*
2
(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 able has been inserted in the new section 41.
""
reason-
(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 The new section 48 adopts this principle by making an appropriate substitution for section 48 (1) of the repealed Ordinance.
6) 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.
(k) that the words "or destroyed are not provided for in the Conventions and suggested their deletion in sections 53 (iv) and 58 (iv) of Ordinance No. 12 of 1935. This point is dealt with in the new sections 53 (iv) and 58 (iv).
(1) that there is no provision in Ordinance No. 12 of 1935 whereby an aircraft or a vessel may continue its voyage if it does not desire to submit to the prescribed measures and suggested that a provision on the lines of Article 54 of the International Sanitary Convention, 1926, and Article 57 of the International Sanitary Convention for Aerial Navigation, 1933, should be included. The new Ordinance deals with this point by adding two sub-sections to section 20.
3. A Table of Correspondence, which sets out in detail the differences between the new Ordinance and the repealed Ordinance, is attached.
December, 1935.
C. G. ALABASTER,
Attorney General.
39