THE Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) report for consultation on a significant increase in MPs’ pay was most unwelcome because, on balance, my colleagues prefer to be modestly paid and tolerated, than well-paid but hated.

Increasing the pay of elected representatives is not popular, and I doubt that it ever will be. It was for this very reason that, during the 1970s and 80s, a system of “allowances” was implemented so that the headline figure for an MP’s salary could be restrained for public consumption, while, in reality, the remuneration increased through the allowances. The rest is history and the disaster of the expenses scandal of 2009.

Interestingly, a number of figures from the commercial world have come out in favour of IPSA’s proposed pay rise arguing that it will increase the calibre of candidates.

I do not think that people enter politics in expectation of the salary. They do it out of ideological fervour – they have very strong views about the way things should be – and they enjoy the excitement of a high profile career in the public eye.

My own ideological fervour is principally expressed in my belief in the superior economic efficiency and moral superiority of free markets and in this particular market there does not seem to me to be any shortage of high calibre candidates at the existing market price, so I can’t see the logic for increasing that price. The IPSA announcement prompted a string of vituperative emails and letters. I would just point out, however, that the clue is in the name: Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. In other words “don’t blame me guv”.

IPSA was set up in response to the expenses scandal so MPs would no longer be able to set their own pay and conditions.

Constituents have demanded that I refuse to take the proposed pay rise. Alas, under the old discredited regime, one could do exactly that by writing to the Fees Office and instructing it not to pay you an unpopular pay increase, and a surprising number of colleagues used to do so. But, under the independent scheme, that option no longer exists. You have to take what they pay you, what you do with it thereafter is, of course, your own affair.

There is something rather perverse, however, about being first instructed to entrust your pay and conditions to an independent body, and then have the same people demand that you ignore its recommendations.

The facts are these: IPSA has recommended an increase in MP’s salaries, but to be offset by a reduction in the benefits payable from their contributory pension scheme.

These proposals are now out to consultation but, in any event, would not take effect until after the 2015 election. My view, as I have set out above, is that an increase in salary is not justifiable. In what circumstances, however, would I countenance an increase?

Well, firstly the public finances and the economy would need to be in a vastly better position and household disposable incomes would need to be improving for everyone else.

Secondly, there would need to be a significant reduction in the overall cost of politics, achieved by a reduction in the number of MPs.

While we are on the subject of screaming tabloid headlines “greedy MPs’ noses in the trough” – however inaccurate, something has gone entirely unnoticed: at the beginning of this parliament all ministers wrote to the Treasury instructing that their ministerial salaries be cut by upwards of five per cent.

In April we all wrote again giving a further instruction to cut our salaries. This proper action in the face of the nation’s financial position has gone entirely unreported. How very strange.