The quiet period for Britain’s monetary policy is drawing to an end. Over the next few months, the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee will again need to pay more than lip service to the idea it should increase the cost of borrowing.

Respected organisations such as the National Institute of Economic and Social Research expect the first quarter-point interest rate rise from 0.5 per cent in February. The balance on the MPC is more fluid than many people realise.

Only one member, Ian McCafferty, is currently voting for tighter policy. But other external members have said they are close to switching sides. Were governor Mark Carney to join in, there is a strong chance a majority supporting a rise would be automatic. Two of his voting deputies, Sir Jon Cunliffe and Minouche Shafik, have shown no desire to have any public views on interest rates, let alone display any thinking independent of the governor’s.

With unemployment having fallen to 5.4 per cent and regular private sector pay growing more than 3 per cent, the standard policy question is framed incorrectly. Rather than ask when interest rates should rise, we should wonder why they are still at rock bottom.

Some arguments for keeping interest rates at 0.5 per cent can be quickly dismissed. Current low levels of inflation — prices fell 0.1 per cent in the year to September — mainly reflect the falling prices of oil, food, other commodities and imports. But these prices will not keep falling forever. Just as high inflation in 2011 proved no bar to a timely expansion of quantitative easing, low inflation today should not stand in the way of monetary policy normalisation.

A slowdown in growth to 0.5 per cent should also cause the MPC little concern; the economy is still expanding fast enough to cut unemployment rapidly and raise employment to a new record. Concerns that a rate rise might be followed by a cut if conditions deteriorate should not remotely be considered suitable grounds for delaying a rate rise. Central bankers who prioritise avoiding short-term embarrassment over the UK economic interest have no place on policymaking committees. These suggestions are laughable.

By contrast, the MPC needs to take seriously the view of its chief economist Andy Haldane that interest rates even at 0.5 per cent are providing little economic stimulus. If that were true, monetary policy would in effect already have tightened, without anyone pulling a policy lever. But the evidence — 8 per cent annual growth of unsecured credit; rampant increases in consumer spending — suggests interest rates at 0.5 per cent are still remarkably effective in encouraging borrowing and spending.

There are many weak arguments for avoiding higher interest rates. Still, the BoE should be cautious about action in the near future. When ribbed that the bank cannot move until the Federal Reserve makes up its mind on interest rates, Mr Carney protests and protests too much that UK monetary policy is fully independent of the US. The MPC should be concerned that a rise before the Fed risks attracting huge capital inflows to Britain, pushing sterling up too far and killing the recovery. Britain might be an island, but its economy is not independent of the actions of others.

For now, there is also little risk in keeping rates on hold, whereas the consequences of the first rate rise after eight long years are much less certain. Powerful at present, this argument cannot be used in perpetuity; it would always prevent action, guaranteeing an eventual monetary policy mistake.