When we go to the polls to elect our local councillors, we generally believe that those on the ballot paper are a pretty fair cross section of British society. But one thing always distinguish them from most of the rest of us: they will all be people with time on their hands. Because most councillors are unpaid, just as the “property qualification” once excluded all but a handful of British people from standing for parliament, now the “leisure qualification” limits who can stand for local government. This is unfair, divisive and disastrous for democracy and local communities.

As we all know, the practice of giving councillors “allowances” for attending meetings simply encourages more meetings, fraud and corruption. Conservative proposals of giving local councils more powers and freedoms is precisely what is needed, but the proposals do not go far enough in expanding the range of people who will be able to stand. If more power is to be devolved to local councillors, then it is time to professionalise our local representatives and pay them a wage.

Defenders of the current system argue that it reflects the great British tradition of voluntarism. It ensures that we elect self-sacrificing people, who put the welfare of the community ahead of personal advancement. At first sight, these are laudable aims, but they soon run into trouble.

The most obvious problem is that millions of British people are shut out, as self-sacrifice of this kind is a luxury beyond their means. It is almost impossible for members to take their responsibilities seriously unless they are wealthy, retired, working part-time or living on benefits. As councillors acquire more responsibilities, fewer people will be able to stand. The commitment to voluntarism is a commitment to exclusivity.

Moreover, the allowance system, built around a largely fictitious recompense for “out-of-pocket expenses”, rewards corruption. As many voters know to their cost, bogus mileage claims and illegible lunch receipts can lead swiftly to more serious incidents.

But perhaps the most important problem is what biologists call the “life-dinner principle”. When a fox chases a rabbit, the rabbit runs harder than the fox, because if the fox loses it forfeits its dinner, while if the rabbit loses it forfeits its life.

This principle governs the relationship between councillors and the businesses they are supposed to regulate. Professional property developers and waste companies, for example, survive only if they can obtain planning consents or disposal contracts, and will spare no effort to secure them. Councillors, by contrast, want to minimise the work they do, in order to return to their real lives as quickly as possible. As a result, the rabbits win, even when the holes they will dig will undermine the neighbourhood.

The same problem applies to the relationship between members and officers, who often end up controlling our elected representatives even more effectively than civil servants control ministers. Far from being too expensive to pay councillors, years of disastrous decision-making suggest that it is too expensive not to.

So if we are to value our local councillors what should be pay them? The simplest way to come up with a figure would be use the mean average wage of the local district, this would also allow for the abolition of the allowances system than has caused so many problems for councils. Councillors would not be lavishly paid, but they would be engaged in a job rather than a hobby.

The great British tradition of voluntarism is as flawed as the great British tradition of philanthropy. It is a tea-and-sympathy approach to government.

I don’t want to entrust the key decisions about my neighbourhood to amateurs. I want to be represented by professionals.