to you, Fleet Street.”

The column can be read in full here.