132
(c) that the definition of "Sanitary aerodrome" in section 2 of the principal Ordinance was inadequate and suggested that it should be expanded to accord with Article 5 of the International Sanitary Convention for Aerial Navigation, 1933. This is dealt with in section 2.
(d) that section 2 (2) (c) and 2 (2) (d) of Ordinance No. 12 of 1935 did not conform to the International Sanitary Convention, 1926, and suggested their deletion as well as an amendment of section 58. These points are dealt with in sections 2 and 58.
CC
وو
(e) that the terms contact vessel and contact air- craft were to be deprecated. This point has been dealt with in sections 2, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31 and 36, and in the marginal note to section 50.
(f) that section 30 of Ordinance No. 12 of 1935 was somewhat stringent and might lead to difficulties and delays unless some kind of general authorisation is envisaged. The same observation appears to apply also to section 86. These sections are amended accordingly by the addition of the words.
either generally or specially,
(g) that section 35 of Ordinance No. 12 of 1935 pre- scribed no signal for healthy ships and suggested that the whole section might be amended so as to follow Part II of the Third Schedule to the Port Sanitary Regulations, (Statutory Rules and Orders 1933, No. 38), in force in England. This point is dealt with in the new section 35.
(h) that it might be desirable to insert in section 41 of Ordinance No. 12 of 1935 some provision to ensure that the amount of the charge for the work shall be a reasonable sum, excluding any charge or claim in respect of profit and representing the actual or estimated cost to be incurred by the Government in undertaking the work, and also some provision limiting the amount which may be charged unless notice of the proposed charge has been given to the master or pilot before the work is undertaken. After consideration it was felt that to adopt these suggestions in their entirety might lead to difficulties in practice but the word reason- able has been inserted in the new section 41.
CE
(i) that His Majesty's Government had agreed to a pro- posal of the Office International d'Hygiene Publique for the addition to Article 25 (6) of the International Sanitary Con- vention, 1926, to provide in certain cases for the fumigation of a ship before or during the discharge of cargo and for a subsequent fumigation if during or after the discharge live rats are still found, only one of the fumigations being charged to the ship. The new section 48 adopts this principle by making an appropriate substitution for section 48 (1) of the repealed Ordinance.
() that section 52 of Ordinance No. 12 of 1935 appeared to be ineffective in its present form, and suggested that if the Colony does not possess the personnel and equipment necessary for deratisation periodical deratisation should not be prescribed, but on the other hand if the necessary personnel and equipment is available then deratisation certificates and deratisation exemption certificates should be obtainable and that the section should be expanded on the lines of Article 28 of the International Sanitary Convention, 1926. This matter is dealt with in the new section 52.