arrangements include provision for excusing attendance at the normal time in cases where the claimant has had an oppointment with a prospective employer, and also for the furnishing of facilities whereby the claimant can attend at some distant Exchange of his choosing in place of that of his normal attendance. It has been considered, therefore, that the present requirements should be maintained.

When unemployment in a district assumes abnormal dimensions, it may not be possible to deal with the applicants at the local office owing to the congestion of the premises. Where the abnormal unemployment is of a purely temporary character, so that the hiring of additional premises would not be justified, it may be found necessary to suspend the usual requirement of signature of the unemployed register at the local office in proof of unemployment, and instead to deal with the applicants at the employer's premises. When this is done, certificates of unemployment signed by representatives of the workers and countersigned by the employer are accepted in place of signature of the unemployed register. The normal procedure is reverted to as soon as the position at the local office permits.

Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925.-Section 37 (1) of the above Act provides that on and after 2nd January, 1928, no person of the age of 65 years or over is entitled to unemployment benefit. This necessitated a certain amount of preliminary work in the setting up of procedure for segregating the claims of the persons affected and verifying ages.

Wrongful Claims to Benefit.

There has been no change in the general policy of the Department to institute proceedings wherever there is reason to suspect fraudulent misrepresentation for the purpose of obtaining benefit, and where, on the evidence, a conviction seems probable.

The number of persons prosecuted during the year 1927 for this class of offence was 1,639, a decrease of 111 compared with the year 1926, and of 395 compared with the year 1925. The following table shows the result of these prosecutions, together with the corresponding figures for the years 1925 and 1926 :

These figures are of course small when compared with the number of claims to benefit which runs into millions. It will be seen that there was a marked decrease in the number of cases brought before the Courts, and a still greater proportionate decrease in the number of cases that the magistrates considered serious enough to deserve imprisonment. In 1925, 25.9 per cent. of the total number of persons convicted were sentenced to imprisonment; in 1926 the figure was 20.7 per cent., while in 1927 the proportion was 14.6 per cent. A similar reduction is noticeable in the number of sentences imposed of two months' imprisonment and upwards. In 1925 the number was 86; in 1926 it was 64, while in 1927 the number fell to 41. There were in this number, however, two cases of an exceptional character that caused the Department some concern. As a general rule, it is true to say that the offences committed against the Unemployment Fund are the result of inability on the part of persons, to whom some benefit is payable, to resist the temptation to claim more benefit than is due. In the two cases in question, however, there was evidence of long planned and deliberate fraud, and the Courts took a serious view of them: in the one case a sentence of five years' penal servitude was imposed, and in the other a sentence of 15 months' hard labour. The procedure for dealing with claims to benefit has been carefully reviewed with a view to securing that the safeguards against such frauds are adequate and the general conclusion reached was that the precautions now taken are sufficient.

By far the most prevalent type of fraud was that of persons claiming unemployment benefit for days on which they were employed; 1,250 (or more than three out of every four) of the prosecutions in 1927 were in respect of alleged offences of this kind. In 222 (or 13.6 per cent.) of the prosecutions the alleged offence consisted of making false representations for the purpose of obtaining benefit in respect of dependants.

Arrangements for Payment of Unemployment Benefit through Associations.

During the year under review no new arrangements have been made for the payment of State unemployment benefit through associations. A few associations made applications for arrangements, but in view of the probability of some changes being made in the statutory requirements as to the payment of out-of-work benefits from their own funds they agreed to their applications being held in abeyance.

Arrangements with seven associations were terminated during the year, in three cases owing to the suspension by the associations of the payment of out-of-work benefits from their own funds, in two to the inadequacy of the out-of-work benefits paid by the associations and in two others to the failure of the associations to satisfy other conditions of the arrangements. Two small associations in the textile industry which had arrangements became

amalgamated with another association. At the end of the year the total number of associations with arrangements in operation was 145, with an approximate total membership of 1,042,500.

The Blanesburgh Committee made recommendations in regard to arrangements under Section 17 of the Act of 1920 which form the basis of the new provisions contained in Section 10 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927. These new provisions will not come into operation, however, until 1st January, 1929.

Further steps were taken during the year to ensure that associations administering State unemployment benefits pay from their own funds at least the minimum out-of-work benefits required by Section 17 of the Act of 1920.

SPECIAL SCHEMES.

The two special schemes which have been made under Section 18 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, namely, the schemes for the insurance and banking industries, continued in operation throughout the year.

The power of the Minister to make or approve further special schemes has been abolished by Section 11 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927, but, by a proviso to this Section, the operation of the two existing schemes is not affected.

In consequence of the provisions of the Widows', Orphans', and Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, Special Orders were made on 8th November, 1927, under which persons of the age of 65 or upwards who are employed in the banking and insurance industries are debarred from the receipt of unemployment benefit under the provisions of the special schemes. Under a further provision of these Special Orders, the liability of employers of such persons (except such as are in receipt of an Old Age Pension under the Old Age Pensions Acts) to pay unemployment insurance contributions in respect of their employment is expressly laid down.

The total number of persons insured under the insurance industry special scheme is about 85,000 and under the banking industry special scheme about 41,000. The total amount of benefit paid during the year ended 31st March, 1927, under the former scheme was £115,700, and during the year ended 30th June, 1927, under the latter scheme £6,362.

Insurance Industry Special Scheme.

It has been agreed with the Board that the Department will make no further payments to it under Section 18 (10) of the 1920 Act after 30th June, 1927, and on the other hand that no claims will be made by the Department against the Board in respect of any benefit which may be found to have been paid by the Department between November, 1920, and July, 1921, to a person who should have been insured under the special scheme.

Banking Industry Special Scheme.

The first statutory condition for the receipt of benefit under this special scheme is the same as that of the general scheme, and as the power of the Banking Unemployment Insurance Board to waive the condition would have expired on 30th June, 1927, a new Order was made on 3rd June, 1927, giving the Board power of waiver so long as the Minister exercised a corresponding power under the general scheme.

COST OF ADMINISTRATION.

The ratio of administrative expenses to the income of the Fund was 9.8 per cent. in the financial year 1925-6. In 1926-7, owing to the general strike and mining dispute, and the consequent increase in the live register and diminution of Fund income, the ratio was 13.2 per cent., thus exceeding for the first time since 1921-2 the maximum contribution (12 per cent. of Fund income) payable towards the expenses of administration by the Unemployment Fund under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. The following table shows the cost of administration from the financial year 1925-6 to the financial year 1927-8 inclusive :

Cost of administration of Unemployment Insurance, and the Contribution from the Unemployment Fund towards such cost for the financial years 1925-6 to 1927-8 inclusive:

The finance of the scheme during the year 1927 was not affected by any new legislative enactments. As compared with 1926 the income showed a slight increase, whilst expenditure showed a considerable decrease, as a result of the reduction in the number of persons unemployed. During the calendar year 1927 it was necessary further to exercise the statutory borrowing powers to the extent of £540,000 (net) to meet the outgoings of the Fund; this addition to the debt is more than accounted for by interest charges on the borrowings in 1926 which resulted from the large increase of claims following the dispute in the coal mining industry. The

amount of the debt of the Unemployment Fund at each half year from 31st December, 1921, to 31st December, 1927, and the rate of interest at which money was borrowed are shown in Appendix XI, table No. 2.

Note.-Other statistical information as to the administration of Unemployment Insurance will be found in Appendices V to XI (1).

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER III.

IMPORTANT DECISIONS OF THE UMPIRE.

CASE NO. 1239/26. (5TH JUNE, 1926.)-EXAMINATION OF FURTHER EVIDENCE. (22ND FEBRUARY, 1927).

Case of miners' claims allowed in 1925 owing to contravention of "Baldwin Agreement," and disallowed when agreement terminated in 1926Application by association for revision of latter decision-Allegation, not previously made, of contravention, in 1925, of agreements other than "Baldwin Agreement"-No case for revision.

On 25th January, 1927, the Durham Miners' Association requested a re-hearing before the Umpire of the case of miners whose claims for unemployment benefit were allowed in decision 1969/25 and, owing to a change of circumstances, subsequently disallowed in decision 1239/26.

When presenting the case which led to the former decision, the association were of the opinion that the men were clearly entitled to benefit owing to a contravention, by the employers, of terms of the "Baldwin Agreement," and confined their presentation entirely to this factor. On the expiration of the "Baldwin Agreement" it was decided in 1239/26 that the continuance of the stoppage was not due to such contravention, and the claims for benefit were accordingly disallowed.

In the letter of 25th January, the association asserted that had they foreseen the possibility of a re-imposition of a "trade dispute " disqualification because of the termination of a national agreement which had been contravened, they would not have confined their original case to the "Baldwin Agreement" alone. They had reason to claim that the terms then offered not only constituted a contravention of the "Baldwin Agreement," but also contravened a county agreement, or an agreement of a group of employers, which had not been brought to the Umpire's notice.

In these circumstances the association asked for a re-hearing on the ground that the terms offered were a contravention of a clause of the county agreement of 26th November, 1904, which had never been cancelled. The clause in question defined the duties of "fillers." A further contravention was alleged in that the management of the colliery sought to do away with an agreement of 28th February, 1923, which recognised a local minimum wage that prevailed at the colliery.

There was a hearing before the Umpire, who examined the fresh evidence and gave the following decision:

"Section 11 (8) of the Unemployment Insurance Act gives the Umpire a discretionary power to revise his decisions on new facts being brought to his notice; and this subsection has been liberally construed and the power has been freely used in cases in which the decision has resulted in a substantial injustice; but it is obviously not intended that the Umpire should in all cases be bound to revise his decision even when new facts are brought to his notice which might have affected the decision if they had been before him when the decision was given.