The decision by MPs to hand decisions about their remuneration to a committee known as IPSA (Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority) is one we should all support, no matter how unpalatable their judgment seems at the moment. Their remit is broader than simply setting the level of pay which the men and women who are elected, earn during their career as a legislator.  As I wrote in July on the same subject, the cries from the MPs and Ministers, particularly those who are personally wealthy that IPSA is out of touch should be just as concerning as any horror we might personally experience at the decision to increase salaries to £74,000 from 2015. Michael Gove has not yet repeated his comments that MPs should be willing to pay for the privilege of working for us, but it can only be a matter of time before he does. We need MPs who don’t have private incomes and personal fortunes to help make our laws.

It seems clear that MPs should earn sufficient to ensure that their attention is focused exclusively on the needs of their constituents. At present far too many MPs work outside the Commons in a manner that suggests that their work as legislators is not their first priority. If this same approach was taken by the Headteacher at the local Comprehensive School, the Governers would legitimately have questions to ask regarding the needs of the School, acting on behalf of the parents and students, as well as the taxpayers. At present you and I have no one to act for us if our MP chooses to act like Stephen Phillips, Conservative MP for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who declared £740,000 in outside income, generated by working 1,700 hours as a barrister. As I wrote in May, Mr Phillips stated that his outside work benefits his constituents by keeping a connection with the “real world”. If I was one of Mr Phillips constituents, I would be happy to offer him many alternative ways of keeping him in touch with the world outside Westminster.

The make up of IPSA is not as broad as I would like to see, and whilst a more open and balanced group might have come to the same conclusion on rates of pay, the social, gender and ethnic mix is not what it should be. Most members of IPSA are not reflective of people I know, they like our legislators need to represent all of us as well as possessing the skills needed to take the decisions they do. However IPSA is also too limited in its remit, it needs to be able to determine the extent to which MPs can carry out extra-curricular paid work with the inevitable risk that their attention is elsewhere when a vote in the Commons is beckoning. I am all for MPs spending time in their constituencies and beyond, better understanding why the number of homes being built is too few, why we send so many men to Prison, and what is needed to create jobs. However I do not think these lessons should be learned through directorships or work as a Barrister. I also question if we need 650 MPs to act as legislators in our nation. If the work of Parliament was shared between a smaller number of representatives, perhaps we would get better value for the money that its activities cost us.

The decision taken to hand remuneration to IPSA was made by the MPs themselves. This is at the core of the bigger problem. We elect MPs to represent our interests, and they (or their representatives set their pay and conditions). We need a more radical reform that ensures that our views are taken into account when pay and conditions are set for our legislators.