Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 14 December 2023

Introduction

This consultation sought views on proposals for the introduction of a specialist licence for private primate keepers in England, through regulations made under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA). The consultation ran for 4 weeks, from 20 June to 18 July 2023.

The purpose of this consultation was to seek views on aspects of the proposed specialist private primate keeper licensing regime which were not covered by the previous consultation in December 2020 (on the government’s proposal to introduce a prohibition on the keeping and breeding of primates in England) and to seek views on the detailed primate-keeping welfare standards themselves.

The specialist private primate keeping welfare standards will not apply to primates which are kept by a person holding a zoo licence under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 (Zoo Licence) or a Home Office scientific procedures licence under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA licence) because separate standards already exist for this. It will, however, apply to all primates which are currently being licensed under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 or the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018. Under the new proposed regime, anyone keeping a primate or proposing to keep a primate will need a specialist licence unless they have a zoo or ASPA licence.

Please note that where ‘specialist primate keeper’, ‘primate keepers’ or ‘primate keeping’ are referred to in this document, the term does not include those keeping primates that are required to have a zoo licence or Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (ASPA) Licence.

We are grateful to all the individuals and organisations that took the time to respond to this consultation and this document provides a summary of responses submitted to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Number of responses

In total, 642 responses to the consultation were received. Not all respondents answered all questions. The figures reflect one answer per respondent however some responses were from large organisations where more than one representative may have answered on behalf of the organisation. Additionally, some responses will count as a single response but could be from an organisation representing a much larger membership.

Where an open text response is referred to as statistical data, for instance a percentage, coding has been used to identify themes and patterns which are representative of respondents’ views. The term majority is used to represent numbers of respondents over 50% and minority or few less than 20%.  Please also note that where % are slightly over or under 100%, this is due to rounding up or down in the calculations.

The majority of responses were submitted by members of the public, but a range of sector organisations also submitted views. These included:

• animal rescue organisations including the RSPCA, Born Free, the Wildlife and Countryside Link, Four Paws and Blue Cross
• number of veterinary professionals responded on an individual basis – some with specialist primate expertise
• representatives from primate rescue centres including the Specialist Wildlife service and Wild Futures
• a number of representatives from zoos with understanding of holding a variety of primate species collections.  These include Monkey World, Twycross Zoo, Drayton Manor and Shaldon Wildlife Trust. It should be noted that for the purposes of this consultation Monkey World described themselves as a zoo, rather than a primate rescue organisation, so their responses have been counted under this organisational description
• zoo umbrella organisations including the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums (BIAZA) and Zoological Society of London
• representatives from 23 local authorities in England
• a number of individual primate keepers and the Companion Animal Sector Council (CASC)
• academics in the field of primate research and primatology

A small number of responses were received by email, within the time limits set for the consultation. These have been added to the consultation data as well as to the summary of responses. A small number of responses were received after the consultation closed and those responses have not therefore been included as they were out of time.

The responses have been analysed by question for the purposes of this summary, but many respondents touched on cross cutting themes throughout their answers.

Headline findings

• 97% of respondents welcomed the standards being introduced for welfare requirements including breeding, handling, vet care and environmental criteria.
• 81% stated they would like to see a primate specialist and a vet carrying out inspections
• respondents were supportive of higher penalties being levied for breaches of the standards and licensing regime, as well as robust enforcement of them
• 72% of respondents outlined a preference for inspections to take place more frequently than every 3 years

Questions 1 to 7 were data-gathering questions covering name, email, organisational information and confidentiality.

Responses by question

Licensing standards and other requirements

Question 8. Do you consider that at least one inspection should take place every 3 years for a licensed premises? Please use this box to explain your answer if needed

• strongly agree
• Agree
• neither agree nor disagree
• disagree
• strongly disagree

There were 633 responses to this question.

• 88% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed
• 11% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed
• Less than 1% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed
• Less than 1% of respondents did not answer the question

Open text: There were 229 responses to this part of the question.

• 38% of respondents preferred an annual inspection
• 34% of respondents stated they would like more frequent inspections

Regular inspections were strongly supported by respondents, with a large number favouring more frequent inspections than every 3 years. Of those who specified a preferred time period, the majority supported annual inspections.  Less than 1% favoured unannounced visits and only 1 respondent stated that inspections were unnecessary.

10% of those answering agree/strongly agreeing to this question stated ‘welfare’ as their reason for more frequent inspections. They stated that conditions could deteriorate quickly if regular inspections did not take place and that bad practices, animal neglect and cruelty could be addressed quicker, in the interests of primate health and welfare if more regular inspections took place. Those who answered disagree or strongly disagree to this question also requested more inspections rather than less. 

Enforcement

Question 9: Do you agree that local authorities should be supported by someone suitably qualified to assess primate welfare and keeping conditions?

There were 640 responses to this question. 98% answered yes.

Question 10: Who do you think is best placed to support local authorities in their inspections?

• specialist veterinary surgeon
• primate welfare specialist
• both of the above
• other (please describe)

There were 638 responses to this question of which 39 gave further comments.

Of those:

• 2% selected ’Specialist veterinary surgeon’
• 14% selected ‘Primate welfare specialist’
• 81% selected ‘both’
• 3% chose ‘other’

A number of options were given by those choosing the ‘other’ category.  These included a qualified zoo inspector or zookeeper, Defra, a primate animal charity, primate keeper, primatologist, primate rescue or primate scientist.

A small number of responses suggested a definition of ‘specialist’ was needed. The term, when applied to vets, is a protected term by the RCVS which only applies to those that have completed a postgraduate Diploma qualification. Such a protected term does not exist for other professionals. There are degrees of expertise - many primatologists are not vets; many exotics or animal welfare specialist vets work with species other than primates. It was stated that vets less qualified in this field may not recognise specific behavioural issues. Some respondents requested demonstrable knowledge of primates via qualifications or training.

The overall view from respondents is that someone with in depth knowledge of and expertise with primates should accompany local authority inspectors. Some respondents favour private primate keepers or primatologists so that psychological ill health can be picked up early.

Question 11: If you agree that suitable support should be provided, how might this be identified?

Many of the respondents of this response stated they did not understand the question fully. They therefore answered the question either a) who should be suitable support or b) what that support should look like.

There were 394 responses to this question of which:

• 81 respondents requested primate experience and qualifications for those inspecting
• 60 respondents stated the experts in the field, including Monkey World, zoos, primate rescue centres or primatologists, may provide support
• a sizable number stated they would prefer a primate specialist and a vet to go out on inspections
• a few other options for suitable support included representatives from zookeepers, zoo inspectors, European College of European Medicine (ECZM) vets or animal welfare organisations

Suggestions of how the support should be provided included:

• that those carrying out inspections should be suitably qualified
• a centralised database would assist in finding specialists across the country for inspections

A number of additional points were put forward including:

• training for inspectors
• primate specific guidance being provided
• that there could be difficulty sourcing specialists for inspections
• some respondents stated they did not have enough specific knowledge to answer the question

Penalties

Question 12: Do you feel that the proposed penalties for breaching a licence are proportionate?  Please use this box to explain your answer if needed.

There were 636 responses, out of which 64% agreed or strongly agreed that the penalties are proportionate.

Of those who commented further, 43% would like to see higher or harsher penalties, with some requesting a custodial sentence for those in breach of the licensing regime. Some respondents voiced concerns that the regime may not be sufficiently enforced due to lack of local authority resourcing for inspectors.

Those who disagreed or strongly disagreed (24%) to this question, also requested more severe penalties.

Question 13: Do you have any additional comments to make, evidence to provide or alternative suggestions? Please answer below.

202 respondents provided additional comments to this open text question.

• 28% of respondents felt that there should be a ban or restrictions on keeping primates altogether
• 15% of respondents stated that higher penalties and/or a custodial sentence should be used as a deterrent for those breaching licensing standards
• 8% of respondents stated that they had witnessed cruelty first-hand but also felt that it was often lack of information or knowledge on the keepers’ part that led to neglect or poor welfare practices when keeping captive primates
• most respondents acknowledged that primates have complex needs with 11% stating that primates should not be kept as domestic pets

Record keeping

Question 14: Are there any additional records which should be kept, in addition to those listed above and those in the draft standards?

23 respondents gave further comments for this question.

Respondents recommended the following additional records should be kept:

• diet
• enclosure temperature
• vet plan and record
• medical interventions and postmortem findings
• environmental enrichment
• modification and maintenance of primate accommodation
• species and numbers
• reproductive status: neutered, castrated, pregnant and contraceptive use
• UV level readings
• any behavioural issues and remedies
• allergies
• injuries

50% of respondents adding comments here encouraged the use of a birth to death approach encompassing general husbandry information throughout a primate’s life, similar to standards used in zoos.

Question 15: Is a 4-year record keeping requirement:

Please use this box to explain your answer if needed.

630 respondents answered the closed text part of this question with 193 adding further comments to the open text part. Of those the following responses were gathered:

• 54% - just right
• 43% - too short
• 3% - too long

144 respondents stated, in the open text comments, that records should be kept for more than 4 years with a few stating they should be kept for the lifespan of the primate. 5 respondents stated that 3-4 years was sufficient.

Question 16: As part of the identification details, should microchip identification be:

• required
• recommended
• not included

Please use this box to explain your answer if needed.

There were 635 responses to the closed text part of this question with 132 responding with additional comments in open text.  

• 93% - required
• 6% - recommended
• less than 1% - not be included

Half of respondents, who said microchips should be required, said that this would aid traceability and was the most reliable way to identify animals.

A point was made that there may be occasions where microchipping some individual primates could be difficult due to size of the animal or distress caused during capture, although this was a minority of cases.

Future arrangements for keepers

Question 17: Do you agree or disagree that the penalties under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are suitable to enforce non-compliance with the licensing scheme and standards? Please use this box to explain your answer if needed.

635 respondents answered this question.

• 49% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed
• 31% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed
• 20% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed

199 added further comments in the open text section.

The majority of respondents to this question disagreed with the proposition that the penalties under the AWA were suitable to enforce non-compliance. Like Question 12 above, most respondents requested higher or harsher penalties and stronger enforcement regimes to underpin the licence scheme.

Whilst respondents answered differently in terms of agreeing or disagreeing to the question, their comments were aligned in favouring robust enforcement of licensing conditions. They had a similar approach to enforcement, stronger penalties, use of a transition period and confiscation for breach of licensing conditions.

Standards for privately kept primates

Question 18: Do you agree that standards should be set for the following aspects of managing privately kept primates?

• nutrition
• environment
• veterinary care
• behaviours
• breeding
• handling and restraint
• transportation

There were 637 responses to the closed part of this question.

There were 105 responses to the open text question. Of these:

• 97% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed to this question
• 2% disagreed or strongly disagreed
• 1% neither agreed nor disagree

The majority of those responding here stated that they felt the standards were necessary, pragmatic, high enough and clear.

29% of respondents expressed the view that primates should not be kept as pets. A noteworthy point was made that as research and knowledge on diet and enrichment changes over time, the standards should be changed to reflect that.

Nutrition

Question 19: Do you agree or disagree that the standards ensure that specialist keepers provide captive primates with a diet that meets their physical and psychological needs?  Please use this box to explain your answer if needed.

90% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed to this question. 80 respondents added extra comments.

33% of respondents made the case for species specific diets to be considered. Dietary sheets should be used to indicate to inspectors that correct, species specific diets had been complied with. Some respondents also stated that diets were something that should be inspected on, and that expert advice should be gained in order that primates were getting the right diet.

Some points were made about the type of browse and forage, insects and gum and resin offered as well as the frequency. This is also covered in Question 20.

Question 20: Do you agree or disagree that the standards provide sufficient opportunities to promote species-specific feeding related behaviours (for example, foraging or gum gouging)? 

630 respondents answered the question of which 67 offered further comments in the open text part.

• 80% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed
• 7% disagreed or strongly disagreed
• 13% neither agreed nor disagreed

Food-based enrichment was felt to be important to the individual and social wellbeing of some species of primates for example, marmosets and tamarins. The significance of the use of gum or resin was highlighted as an enrichment activity for some species. Some respondents also added comments that feeding related enrichment should be provided to enhance the natural behaviour of the primate species.

10 stated that the standards were too prescriptive, too detailed, or unrealistic to maintain in captivity. 4 responded that they did not have enough expert knowledge to answer this question adequately.

Question 21: Are additional species-specific requirements needed and if so, for which species?

16 respondents added comments for this question.

Additional species-specific requirement included were:

• browse for folivore species
• not giving supplements to those species that do not require it
• insects for insectivores
• overnight feeding for nocturnal species
• gouging for gum opportunities for callitrichids (marmosets and tamarins)
• UV lighting for callitrichids
• constant enrichment such as digging spaces, ropes, bug foraging for active species such as capuchins

Enclosure dimensions and environmental enrichment

Question 22: Do you agree or disagree that minimum enclosure dimensions should be included within the standards? Please use this box to explain your answer if needed.

• 95% agreed or strongly agreed
• 2% Neither agreed nor disagreed
• 2% Disagree
• fewer than 1% did not answer

The majority of respondents stated that they thought that the minimum enclosure sizes should be the minimum required and that where possible primates housing should fit the space available. Some respondents mentioned that enclosure sizes should be species specific, that social groupings should be accounted for as well as availability of enrichment in enclosure spaces. 

Question 23: Do you agree or disagree that the proposed dimensions provide sufficient space for each species of privately kept primates? Please use this box to explain your answer if needed.

There were 630 responses to the closed part of this question of which 65% agreed or strongly agreed.  As with previous questions, both those agreeing and disagreeing to this question had approached the question differently but still requested that the maximum possible space would give maximum welfare outcomes for primates when addressing housing needs.

Other suggestions included species-specific considerations including the possible need for winter housing and that zoo level standards should be used as a benchmark.

Question 24: Do you agree or disagree that the standards on enclosure furniture, plants, substrates and climbing structures will help to encourage natural behaviours (for example, swinging, leaping, and climbing) in kept primates?  Please use this box to explain your answer if needed

• 91% agreed or strongly agreed
• 7% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 1% disagreed or strongly disagreed

Of those who responded agreed or strongly agreed, 34% believed that enrichment was vital to maintain good physical and mental wellbeing of the animals. 16% also believed that enrichment should be kept as natural to the species kept as possible.

There were 74 additional comments made in the open text part of this question.

These included:

• species-specific enrichment was again highlighted
• several points were made around the maintenance and upkeep of enclosures for the safety of both primates and keepers
• the safety and suitability of different types of flooring and building material
• 8 respondents emphasized the need to promote as natural behaviour as possible
• a small number of respondents would like to see a ban on keeping primates as pets

Question 25: Do you agree or disagree that the proposed standards ensure that kept primates will have appropriate access to nest boxes, resting sites and platforms to support essential behaviours? Please use this box to explain your answer if needed.

• 85% agreed or strongly agreed
• 11% neither agreed nor disagreed
• less than 3% disagreed or strongly disagreed
• 1% did not answer

There were 65 additional comments made to the open text part of this question. Comments included:

• primates should have access to at least one nest box
• indoor and outdoor space should be available allowing for arboreal and terrestrial behaviour to be exhibited
• rest room should be available for primates to be alone if required
• the indoor and outdoor settings should encourage natural behaviours where possible

Temperature

Question 26: Do you agree or disagree with the temperature requirements in the proposed standards?  Please use this box to explain your answer if needed.

• 85% agreed or strongly agreed
• 13% Neither agreed nor disagreed
• 2% disagreed or strongly disagreed

77 additional comments were made to the open text part of this question. Of those, respondents stated:

• temperature requirements needed to be regulated for the species kept
• there needed to be a method for regulating the temperature adequately
• many of the respondents answering the open text question stated they felt they would need further expert advice to answer the question fully and they had insufficient knowledge

Question 27: Do you agree or disagree that the temperature requirements meet the species-specific variations? Please use this box to explain your answer if needed.

There were 627 responses to the closed text question, of which:

• 74% agreed or strongly agreed
• 24% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 3% disagreed or strongly disagreed

72 respondents gave further information in the open text part however, most explained that they would need further expert advice or that they did not know enough to answer the question.

Lighting

Question 28: Do you agree or disagree that the proposed standards ensure that specialist keepers provide primates with appropriate lighting within their enclosure to best promote optimal welfare?  Please use this box to explain your answer if needed.

• 84% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed
• 13% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed
• 3% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed

Of the 63 respondents adding comments in the open text field:

• 34% of respondents stated that ultraviolet lighting should be available for all species of primates including nocturnal species
• some respondents requested further information on the efficacy of Ultraviolet B (UVB) lighting and its safety for use with primates
• a small number felt there should be a ban on keeping primates as pets
• a small number of respondents did not feel they had enough knowledge to answer the question adequately

Question 29: Do you agree or disagree that the needs of nocturnal species are adequately met? Please use this box to explain your answer if needed.

• 73% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed
• 20% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 7% disagreed or strongly disagreed
• the majority of those responding disagree or neither agree or disagree said they are not experts in this field and could not give an accurate response

Environmental standards

Question 30: Do you agree or disagree that the standards will ensure specialist keepers maintain a hygienic and safe environment for captive primates?  Please use this box to explain your answer if needed.

There were 636 responses to the closed text question.

• 80% agreed or strongly agreed to the question
• 14% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 4% disagreed or strongly disagreed

There were 59 additional comments to the open text question of which almost half were concerned about the levels of enforcement of this standard, favouring more inspections to ensure a hygienic and clean regime was maintained.

Respondents answering agree, disagree or neither aligned on the view that enforcement should be robust, well-implemented and well monitored.

Veterinary care

Question 31: Do you agree or disagree that specialist keepers must be registered and obtain oversight from a specialist veterinarian?  Please use this box to explain your answer if needed.

There were 638 responses to this question and 57 additional comments to the open text part of the question.

• 98% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed
• 1% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 1% disagreed or strongly disagreed

65 commented further and responses included:

• support and oversight are necessary for high animal welfare
• 16 respondents stated that sourcing ‘specialist’ vets may be problematic due to lack of resource across the country
• the definition of ‘specialist’ may also cause issues as it has a range of meanings outside the veterinary profession

Health concerns

Question 32: Do you agree or disagree that the proposed standards address the primary health concerns that face captive primates?  Please use this box to explain your answer if needed.

There were 640 responses to this question.

• 78% Agreed or strongly agreed
• 15% Neither agree nor disagree
• 5% Disagree or strongly disagree
• 2% not answered

Of the further comments that were given, the following was stated:

• 19% of respondents stated they would prefer a ban on keeping primates as pets
• 32% of respondents said that experts would know more than they did on this matter or that they did not know enough to be able to answer the question correctly
• the possibility of maintaining a database of keepers
• concerns about how the enforcement regime would be implemented or if it would be stringent enough to prosecute offenders

Question 33: Are any health concerns not covered sufficiently? Please give full details.

There were 101 responses to this open text question.

Comments made here included:

• species-specific diseases
• mental health including behavioural issues
• nutritional deficiencies
• breeding and inbreeding
• ingress of pets or wild animals in enclosures

Behaviour

Question 34: Do you agree or disagree that the standards demonstrate the importance of positive and normal behaviours? Please use this box to explain your answer if needed.

There were 631 responses to this part of the question.

• 84% agreed or strongly agreed to the closed text part of the question
• 11% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 4% disagreed or strongly disagreed

Common comments raised in the open text question included:

• concerns around keepers’ knowledge of ranges of behaviour relevant to their kept species
• exhibiting natural aggression or competition may not be seen as positive, even though they can be normal behaviour
• behavioural and mental health issues are of concern where primates have been kept isolated or in inadequate accommodation

Question 35: Do you agree or disagree that the standards address the importance of identifying and addressing negative behaviours? Please use this box to explain your answer if needed.

There were 626 responses to this question of which 79% agreed or strongly agreed to the question. Many of the answers in the open text part of this question were the same as Question 34.

Question 36: Do you agree or disagree that the standards meet the requirements for the social needs of captive primates, including solitary species?  Please use this box to explain your answer if needed.

There were 622 responses to this open text question.

The majority of respondents expressed concerns about keeping social animals in solitary conditions. Primates are predominantly social animals, living in groups or pairs, in the wild. They gain their social cues, companionship and hierarchy needs from living in groups. Some respondents felt that where solitary animals were kept, their social and welfare needs could not be met successfully, and they would develop negative behaviours.

As in previous questions, a small number of respondents did not feel they had enough knowledge of the specifics to fully answer the question.

Enrichment

Question 37: Do you agree or disagree that the standards demonstrate the important role of enrichment, as well as the need for enrichment to be species-specific and to be monitored and changed regularly? Please use this box to explain your answer if needed.

There were 654 responses to the closed text question and 52 to the open text part.

• 82% agreed or strongly agreed
• 13% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 4% disagreed or strongly disagreed

Comments here include:

• sufficient enrichment is integral to primate physical and mental wellbeing
• enrichment needs regular monitoring and alteration to promote stimulation for the animals
• the standards do not explain sufficiently how or why enrichment is so important for primates
• detailed records should be kept of types of enrichment added to avoid keepers adding ahead of inspection

Breeding

Question 38: Do you agree or disagree that hand-rearing by private keepers should only be permitted under exceptional circumstances?  Please use this box to explain your answer if needed.

There were 634 responses to the closed text part of the question with 134 of those commenting further in the open text part.

89% agreed or strongly agreed that hand-rearing by private keepers should only be done in exceptional circumstances. They felt that potentially, when an infant was in danger or the mother was ill or died, this could be undertaken as a last resort and in conjunction with specialist advice. Many felt that hand-rearing caused life-long behavioural issues and re-integration was therefore compromised.  Some respondents commented that private keepers should not breed from their animals other than in exceptional circumstances.

Question 39: Do you agree or disagree that the proposed standards highlight the importance of natural breeding, birthing, and rearing to allow infants to learn essential species-specific behaviours? Please use this box to explain your answer if needed.

There were 628 responses to the closed part of this question with 78 adding further comments in the open text part.

81% agreed or strongly agreed to the question, 15% neither agreed nor disagreed and 4% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Like the previous question, the majority of respondents did not feel that breeding should take place unless there were exceptional circumstances. Whilst there were comments that breeding played a part in the natural behaviour of primates, others stated that breeding in captivity presented unique and complex circumstances which may cause behavioural and psychological issues in the long term.

Handling and restraint

Question 40: Do you agree or disagree that the proposed handling and restraint standards adequately protect the welfare of kept primates?  Please use this box to explain your answer if needed.

There were 629 responses to the closed text part of this question and 76 further comments in the open text part.

• 70% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed to the question
• 23% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 6% disagreed or strongly disagreed

Comments included:

• handling of primates should be kept to a minimum where possible to avoid traumatising the animals
• expert or specialist advice should be sought to ensure handling is carried out safely for both keeper and primate
• manual restraint should not happen unless in exceptional circumstances, as it is traumatising for the animals

Transportation

Question 41: Do you agree or disagree that the proposed transportation standards adequately protect the welfare of kept primates?  Please use this box to explain your answer if needed.

There were 623 responses to the closed text part of this question, with 91 further comments in the open text part.

• 64% agreed or strongly agreed
• 23% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 13% disagreed or strongly disagreed

Comments included:

• many respondents stated that they felt that transportation should be kept to a minimum and only undertaken in exceptional circumstances
• some felt there should be specific standards around how transportation and handling was carried out, including emergency or rescue transportation
• some felt specialist or vet advice should be sought when transporting primates

Feedback on the standards as a whole

Question 42: Do you have any additional comments on any potential unintended consequences that could arise as a result of the proposed Statutory Instrument and Standards?

There were 194 responses to this part of the question.

Additional comments included:

• the regulations and standards are much anticipated and, when implemented, will assist in maintaining higher welfare requirements for captive primates
• the capacity of sanctuaries to cope with additional confiscations or abandonment of primates
• concerns that the licensing regime may legitimise the sale and ownership of primates as pets
• concerns that euthanasia may increase

Question 43: Do you have any additional comments to make about the proposed Statutory Instrument and Standards?

There were 132 further comments to this question of whom 27 stated no comment. The majority who made additional comments here welcomed the proposals but would also like to see robust enforcement of the regime.

Government response

The government will introduce new standards and a licensing scheme for those people keeping primates outside of a zoo setting in England. The specialist private primate keeping welfare standards will not apply to primates which are kept by a person holding a zoo licence under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 or a Home Office scientific procedures licence under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) because separate standards already exist for this. It will, however, apply to all primates which are currently being licensed under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 and/or the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018. Anyone keeping a primate or proposing to keep a primate will need a specialist licence unless they have a zoo or ASPA licence.

The introduction of this new licensing scheme for private primate keepers will provide a consistent level of welfare akin to zoo-level standards. Guidance will be provided to local authorities on how to measure these standards at inspection and the setting of licence fees to ensure that fees are relatively consistent nationally.

The responses to this consultation show a demonstrable strength of feeling around the need for health and welfare concerns to be covered in the licensing scheme as well as the guidance to support it. The responses also highlight the consensus that the welfare standards need to be comprehensive, clear and concise enough for private primate keepers to follow and local authority enforcers to inspect against. The summary of responses highlights that whilst there is some debate over whether the standards or the licensing regime would meet all the species-specific welfare needs of primates kept as pets, they were felt to go much further than no regime at all.  Whilst many respondents would like to see an outright ban on primates being kept and sold as pets, they commented that they recognised that the standards and licensing scheme would help underpin a scheme promoting higher welfare standard for captive primates in England.

Some respondents considered the guidance to be overly detailed and difficult to enforce. Others expressed a wish to see sufficient detail in the licensing regime to take account of species-specific welfare requirements.  Some responses also pointed out that scientific advances in our understanding of primate welfare are changing rapidly.  Alterations can be made to guidance more readily and speedily than legislation. We are therefore proposing to include higher level welfare requirements in the legislation to ensure that the licensing regime is based on effective standards and is enforceable. In addition, we intend to produce more detailed guidance including species-specific approaches. This consequently allows for a more pragmatic, flexible and clear approach to the licensing regime.  This guidance will be published shortly.

The results of this consultation have helped inform the government on the necessity of introducing criminal offences, with the penalty of an unlimited fine, for the keeping and breeding of primates without a relevant licence (Zoo Licence, Animals (Scientific Procedures) licence, new Primate Keeper licence).