PENROSE CAMP

Wairarapa Daily Times, 18 September 1934, Page 2

PENROSE CAMP

DEADLOCK OVER SCHEME. WELLINGTON, Monday. A deadlock lias apparently been reached in regard to the Penrose training camp, run by the Y.M.C.A., which has given general satisfaction in former years. At the meeting of the Boy Unemployment Committee to-day the chairman (Mr R. H. Nimmo) said that although he and klr L. J. Greenberg had gone very thoroughly into the matter, they had been unabie to reduce the costs of running the camp. They had waited on the Unemployment, Board, and had now reached a stage which apparently meant the abandonment of the project. Expenditure was estimated at 11s per boy per week, and the Unemployment Board would not under any consideration agree to that expenditure. The estimated food expenditure for single men’s camps was 9s per week, but that was perhaps possible with larger numbers to be dealt with for longer periods. The camp cooks were perhaps paid relief wages, while at Penrose full wages would have to be paid. The PenTose camps would cost £34 a week for 25 boys, allowing £4 for management. Mr M. G. C. McCaul asked if the Minister of Labour had not stated that he was in favour of such schemes. The chairman said that was so, and in view of the surplus the attitude was hard to follow.

Mr Greenberg said that the chairman of the board had not closed the door in tlieir faces, but thought the food estimate and management costs were too high. The chairman said that although in view of the Minister’s expressed attitude the committee had had no hesitation in asking the public for funds, they would not care to do so again.

Mr McCaul spoke of the benefit of checking the drift of youth to the towns. Unless country employment was encouraged it could not be foretold what the future for youth would be. Mr B. Cahill remarked that an expenditure of £6 per head in training might result in putting 150 good farmers on the land, and in view ot this the board’s attitude was incomprehensible. Penrose, said Mr W. B. Matheson, was in the nature of a technical school for training lads for the country life and as such was as worthy of a national educational grant as any other form of technical education.

Mr P. Myers characterised the Gov-

ernment’s attitude as nigjflkdly. It was better-to place boys oflffarm lands at small cost than to have them become a burden to the State, which would cost the Government much more than the 25s a week. It was decided to persevere with scheme, if possible. —(P.A.) "j