MPs today bowed to Government demands for restraint and awarded themselves a 2.25% pay rise for this year.

The decision was taken without a vote after a backbench move to raise salaries by up to 2.3% this year and about 4.7% next year was rejected by 196 votes to 155, majority 41.

A move to boost salaries with £650 a year "catch-up" payments over the next three years was also rejected by 224 to 123, majority 101.

It will be the last time MPs debate and vote on their own pay rise after they agreed to link future increases to those given to other public sector workers like doctors and teachers.

Earlier today, the Prime Minister underlined the need for restraint among MPs who are paid £61,181 a year.

Speaking ahead of the debate, Mr Brown said: "I hope that MPs today will recognise that the settlements in the public sector for key workers have been around 2.3%, 2.4%, 2.5% when they vote on this year's pay in the House of Commons."

In the Commons, Ms Harman said she hoped that after today's votes on pay, and later expenses, MPs would be able to get on with their work "free from the innuendo and misrepresentations about pay, which have hung over this House too long".

Ministerial salary increases have already been scrapped in a bid to set an example at a time of inflationary pressures, stoked by big rises in fuel and food costs.

Ms Harman said that as MPs were paid from the public purse "we should show the same discipline in our pay increases as we expect from the public sector.

"And, for the future .... like everyone else (we) should not decide on our own pay and should not vote on our own pay increases."

Ms Harman called for MPs to reject parts of Sir John Baker's review on MPs' pay, which would force this year's rise up to 4.55% - double the Government's preferred figure.

Sir John has recommended that the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) take on periodic reviews in the future - a recommendation accepted by ministers.

He also recommended that MPs' pay should be linked to the public sector average earnings index and that there should be a £650 "catch-up" per year from 2008-09 to 2010-11, which was rejected by Ministers.

Ms Harman said it was better to link pay to a basket of public sector employees, including judges, doctors and teachers.

This would be "understandable by the public" and deliver 2.25% this year - lower than the nurses' settlement but higher than for doctors and dentists.

"The Government does not reject the catch-up because we think MPs are overpaid - far from it - but only because it would not be consistent with the approach we are taking to the rest of the public sector."

Shadow Commons leader Theresa May backed the call for discipline saying it would "start to restore the broken trust" between the public and politicians.

Mrs May said it was important for MPs to "set an example" and "send out the right signals" to constituents.

Too many people had felt for too long that MPs "have their snouts in the trough", she added.

Liberal Democrat Simon Hughes urged MPs to "grasp the nettle" and accept Sir John's proposals in full.

He said both Sir John and the Senior Salaries Review Body had been asked to examine MPs' pay and effectively had "both come back with the same answer", particularly over linking to public sector earnings.

"It's easy for the Government to say 'Hold back everybody' - everybody in the Government is paid more than everybody else by a significant amount," he added.

Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central), chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, tabled amendments which would have seen MPs' pay rise by 2.75% this year, 2.3% next year and 2.25% by 2010 - the same as those offered to nurses.

But in October 2010, following the next General Election, MPs would also receive the £1,950 "catch up" payments in a lump sum salary increase.

"We do need to get on to the Baker mechanism, it's a matter of judgment when," he said.

Tory David Maclean (Penrith and Borders) said the public service comparators had salaries "way, way ahead" of MPs.

"We have the responsibility of making, mega, mega decisions and for that we are getting the level of pay of a second-tier officer in a district council," he protested.

Labour former minister Don Touhig backed the Baker proposals but argued that the pay rise for this year should be 2.3%.

"It was the Government who set up the Baker review, it was the Government who gave Baker his terms of reference and, now he has delivered, the Government is actively seeking to trash the Baker report."