THE debate about whether there should be legal underpinning of press regulation has a long way to run. But the furore surrounding Culture Secretary Maria Miller is a reminder of the dangers of having politicians involved in press controls.

The Daily Telegraph's excellent work in uncovering the MPs' expenses scandal stands as the perfect illustration of the importance of having an unshackled press.

And now the paper is in the thick of it again as the parliamentary sleaze watchdog launches an inquiry into expenses claimed by Culture Secretary Maria Miller.

The Parliamentary Commissioner For Standards is investigating a complaint that Mrs Miller claimed more than £90,000 in second home allowances towards the cost of a house where her parents lived.

Mrs Miller is bullish in her defence, David Cameron is standing by her, and time will tell whether she is in the mire or the clear.

But irrespective of the watchdog's findings, the case has served to stir up the hornets' nest surrounding press control.

Why was it necessary for Mrs Miller's special adviser, Joanna Hindley, to feel the need to "flag up" to the Telegraph reporter working on the story that her boss was heavily involved with meetings about the Leveson report on press regulation?

And why was it necessary for the Prime Minister's director of communications, Craig Oliver, to then phone the Daily Telegraph's editor about the story and remind him that Mrs Miller was in charge of the Government's response to Leveson?

If Government spin doctors had concerns about the way the Telegraph had investigated the story, why not just spell them out without resorting to the 'L' word? It's not as if the editor of the Daily Telegraph, Tony Gallagher, had been living on Mars and was, therefore, blissfully unaware that the Culture Secretary was on the Government's case over press regulation.

What was Mr Gallagher likely to say? "Oh yes, thanks for the reminder - it had completely slipped my mind. Better back off."

Whatever the intention of Miss Hindley and Mr Oliver, they were unwise and incredibly naive to make the Leveson connection because a) journalists were bound to react publicly to the implied threat and b) it would inevitably feed the perception that the Government was trying to lean on a paper which had asked legitimate questions about an MP's expenses.

Perception alone is enough to remind us that there needs to be clear water between politicians and press regulation.