OPINION: Hot Issue - Is it appropriate to pay young people for'voluntary' service?

YES - Christopher Spence, chief executive, National Centre for Volunteering

I don't think the argument about whether it is volunteering is the place to start. Most volunteering includes incentives of some sort - training, development or support - and this scheme is an extension of that.

Cash-strapped students in a gap year are probably going to need to earn money. Why not create opportunities for them to carry out meaningful work in the community rather than take low-paid manual work?

Volunteers at the moment do tend to come from more comfortable backgrounds, so mainstream volunteering will continue. The real challenge is to open up voluntary and community initiatives to people who have been socially excluded.

This scheme is worth a try if it turns out to be a way to engage young people who would not otherwise be involved in their communities. And they will pick up skills that will make them better equipped for work.

YES - John Ramsey, acting chief executive, Student Volunteering

There is nothing wrong with encouraging young people to become actively involved in the community. But volunteering is not about financial remuneration: if you are getting paid, you are not volunteering.

I am not against the idea in principle. I am against the idea of attaching the term 'voluntary' to it. The key is to find out what the motivation is of people doing it. It could be financial, the opportunity to do something new or the development of new skills.

A lot of people volunteer because they believe in something or enjoy doing it. To encourage young people, you have to ensure they are doing something they can boast about to their mates. The 'v' word can often scare them off.

A financial incentive suggests no-one has asked community workers what is really needed locally. A feeling of involvement and participation is important rather than treating young people, in effect, as slave labour.

YES - Elisabeth Hoodless, executive director, Community Service Volunteers

Is it appropriate to exclude some young people because they don't have parents to subsidise them? It's a basic right of citizens to participate in voluntary work, and nobody should be excluded.

Many young people whose parents are not well off take a gap year to build up funds to support themselves. We're not fearful about getting the disabled involved in volunteering, so why should it be any different for the impoverished?

Chancellor Gordon Brown has allocated 5 million, which has subsequently shrunk to 3m, to involve more people from lower income families in volunteering.

It is based on the Americorps approach, which gives young people up to $5,000 at the end of a year's community service.

The major challenge is making sure there are worthwhile things for the volunteers to do once they have signed up to the programme. We do need more volunteers, but there are some organisations that already have more than they can involve.

NO - Greig Sandilands, senior development officer, Volunteer Development Scotland and Scottish coordinator, Millennium Volunteers

If what comes out of the pilot is more motivated by a monetary reward, it would take us out of the understanding of the meaning of volunteering. But volunteers should have their expenses met.

We very much support the pilot scheme, and we recognise that people in different circumstances at different stages in their lives require different approaches. Credits or other incentives should be explored.

Many young men have a habit of starting off their introduction to volunteering with "what's in it for me?" The pilot may well show that incentives will improve motivation of excluded young people to volunteer.

But if what emerges from the pilot moves away from what can be described as volunteering - and closer to work - it should be called something else, such as gap-year community or work experience.