Quoted by A Short History of the RSPCA Animal Hostel at London Airport. Pt. 2: International Activities.
Description:

'civil servants also met privately to decide on a collective approach. At this latter meeting, a Ministry of Transport representative argued that the RSPCA's requests were merely the result of 'one isolated incident (that of the death of some monkeys at London Airport),' for which he suggested the Society themselves 'were not without responsibility.' He was he indicated 'most reluctant' to impose 'any further paper work... on air transport undertakings.' The Ministry of Agriculture's Chief Veterinary Officer's expressed the view that 'there appeared to be no point whatever in making new regulations.' Summing up the civil service consensus, the meeting Chairman concluded that far from having any claim to direct government policy, the RSPCA 'should be required to explain why regulations were necessary.''

'the RSPCA had been unwilling to publicly endorse these, as it was agreed Society policy to oppose 'painful' animal experimentation in all its forms. Ministry of Health official J.D. Whittaker thus complained to his colleagues that 'while the Society had originally co-operated... they had refused to allow their name to be publicly associated... on the grounds that they were opposed in principal to the import of monkeys at all.''

 

From original:

'Mr. Quick thanked the Departmental representatives for their attendance, and mentioned ly particularly how grateful he was to have the benefit of the experience of Mr. Engledew of B.O.A.C. He explained that it had been agreed to receive an R.S.P.C.A. deputation on 13th March, and that the main purpose of the meeting was to clarify the views of the various Departments which had some interest in points raised by the R.S.P.C.A. He suggested that the "onus of proof" could properly be placed on the Society, i.e., they should be required to explain why regulations were necessary and why the desired end could not be achieved by agreement with the air corporations. It was also necessary to decide which Department should take responsibility for making new regulations, if this were eventually decided on.'

...

Mr. Nash for the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, said that whichever Department was responsible he would be most reluctant to see any regulations which could further complicate the formalities of air transport, to simplify which strenuous efforts are at present being made; it was most undesirable that any further paper work should be imposed on air transport undertakings. There was not, in his view, the slightest need for regulations. At present moment there was complete co-operation between the air transport operators and the R.S.P.C.A. One isolated incident (that of the death of some monkeys at London Airport) had almost certainly given rise to the present representations, and it so happened that the R.S.P.C.A. themselves were not without responsibility for that incident. If regulations were made in this country, they could only apply to the United Kingdom, and would have the effect of diverting traffic to other countries' lines and airports. This might well be to the disadvantage of the animals since the R.S.P.C.A. hostel at London Airport was probably the best of its kind in the world. To be effective, any action must be undertaken on an international basis. There were two organisations - the International Civil Aviation Organisation and The International Air Transport Organisation - who could co-operate in anything of this nature, but a very much stronger case would be necessary, and it would take years to arrive at any measure of international agreement.

Sir Weldon Dalrymple-Champneys said that in the context of the discussion the Ministry of Health were only concerned with monkeys, which were imported into this country in connection with the production and testing of poliomyelitis vaccine. At present there was full co-operation with the Indian Government about the transit of monkeys, and very detailed arrangements had been made for their welfare en route. Mr Whittaker confirmed that the R.S.P.C.A. had taken part in discussions with that Government, his Department and the Ministry of Health. While the Society had originally co-operated towards agreed conditions of transit for monkeys, they had refused to allow their name to be publicly associated with the conditions on the grounds that they were opposed in principal to the import of monkeys at all. Copies of these recommended conditions of transit were supplied to the meeting.

Mr. Ritchie said that in view of the evidence so far produced there appeared to be no point whatever in making new regulations. Even if there had been regulations the monkey incident could have happened. He saw no reason why any objection should be taken to the Medical Research Council recommendations on the shipment of monkeys.'