Support ProjectScotland
The next item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-953, in the name of Bill Butler, on support for ProjectScotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament expresses its dismay at the decision of the Scottish Government to withdraw funding from Project Scotland, the ground-breaking volunteering project, which since its inception has secured well over 1,000 placements for young people throughout Scotland; recognises the very real and tangible benefits both to local communities and organisations, such as the Temple/Shafton youth project in Glasgow, which have participated in the scheme and wholeheartedly applauds the effort and commitment of the volunteers involved; acknowledges that participants have been able to discover and develop new skills during their time with Project Scotland; notes the cross-party support for motion S3M-695 in the name of Sandra White, which acknowledged the positive role played by Project Scotland in helping "those previously excluded from participating fully in society to realise their true potential and aspirations", and believes that the decision should be reversed and support given to a project which, through the sterling efforts of volunteers, has made a significant contribution to a more inclusive and co-operative Scotland.
On behalf of all my colleagues in the chamber, I welcome the many volunteers, staff and supporters of ProjectScotland who are in the gallery for the debate. We are pleased that they have taken the time to join us. We are also grateful to them for the amazing work that they do throughout our constituencies.
As members are aware, ProjectScotland was launched in the spring of 2005, with the backing of Jack McConnell, the former First Minister. Since then, it has been hailed as a revolutionary volunteering organisation for 16 to 25-year-olds—an age group that people traditionally think tends to view volunteering with scepticism. Through the development of appealing and meaningful placements, ProjectScotland has set about transforming and redefining the image of youth volunteering by creating effective partnerships with hundreds of public and voluntary sector organisations. ProjectScotland delivers what young people want: choice, support and the chance of a better future. Participants receive a subsistence allowance that allows them to take up a variety of opportunities and a wide array of placements.
ProjectScotland is designed to change lives. Its structured placements provide for the needs of each participant. Young volunteers are supported by staff, mentors and peers and are provided with the tools and training to build and develop their skills. They are shown how to set goals and track progress, encouraged to show initiative and learn from mistakes, and to develop leadership and to work in teams. The result of all of that is that the young people build their confidence and raise their aspirations.
To date, more than 2,000 young people have taken part in ProjectScotland to start the process of changing their lives. However, change is not confined to the participants. ProjectScotland delivers a unique double benefit—as volunteers change their lives, they help to improve the lives of those around them. They do so by increasing the capacity of voluntary sector partners and by making a difference to the communities that they serve. They have changed the lives of tens of thousands of Scots.
In recent months, I have met several volunteers at the Temple/Shafton Youth Project in my constituency. On my first visit to the hut where the project is based, I listened to the young people to gain a clearer understanding of how the scheme has boosted their confidence in themselves and their abilities. What struck me most from my conversations with the young people, some of whom have overcome great difficulties in their lives, was their extraordinary passion and commitment. Unfortunately, some time later, I heard that the hut had been subjected to an arson attack in which it sustained serious damage. However, the local community rallied round and—tellingly—so too did ProjectScotland volunteers, who pitched in above and beyond the call of duty. As a result, the hut was up and running again within two weeks of the attack. Paul Smith, the project co-ordinator, told me that without the help of the volunteers such a quick turnaround would not have been possible. Without that quick turnaround, a group that works with more than 200 young people would have remained out of action for a considerable time. That is an example of how ProjectScotland inspires co-operation in communities.
Earlier this year, with the experience of Temple/Shafton Youth Project in mind, I was only too happy to support Sandra White's motion S3M-695, on changing lives. The motion praised ProjectScotland and, in particular, the efforts of Robert Keys, the winner of a ProjectScotland volunteer of the year award. Frankly, I would be much happier if today's debate had been on that motion, and not the one that is before us. It would have meant that we would have been speaking solely in praise of volunteers such as Robert Keys.
The motion arises from the announcement that the ProjectScotland chief executive made on its website on 22 November, that
"The Scottish Government will not be funding our next phase of development. This will come into effect in April 2008."
We are just a few days from Christmas and yet we are in the chamber not to celebrate the success of the project but to debate its ability to survive. To be candid, I am baffled by the SNP Government's decision to slash ProjectScotland's annual budget from £6.5 million to £1.4million per annum. Even with my poor arithmetic, I can calculate that the cut is more than 75 per cent. The number of young Scots who can take part in the project will fall from 1,500 to 420 a year. How can we even think of undermining all the work that ProjectScotland has done? What sort of message does the cut send out to the volunteers who are sitting in the public gallery or the hundreds of their colleagues who—at this very minute—are carrying out such worthwhile work across Scotland? I say that particularly because the case for providing full support is overwhelming.
For example, a recent economic impact study shows that ProjectScotland brings added value to Scotland's economy. Surely I do not need to remind the minister how much store all parties set by building a stronger Scottish economy. Since 2004, £16.9 million has been invested in ProjectScotland, and the study shows that its total economic value is £21 million per annum—three times the level of investment. In addition, the organisation recently produced a forward business plan with a 33 per cent reduction in the cost per volunteer. Surely that is commendable.
The organisation has also proved to be successful in preventing unemployment. Volunteers who pass through ProjectScotland programmes learn skills that make them more attractive to employers and able to command starting salaries that are, on average, £4,000 a year higher than they might otherwise have expected. ProjectScotland's activities have also resulted in a saving on welfare benefits of £1.47 million a year.
ProjectScotland is an outstanding success. At a time when we should be striving to help young people who are not in training, education or employment, the Government's decision to undermine ProjectScotland—I put it as strongly as that—is short-sighted and illogical. Perhaps the minister can answer that point in his response to the debate. The Government's decision will not only threaten the volunteering opportunities that are open to young people; it will have serious ramifications for the local community groups and charities that have benefited from the work of the young volunteers. It is important to bear in mind the fact that ProjectScotland has contributed £9 million in funding and incremental value to its 300 not-for-profit partners.
In conclusion, I ask the minister to rethink the Government's decision, even given the much less than comforting answer that we got from Mr Salmond at First Minister's question time. If he needs further proof, I suggest that he speak to the young people who are involved in ProjectScotland, who have made it such a Scottish success story. They would tell him—as they have told me—what a difference ProjectScotland has made to their lives. What a difference it has allowed them to make to the lives of others. They will be the Parliament's guests for the next hour following the debate. All members—including the minister—are welcome to come along to committee room 4 to meet them, interact with them and listen to them.
Christmas is a time for giving, when most people like to support worthy causes. I urge the minister to do the brave thing, the right thing and the decent thing by restoring full support for ProjectScotland. [Applause.]
Although the Scottish Parliament always meets in public, contributions from the public gallery are not allowed, and I am afraid that that extends to applause. I am sorry.
I congratulate Mr Butler not just on his comprehensive motion, but on his sagacity in suggesting that we might like to consider the matter at lunch time, rather than after decision time. On the last Thursday before Christmas, there was a dawning realisation that, notwithstanding the importance of the subject, we may well have found ourselves talking by candlelight, with the last mince pies cold to the touch and even the janitors long gone. I am tempted to say that Bill Butler could have risked being even more radical and he would still have earned my support and gratitude.
I pay tribute to all those who volunteer in thousands of different ways throughout Scotland and the wider United Kingdom. My family volunteers; there is nothing remarkable about that. My wife volunteers for the lifeboats—not, I hasten to add, by donning oilskins and manning the boats, but by helping to ensure that money is raised to keep lifeboats afloat at our local lifeboat station, which is one of Scotland's busiest. My son, who is in full-time education, volunteers at Oxfam. Like many people, he came to volunteering through the Duke of Edinburgh's award scheme, but he continues out of his own sense of commitment, just like members of families everywhere whose efforts are an essential part of what makes life better for many people.
It is important to note that the ethos of volunteering does not stand or fall on the future of ProjectScotland. Nevertheless, what will be lost is access to volunteering for a section of our young people who had been bypassed before it. In many ways, ProjectScotland has addressed a volunteering access inequality, which makes the action of the Government—which has pledged to address inequality—all the more bewildering.
As I observed a moment ago, the motion is a comprehensive one that speaks to every aspect of the issue. While speaking to it, Bill Butler illuminated his argument magnificently. It seems to me to be an essentially simple matter: we have a scheme that is moving from an admittedly higher start-up cost in its infancy to more efficient organisation in its future. We all agree that encouragement of volunteering should be supported by a national effort. Just weeks ago, as Bill Butler said, Sandra White extolled the virtues of ProjectScotland and was joined in her enthusiastic endorsement by several of her SNP parliamentary colleagues. Surprisingly, they are not in the chamber now.
Why pull the rug out from under ProjectScotland now? It is all too easy to say that something else will turn up—but ProjectScotland is the "something else" that failed to magically materialise before. In its place is the vaguest of hopes, with no timescale and no particular objective or ambition. In its place is the SNP Government's coldest shoulder.
It is for the Government to say what is the compelling reason for axing the funding for an initiative that has been endorsed by an extraordinary range of not-for-profit organisations in regions and communities throughout Scotland, and which addresses volunteering access inequalities.
Speaking as an employer for some 30 years, I can tell the minister that volunteers who have enjoyed the benefits of placements in ProjectScotland are just the sort of young people that businesses long to recruit. We recognise that they have come through ProjectScotland from potentially difficult circumstances. Business wants to play its part in giving those young people, who have shown courage and commitment, a permanent and hopeful future. That is surely why there have been such positive outcomes from ProjectScotland, with over 90 per cent of participants moving into employment, education or training en route to permanent jobs. They do so more confident, more capable of taking responsibility and more comfortable in their ability to build positive working relationships with others.
Why reinvent the wheel? What are the specific qualifications of ministers that lead them to the conviction that they, rather than ProjectScotland, have the answers? Investment of £1.4 million annually over the next few years is no huge financial matter. It must be comparable to the bill for free prescriptions that the SNP seems to think even the very wealthiest of Scots need to have picked up for them by the taxpayer over the same period. We will happily support an amendment to the law such that the wealthiest people continue to pay prescription bills if that will allow the minister to support ProjectScotland.
When Charles Dickens wrote "A Christmas Carol", he defined many of what have since become the essential ingredients of the Christmas celebration: family, turkey, the giving and receiving of presents and civic philanthropy. The eternal strength of his seminal novel is the redemption of Ebenezer Scrooge, from "Bah, humbug" to model philanthropic citizen. The challenge for Ebenezer McMather today is to look at the ghosts of motion supporters past ranked behind him and show them renewed leadership—to be the boy scout leader of the Parliament, to abandon vague platitudes about future potential volunteering schemes and to ensure that ProjectScotland continues to build on the success that it has thus far achieved.
I have deliberately chosen not to make a speech in the chamber since relinquishing the leadership of my party in Parliament back in August but, with sadness, I choose to speak today because I think that Bill Butler's motion is accurate and inspired, and it is important for Scotland. The Government's decision, which it announced last month, is wrong, and it will have an impact for many years to come.
I first discussed the concept of ProjectScotland with Julia Ogilvy and Sir Tom Farmer in August 2002. They took me to Columba 1400 in Skye, and they persuaded me that my lifelong commitment to volunteering was important not just for rural communities, such as the one where I grew up, but for youngsters, and particularly disadvantaged youngsters, throughout Scotland, as well as for the Scottish economy and the confidence of our nation.
ProjectScotland was launched in 2005, following detailed consideration, including an assessment of the expensive start-up costs, but recognising the value—and not just the costs—of the opportunities that it would bring. It was launched with cross-party support in Parliament and elsewhere.
ProjectScotland was deliberately made national to ensure that the opportunities were available in all communities and to youngsters from all walks of life. It was deliberately targeted at youngsters from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. It was deliberately new, so that young people across Scotland would be inspired by its creation to take part either in full-time volunteering opportunities or in other opportunities, if they suited better. It was deliberately based on excellence, so that it could be an example not just in Scotland, but elsewhere in the UK and beyond. As a result of ProjectScotland, young people have developed confidence and skills, and Scotland has the admiration of others for leading the way.
Bill Butler's motion and speech highlighted the success of ProjectScotland, and I wish to mention three case studies. First, Andrew Jasso from Peterhead has explained how his life took a turn for the worse. His girlfriend died, he was made redundant and he became a heroin addict. He had dreamed all his youth of a career at sea, so ProjectScotland gave him a placement volunteering at sea, which has now given him the possibility of a career at sea. He says that the help that he received from ProjectScotland truly helped him turn his life around.
Paula Lowther from Perth said:
"If you had told me a year ago that this is what I'd be doing and that I'd have achieved everything that I have I wouldn't have believed you. If I hadn't heard of ProjectScotland, I would probably still be at home doing absolutely nothing so I'm hugely thankful to everyone who got me involved."
You have one minute left.
I will cut my third example, in view of the lack of time.
The action to end the funding for new placements will lead to ProjectScotland being no longer national. It will also be an indication to private donors that they should not make their contributions and it will be an act of vandalism that the Government will regret. The decision is based either on ignorance or on a politically vindictive streak, which we have occasionally suspected exists. In this case, I genuinely hope that the decision is not based on the latter. If the decision is based on the former, there is an opportunity for the minister and the First Minister to listen and to change it.
I hope that the Presiding Officer will allow me to make this point. I said earlier at First Minister's question time that Bill Clinton asked George Bush to keep the AmeriCorps scheme on when he became President of the United States in 2001. As a result, more than 600,000 young Americans have benefited from a place on it. George Bush did not end the scheme, but expanded it. Young Americans today have benefited from that. If, in the partisan world of American politics, consensus can be reached to put young Americans first, surely we in Scotland, at the start of the 21st century, can do the same. I urge the Government to rethink its decision early in the new year and to give these youngsters a chance.
I welcome Kate Mavor, Robert Keys and others to the gallery, and I thank Bill Butler for securing the debate, which gives me and others the opportunity to pay tribute to the invaluable work of volunteers throughout Scotland. My motion S3M-695 acknowledged the positive work that has been done by ProjectScotland and other voluntary service organisations in helping
"those previously excluded from participating in society to realise their true potential and aspirations."
I sincerely believe that volunteering is a very positive tool that gives great benefit to everyone in society. It must be encouraged and nurtured not just by agencies—Government or otherwise—but by the general public.
I want to talk not just about ProjectScotland but about other projects such as the Bambury centre in Glasgow—although they are too numerous to mention them all. I have visited many such projects, which do a lot of good work. They offer services to their communities and vastly improve the education, skills and employment opportunities of local people, which must be applauded.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I have only four minutes and I would like to get through my speech.
However, the motion centres specifically on ProjectScotland, so I will address it. ProjectScotland was set up in 2004 and launched in 2005. It has received £16.9 million in Government funding and has helped nearly 2,000 people. I applaud that achievement, but we have to put it in the overall context of the volunteering sector. The cost of each six-month volunteering placement, from the launch until the end of the last tax year, was around £9,000.
I am sorry, but members have to hear this.
Community Service Volunteers, the United Kingdom's longest running full-time youth volunteering programme, has costs of £9,000 for a full year's placement, including volunteers' accommodation away from home, which is not covered by ProjectScotland.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I have only four minutes.
That is a pity.
Cathy Peattie will have her turn.
I am sure that members will agree that we want to encourage as many people as possible to volunteer and that we want to provide opportunities for all young people who want to volunteer. However, that does not mean that we must ignore the facts that I have just stated or the concerns of other voluntary organisations.
I was disappointed to read that people will suffer as a result of the Government's decision. I for one hope that ProjectScotland will consider ways of continuing to succeed by furthering its original aim of attracting matched funding from individual benefactors or by adopting the model that has been so successfully pursued by CSV, which recoups its costs by charging fees to each placement organisation. Let us not forget that, when ProjectScotland was set up, half its funding came from Government. Now, practically 100 per cent of its funding comes from Government.
I believe that ProjectScotland, with its great staff and the unique vision of its director, can achieve its aims. In an announcement to volunteers, Kate Mavor said:
"we're determined to continue because you say it's good for you, and we see it's good for the country. We already have support from many businesses and local organisations, and our fantastic fundraising team will find more in the coming months."
I wish ProjectScotland every success in that regard.
Tom Leishman, of Clubs for Young People Scotland, says that if the money that has been provided to ProjectScotland were put back into youth work, there would be far greater continuity of programmes, far more could be done for young people and more volunteers could be attracted. It is not only this Government that would describe the amount of money that has gone into ProjectScotland as largesse; other voluntary organisations feel the same way.
Last week, Third Force News welcomed
"John Swinney's first ever budget announcement in November in which he revealed a new £93 million package for the voluntary sector".
I believe that that money is good news for the voluntary sector. Like Kate Mavor, I hope that ProjectScotland will continue. I think that the voluntary sector contributes greatly to Scotland and greatly benefits its young people and the economy but other voluntary organisations have a right to a level playing field.
I congratulate Bill Butler on securing the debate and, like him, welcome our visitors in the public gallery.
The great number of members who have signed the motion shows the level of support that there is in the Parliament for ProjectScotland. That support is based on experience of the project. Like many members, as I go about my constituency, I frequently meet volunteers—people who give their time to help others but who freely admit that they gain from the experience.
On make a difference day this year, I once again spent some time with Barnardo's in Bathgate. Last year, I met a young man who had been placed through ProjectScotland. He had various difficult issues in his life and needed to build his self-esteem, develop his self-confidence and get into the habit of organising his time. The opportunity at Barnardo's was helping him to develop his skills and, at the same time, helping the charity.
An issue that has to be acknowledged is the profile of volunteers. It is wrong to suggest that volunteers are only older, middle-class women—we need only look at the young mums and dads who give of their time for various activities to see that that is not the case. However, it is clear that young people—especially those who might have become a little detached from their communities—are not coming forward in the way that we hope they might and need them to. That is the section of the population that ProjectScotland was established to target. We have to admit that, even where volunteering organisations were well organised—I would be the first to congratulate the volunteer centre in Bathgate—something extra was needed in order to attract those young people. The fresh look that was taken by ProjectScotland was the right approach.
If members read the quotations in the briefing provided by ProjectScotland, for which I thank the organisation, they will see the words of young people who have volunteered with the help of support from ProjectScotland. They are very persuasive and I will be interested to hear why the minister thinks they should not be listened to.
I have already referred to the volunteer centre that is based in Bathgate in my constituency. It is successful in supporting volunteers. However, ProjectScotland was established to complement, not replace or duplicate, the work that it does. ProjectScotland has been successful in placing volunteers in a number of projects in my constituency, such as the advice shop in West Lothian, Home Aid West Lothian, Linlithgow Young Peoples Project and a huge variety of other valuable projects that we would all want to be supported and which would have lost out if they had not had those volunteers. On that point, what would those volunteers have lost if they had not had the support of ProjectScotland to access those opportunities?
Will the minister explain clearly why ProjectScotland is to lose its funding? I address my next point to Sandra White. Volunteering is not and never should be a cheap option. We should value its worth. How will the Scottish Government fill the gap in volunteering that ProjectScotland has addressed? I hope that this is not an example of action by a new Government just to show that it is doing something.
The minister will know that, in general, members' business debates are consensual. I hope that he will understand that our discussion has not been as consensual as usual because of our deep concern about this valuable project's future.
I congratulate Bill Butler on obtaining this important debate and I congratulate the previous speakers who supported ProjectScotland. Like Bill Butler, I have visited projects that the organisation supports, spoken to its volunteers and seen something of the volunteers' work and enthusiasm, which Jackson Carlaw spoke about.
It is perhaps a paradox that the last members' business debate of the year is about the wind-down of a project that has brought hope and inspiration to many young people. ProjectScotland has been a bridge to work, provided a tremendous chance to find a direction in life and given opportunity to people when opportunity has not normally come their way. That is not the most appropriate Yuletide message, for Christmas should be a time of new beginning, rebirth and hope.
In my recent members' business debate on the 100th anniversary of scouting, I raised the benefit to voluntary organisations' work of the input of ProjectScotland volunteers. The ability to use volunteers who can be trained and deployed effectively has been a vital support for organisations and a source of new blood—of youthful and enthusiastic people—because many who become involved through ProjectScotland go on to staff positions or continue to be volunteers. ProjectScotland volunteers have been invaluable at Fordell Firs—the Scottish scouts outdoor centre in Fife—and at the centre that Greater Glasgow Area Scout Council runs at Auchengillan.
The Scottish ministers have said warm words about the voluntary sector, but some of us have grave fears about the effects of the SNP budget on local voluntary sector projects up and down our land. Whatever the merits of withdrawing ProjectScotland's funding, the loss of its volunteers to a series of youth organisations will damage and inhibit those organisations' potential to develop their good work for the benefit of young people.
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member give way?
I do not have time to do that.
The withdrawal of funding will undermine the aims of the youth work strategy, which we launched only months ago. It is unhelpful to take with one hand and give with the other; that is not the approach to take.
Whether ProjectScotland provides value for money has been debated—Sandra White spoke about that. I say to her in passing that speedily reversing one's position because one has gone into government is not a terribly good idea. That does not enhance one's credibility in Parliament.
I do not dispute that the questions whether ProjectScotland represents value for money and whether the money could be invested in another way to produce different results are genuine. However, I am not overimpressed by the axe falling only two years into the project's existence or by the Government's volunteering action plan, which seems to straitjacket all youth and other volunteering organisations into one format that is locally based and linked to community planning. That provision is important, but the Government must recognise the role of the national youth organisations, which provide most youth work activities and volunteering opportunities.
Establishing an organisation, developing skills and finding out and targeting needs take time. I am not sure whether the Government has formally evaluated ProjectScotland—we have certainly not heard of that—but the report that Bill Butler mentioned speaks volumes about the organisation's merit and the opportunities that it presents.
A perfectly proper issue of process is involved. The Government is entitled to cease funding for bodies and, like others, I am happy to listen to its case with an open mind. However, when flagship issues are concerned, there must be a process, evaluation and sharing of information with Parliament and the public—not a diktat from the Government's headquarters. The minister must answer and tell Parliament what the process has been and what will fill the void that the ending of ProjectScotland will leave.
The Government might well ponder whether there is merit in suspending the decision that has been made—members throughout the chamber have called for that—reconsidering the work of ProjectScotland, and giving continued and growing opportunities to the young people who are served by it. A parliamentary committee could consider that in a wider context. Please do not proceed in such an offhand way without information. Let us think again about ProjectScotland.
I congratulate Bill Butler on securing the debate, which has been worth while and passionate, and I welcome the opportunity to make clear the Government's position and to spell out the nature of our support for ProjectScotland.
At the outset, I congratulate the young volunteers who have been involved in the projects that have been mentioned. Those projects engender a community spirit. Members have provided excellent examples that illustrate the benefits of volunteering. There is no doubt that volunteering is at the core of attempts to make our communities stronger and that it can help young people to find themselves and their strengths. It contributes hugely to helping the Government and public services create a more cohesive and better-served country, and it directly supports sustainable economic growth in all of our five strategic objectives.
That is why we have increased investment in the third sector by 37 per cent, to £93 million, over the coming spending period. That funding is not to provide services—it is clearly for improving the capacity and performance of the third sector and for taking its ability to deliver to a higher level. In other words, the objective is to make third sector providers even more attractive and appropriate to those who are looking for service providers.
Will the minister give way?
I will crack on, as I am keen to make key points and answer questions that have been asked.
We want local commissioners of services, including volunteering opportunities, to recognise the wealth of providers that are available, which includes ProjectScotland.
The third sector is a very wide landscape. It is very dependent on volunteers of all kinds, who are a key component in building strong communities. We value local people being active for their friends and communities, young people being keen to help older folk and older people passing on their life experiences.
ProjectScotland is undoubtedly a success, so why is the Government punishing it and not rewarding it? How would the minister feel if there was an arbitrary and unfounded 75 per cent cut in his salary? Will the Government rethink its decision?
We are not punishing ProjectScotland and we do not have a politically vindictive streak—indeed, very much the opposite.
We already support networks such as the councils of voluntary service, which support thousands of voluntary bodies in their areas, and we support the network of volunteer centres, which bring together volunteers and volunteering opportunities for all ages and needs. I looked at the Volunteer Centre Network Scotland website today and found that it is advertising 9,781 opportunities and is looking for 81,000 people.
However, I understand the concerns that have been expressed about our decision on the future funding of ProjectScotland, and I am grateful for the chance to explain to members our thinking behind such a difficult decision.
I am happy to put on record our appreciation of what ProjectScotland has done for young people and of its raising the profile of volunteering overall. Every member knows of a young person who has made a step forward in life as a result of a ProjectScotland placement. We appreciate the benefits that it has generated in raising the profile of volunteering and particularly through offering opportunities to young people in programmes.
I acknowledge what the minister says about ProjectScotland's value to young people. At question time earlier, the Minister for Public Health talked about trying to keep young people off alcohol, and earlier this week, a cabinet secretary talked about violence and young people. Surely ProjectScotland addresses such matters. The minister does not value or understand what volunteering does to young people and the support that organisations such as ProjectScotland provide for them.
ProjectScotland is not the only organisation that does such work. We must look for effectiveness. As the First Minister said, we have an obligation to focus on what offers best effectiveness, which is exactly what we are doing.
ProjectScotland has been an initiative that has been delivered with verve and panache, and it has proved to be attractive to young people and its placement partners. I commend the highly professional approach of its staff. Equally, I commend Julia Ogilvy's vision in pressing for its establishment. When she did so, she was looking at a model of partnership with private sector involvement that was drawn from the United States of America. From the outset, the operation was based on a presumption that it would attract philanthropic input in cash. Private funds have indeed come forward and there has been input in kind, which has amounted to around £1 million over three years. However, the Government has spent almost £17 million on it to date, and it has benefited fewer than 2,000 young people.
ProjectScotland rightly says that its start-up costs were a major part of the investment and that it is driving down costs per head. Nevertheless, the private sector has yet to come forward in the way that the business model proposed, and ProjectScotland is today basically fully funded by the Government.
Would it cut through this Gordian knot if we were to make an estimate of how much it would have cost in public spending if successful volunteers had been involved with social work, the police and so on?
Others in the field carry out similar activity and get good results.
We have thought carefully about the outcomes that we seek and have concluded that we have a wider duty to volunteers throughout Scotland. We have decided that our approach should be to facilitate volunteering opportunities for as many people as possible, of all ages and backgrounds, using a wide range of providers. Our decision is that we do not intend to renew the funding for ProjectScotland that will come to its natural end in March. However, we have offered funding in 2008-09 of £1.4 million to ensure that all current commitments to those seeking placements under ProjectScotland's current programme can be fulfilled. To continue funding the organisation at the present level would have cost £6.5 million next year—more than 20 per cent of our total investment in the third sector.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No; I want to make some constructive progress.
Members have expressed concern about the number of volunteering opportunities that will be lost. It is important to remember that ProjectScotland did not create volunteering opportunities—bar a handful in its office—but matched volunteers to organisations and provided support. I doubt that those placements will disappear. Many organisations will choose to continue with volunteering placements and to meet their costs, including the cost of subsistence allowances. Those who volunteer with Community Service Volunteers, for example, are often provided with an allowance and accommodation when they are away from home, paid for by the organisation with which the young person is placed.
Many may choose to continue volunteering without an allowance, but that does not necessarily mean that volunteers will be left with no income. Rightly, the Department for Work and Pensions recognises the value of volunteering as a gateway into further training or employment. There is no limit on the number of hours to which a volunteer may commit, provided that the volunteer remains available for work. That is a compromise that many organisations will be happy to make.
In conclusion, I reiterate our appreciation of ProjectScotland. I commend the organisation on its services, especially to local authorities, which have the funds and outcomes to deliver. Delivering local services locally is a vision that we share with local government, and it is to local government that ProjectScotland should turn its focus. I wish ProjectScotland every success in the future. On 7 January, we are running a major event on the third sector and how it should move forward. I extend a warm invitation to Kate Mavor to come along to that event.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance on whether it would be in order for me to repeat my invitation to the minister to meet in committee room 4 the young people who are here from ProjectScotland. I hope that that will begin to change his mind.
Mr Butler, I suspect that you know as well as I do that it is not in order, but you have made your point.
Meeting suspended until 14:15.
On resuming—