I HAVE had the luxury of replying to the indignant emails, complaining about the proposed 11 per cent pay rise for MPs, by saying: “Not me guv” and telling them to write to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) instead.

MPs used to vote on their own pay and allowances, which many people found shocking, but at least they were accountable to voters at elections and had to bear in mind that they would have to look their constituents in the eye, and explain their actions.

In the panic of the expenses scandal however, we caved in and handed over the determination of MPs’ remuneration to a completely independent body. The folly of this is now blindingly obvious.

A truly independent body isn’t accountable to anyone, and so this has proved with IPSA. They have shown themselves to be serenely independent of, and impervious to, both public and political opinion.

The three party leaders have been reduced to spectators standing on the sidelines at a football match, shouting advice to the players who, of course, completely ignore it. IPSA has backed its proposals with a detailed study of the work that MPs do and an international comparison of similar elected representatives.

Whether IPSA’s conclusions are sound or not is irrelevant, because their complete independence has shielded them from a political reality that is blindingly obvious to the rest of us: “it’s the economy, stupid!”

One of the principal roles of an elected representative (or, at least it certainly ought to be) is to set an example.

At a time when we still have a substantial deficit in the public finances and are rightly imposing wage restraint on public sector workers, we cannot afford, either economically or politically, for our politicians to be paid more, whatever daft international comparisons might be thought to justify it.

On the contrary, MPs should not only share in the restraint being exercised by everyone else, rather, they should be leading the way. We have tried to do so.

Firstly, the total remuneration for all ministers was cut by five per cent after the election and fixed for the five years of the parliament (this will come as news to most voters, because it is not the sort of thing that national media gives coverage of).

Secondly, we passed legislation cutting the cost of politics by reducing the number of MPs. Unfortunately this plan was subsequently derailed by Labour and the Liberal Democrats, but we will certainly put it to the voters again at the next election.

In any event, what is now to be done? The fact is that the proposals remain exactly that, just proposals. They cannot be implemented until a further statutory review has taken place after the next election in 2015. It is possible therefore, that IPSA may still see sense. Of course, it is equally possible that it won’t, and that they will go ahead and impose the pay rise. So, what should we do then?

Some constituents have written to me demanding I give the increase to charity. Now, just hold on a minute. IPSA insists that the proposal is cost neutral: they claim that the 11 per cent pay increase is to be matched by reductions in allowances and an increase in pension contributions.

Are these correspondents suggesting I take the hit on these, yet still give the matching increase away? I have another rather more philosophical objection (although, I suspect that the instinct for political survival will induce me to overcome it): I think that charity is a private matter,and that when it is public it ceases to be charitable. If you don’t understand the point then read Mathew’s Gospel chapter 6, verses 1 to 4.

Anyway, I have a much more obvious and practical suggestion: abolish IPSA which has proved so clearly out of touch with public opinion and is entirely unaccountable to it. This would save a tidy £6.5m annually.