John Bercow
Speaker John Bercow now earns more than British Prime Minister David Cameron after two pay increases in 2015Getty

Commons Speaker John Bercow has accepted a second pay increase in six months bringing his salary to above that of British Prime Minister David Cameron. The Buckingham MP's salary is now £150,236, according to the Commons website, while Cameron earns £149,440.

Bercow accepted a second pay rise of 0.62% on top of the 10% already handed to MPs just six months ago. The PM and other ministers rejected the pay rise, but Bercow accepted the additional increase for his official role.

MPs each received a 10% pay increase after a ruling by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority bringing their basic salary up from £67,000 to £74,000. Bercow's new rise is due to an obscure law which says an officeholder's pay is increased in line with the average granted to senior civil servants.

The Speaker of the House is the chief officer and highest authority in the House of Commons, and historically was awarded the same salary as a cabinet minister until 2011. Subsequent rises in salary have brought the speakers' salary higher than cabinet members.

In addition, Bercow, who has served as speaker since being elected on 22 June 2009, does not appear to pay any taxable benefit for his four-bedroom home at the Commons. In 2012, John Bercow, 52, accepted a second pension for his role as speaker adding an additional £39,000 a year from the moment he leaves office.

Despite saying he will only take the pension at age 65, he would need a pot of £1m in a private pension to cover these costs. He will also receive a separate MP's pension and was the only remaining public servant to claim a "Great Office of State" pension.

A spokesperson for Bercow said: "The Speaker's salary is proactively published on the Parliament website. This being the case, there is nothing to add."

In July this year, Bercow came under heavy criticism after it emerged that he claimed £172 for a 1.1km-long chauffeur-driven car journey. It was described by the Taxpayers Alliance as "obscene".