Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 8 June 2021

Part 1: Summary of responses

Introduction

This document provides a summary of responses to the government’s consultation on proposals to ban the keeping of primates as pets in England.

The purpose of the consultation was to:

• seek views on the government’s proposal to introduce new prohibitions on the keeping and breeding of primates without a relevant licence
• seek views on the government’s proposals to introduce a new licensing scheme for primate keepers who are able to provide high welfare standards for their primates, akin to those provided by licensed zoos
• seek views on the government’s proposals for ongoing arrangements for existing pet primates that are not eligible for the new licensing scheme
• seek views on the enforcement of the proposed measures
• call for evidence on the number of primates kept outside of licensed zoos and scientific contexts in England and the number of private primate keepers in England

The consultation ran for 8 weeks, from 12 December 2020 to 6 February 2021.

Background

In October 2019 Defra launched a Call for Evidence on the Welfare of Primates as Pets, which closed in January 2020. The Call for Evidence sought evidence about the number of primates kept as pets and their welfare, how they are acquired, and how any new restrictions might apply. Defra received over 200 responses to the Call for Evidence. The responses to the Call for Evidence informed the policy approach outlined in the consultation.

Number of responses

In total 4,516 responses to the consultation were received. The responses comprised:

• 4,503 responses through the online questionnaire on Citizen Space
• 13 responses via email

For the email or postal responses, where respondents answered the specific consultation questions these have been included in the analysis statistics throughout this document. Where they provided more general comments the views have been picked up in the broader analysis and in picking out key themes from all the comments.

Demographics

Of the 4,516 responses received, 4,409 were from individuals, 107 were from organisations. Respondents identified themselves as follows: 3881 identified themselves as members of the public, 225 as academics, 91 as zookeepers, 68 as veterinarians and 40 as primate keepers.

Those responding on behalf of organisations were also able to select the type of organisation they were responding on behalf of. The most represented organisations were Animal Welfare groups with 72 responses, followed by Zoos with 50 responses, Universities with 48 responses and Primate Rescue Centres with 42 responses.

Other organisations represented included membership organisations, Government organisations, Veterinary surgeries and Conservation groups.

Headline figures

• 4,516 Individual responses to the consultation were received
• 98.7% (4,450) of respondents expressed support for the introduction of a new prohibition on keeping primates privately in England, which also applies to breeding, acquiring, gifting, selling or otherwise transferring primates, apart from to persons licensed to keep primates to zoo-level standards. 1.2% (56) expressed opposition, and 0.1% (4) did not express a definitive opinion
• 96.7% (4,362) of respondents expressed support for a system of inspection for ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licence holders. 2.4% (108) expressed opposition, and 0.9% (40) did not express a definitive opinion
• 97.8% (4,409) of respondents expressed support that anyone subject to the new prohibition must register their primate with their Local Authority. 1.4% (64) expressed opposition, and 0.8% (37) did not express a definitive opinion
• 50.5% (2,274) of respondents expressed support for primates not subject to the new ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licence (or to a zoo licence) continuing to live where they are if their basic welfare needs are being met, or will be met subject to an improvement notice, following an initial visit and assessment by the Local Authority. 37.5% (1,689) expressed opposition, and 12.1% (547) did not express a definitive opinion

Responses by question

Banning primates as pets

Q6. Do you agree that the Government should introduce a new prohibition on keeping primates privately in England, which also applies to breeding, acquiring, gifting, selling, or otherwise transferring primates, apart from to persons licensed to keep primates to zoo-level standards?

98.7% (4,450) of respondents expressed support for the introduction of a new prohibition on keeping primates privately in England, which also applies to breeding, acquiring, gifting, selling or otherwise transferring primates, apart from to persons licensed to keep primates to zoo-level standards. 1.2% (56) expressed opposition, and 0.1% (4) did not express a definitive opinion.

Support for the prohibition was high across the different groups, including those who identified themselves as primate keepers, of whom 87.5% (35) expressed their support.

Some respondents did oppose the inclusion of an exemption for licensed private primate keepers. Of those who opposed the inclusion of an exception for licensed private primate keepers (19), 63% were members of the public and 21% were animal welfare organisations. They argued that it is not justifiable to allow primates to be kept outside of licenced zoos and rescue centres because there is no clear conservation purpose to offset the potential harm to individual animal welfare. 1.4% (61) of respondents opposed licenced private primate keepers being exempt from the proposed prohibition on the breeding and sale of primates. They argued that breeding should only be permitted when linked to a zoo breeding programme with clear conservation goals.

Privately kept primates kept to zoo-level standards

Questions 7 – 12 sought views on a new ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licensing scheme. The questions asked:

Q7: Do you agree that the Government should use zoo-level welfare standards as the basis for a new ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licensing scheme?

Q8: Do you agree that licence conditions relating to specific standards setting out how primates must be kept should include a requirement for primates to be microchipped as a means of permanent identification?

Q9: Do you agree that a system of inspection should apply to ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licence holders?

Q10: Do you agree that Local Authorities should apply and enforce the system of licensing and inspection for ‘specialist private primate keepers’?

Q11: Do you agree that Local Authorities should have discretion as to the length of a ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licence?

Q12: Do you have any other comments or suggestions regarding a ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licensing scheme?

Respondents were broadly supportive of proposals relating to a new ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licensing scheme.

90.6% (4,086) of respondents expressed support for the use of zoo-level welfare standards as the basis for a new ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licensing scheme. 6.9% (310) expressed opposition, and 2.5% (114) did not express a definitive opinion. Whilst support for the use of zoo-level standards was high across the demographics represented, those responding on behalf of conservation groups were marginally less supportive with only 62.5% (10) expressing support. Arguments against the use of zoo standards suggest that these are currently too broad and would need further refinement to apply effectively to primates. Some respondents indicated that the licensing standards should include species-specific requirements and expertise requirements to ensure those keeping primates had the appropriate knowledge to do so.

93.6% (4,223) of respondents expressed support for including a requirement for primates to be microchipped as a means of permanent identification as part of licence conditions. 3% (136) expressed opposition, and 3.4% (151) did not express a definitive opinion. Many supported mandatory microchipping but raised concerns regarding the difficulty of microchipping primates which they stated usually requires sedation. Many raised the importance of the procedure being carried out by a veterinarian with suitable experience in primate health and welfare, and preferably combining the procedure with another to avoid unnecessary additional anaesthesia. Others suggested non-invasive alternatives including detailed photographic records and descriptions, fingerprints, or DNA analysis using hair or faeces.

96.7% (4,362) of respondents expressed support for a system of inspection for ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licence holders. 2.4% (108) expressed opposition, and 0.9% (40) did not express a definitive opinion. A wide range of responses were put forward as to how the system of inspection should work with a focus on ensuring that inspectors be suitably qualified persons with good knowledge of primate health and welfare. Some respondents also said that inspections should account for both the conditions in which the primate is being kept and the health and welfare of the primate itself. Many supported both regular and ad-hoc or surprise inspections. 70.9% (3,199) respondents expressed support for Local Authorities applying and enforcing the system of licensing and inspection for ‘specialist private primate keepers’. 9.3% (420) expressed opposition with 69% (288) of those supporting the use of an alternative enforcement body. 19.8% (891) did not express a definitive opinion. Many respondents supported a stringent application of the ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licensing scheme including high welfare standards and high licence fees. Many respondents said that it was essential that the licensing scheme was strictly enforced.

154 respondents indicated that Local Authorities would need additional support and resources (including additional training, funding and guidance) in order to enforce this scheme effectively. Some respondents argued that Local Authorities do not have the necessary expertise to enforce the proposed licensing regime consistently. There were a number of suggestions put forward as alternatives to Local Authority enforcement of the licensing scheme. 668 respondents argued that the scheme should be managed centrally by either DEFRA or a new independent national body. Others suggested that an Animal Welfare group should enforce the licence.

76.2% (3,438) of respondents expressed support for Local Authorities having discretion as to the length of a ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licence, of those 52% (1,779) expressed support for a maximum licence length of 6 years. 16% (721) of all respondents expressed opposition to this question, and 7.2% (323) did not express a definitive opinion. Whilst respondents representing animal welfare and conservation groups and primate rescue centres were overall in favour of a discretionary approach to the length of ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licences, they were less supportive of a maximum period of six years for a licence.

A wide range of responses were put forward regarding the licence. Some said that licences should specify the number and species of primate held and should be associated with a specific address. Others argued that there should be an ability revoke licences for those not meeting the licensing standards. Some argued there is a need for a central database of licensed primates to allow co-ordinated monitoring.

There were calls from some respondents about the need for a public education programme to ensure that the general public, and those affected by the proposals, are aware of the new restrictions around keeping primates privately.

8 respondents called for the scheme to apply UK wide. Others raised concerns about how the holders of licences under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act would be affected. They argued that there needs to be a co-ordinated system for those keepers required to hold two licences.

Ongoing arrangements for existing pet primates that are not eligible for the ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licence

Questions 13 – 21 sought views on ongoing arrangements for existing pet primates that are not eligible for the new ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licence.

Q13: Do you agree that anyone subject to the new prohibition must register their primate with their Local Authority?

Q14: Do you agree that there should be a fixed time period to register all currently held primates which are subject to the new prohibition, beyond which a penalty would apply in relation to primates which are subject to the prohibition?

Q15: How long should this fixed time period be?

Q16: Do you agree that, following an initial visit and assessment by the Local Authority, primates not subject to the new ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licence (or to a zoo licence) may continue to live where they are if their basic welfare needs are being met, or will be met subject to an improvement notice?

Q17: Do you agree that the keepers of primates should have their primates micro-chipped as a means of permanent identification?

Q18: Do you agree that the keepers of primates not subject to the new ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licence (or to a zoo licence) should have their primates neutered?

Q19: Do you agree that the keepers of primates not subject to the new ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licence (or to a zoo licence) should be required to register their primate with a veterinary practice?

Q20: Do you agree that the keepers of primates not subject to the new ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licence (or to a zoo licence) should be required to have their primates examined by a vet at least once a year, with confirmation of that examination and its findings provided to the Local Authority?

Q21: Do you have any other comments or suggestions regarding the proposed arrangements for primates not subject the new ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licence (or a zoo licence)?

Respondents were generally supportive of proposals relating to ongoing arrangements for existing pet primates that are not eligible for the ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licence. However, a much smaller percentage of respondents supported the continued keeping of existing primates where only their basic welfare needs were being met.

50.5% (2,274) of respondents expressed support for primates not subject to the new ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licence (or to a zoo licence) continuing to live where they are if their basic welfare needs are being met, or will be met subject to an improvement notice, following an initial visit and assessment by the Local Authority. 37.5% (1,689) expressed opposition, and 12.1% (547) did not express a definitive opinion. Across the groups and individuals represented all were only narrowly in favour of this measure.

Some respondents raised the need to more clearly articulate the ‘basic’ welfare standards included under the Animal Welfare Act and associated Code of Practice for the Welfare of Privately Kept Non-Human Primates expected of keepers with registered primates. Others questioned whether individuals keeping single primates could be meeting the ‘basic’ welfare standards in species where a lack of access to other members of their species is viewed as critical to their welfare.

97.8% (4,409) of respondents expressed support that anyone subject to the new prohibition must register their primate with their Local Authority. 1.4% (64) expressed opposition, and 0.8% (37) did not express a definitive opinion. Support for registration was high across the different demographics represented and arguments in support of registration suggested that registration will support better oversight of primates’ conditions and welfare standards.

97.6% (4,403) of respondents expressed support for a fixed time period to register all currently held primates which are subject to the new prohibition, beyond which a penalty would apply in relation to primates which are subject to the prohibition. 1.4% (65) expressed opposition, and 0.9% (42) did not express a definitive opinion. 61.7% (2,782) of respondents expressed support for a 12 month period to register. 3.7% (164) expressed support for a 24 month period and 5.1% (230) expressed support for an indefinite period. 29.5% of respondents expressed support for an alternative but unspecified period of time.

Those in favour of a 12 month cut-off date argued this is would be adequate time during which those affected could take action. A shorter time period would leave insufficient time for keepers to potentially find new homes for their primates. Those in favour of a shorter time period argued that a shorter period is necessary to reduce last minute breeding of primates to be sold prior the cut off date. Some respondents stated that it would be necessary for the Government to clearly communicate the time limits to the public.

93.3% (4,207) of respondents expressed support for primates being micro-chipped as a means of permanent identification. 3.3% (147) respondents expressed opposition with 42% (62) of those expressing support for an alternative means of permanent identification to be used. 3.5% (156) did not express a definitive opinion. As with the comments on Question 8 above those opposed to microchipping argued that other non-invasive means of positive identification should be made mandatory. They argued that microchipping should only be carried out while the primate is under anaesthesia for the purposes of necessary veterinary treatment.

75.5% (3,404) of respondents expressed support for primates not subject to the new ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licence (or a zoo licence) being neutered. 7.4% (335) expressed opposition, and 17.1% (771) did not express a definitive opinion. The majority of respondents agreed that breeding of registered primates must be prevented. Arguments in favour of neutering included the potential for welfare issues associated with the animal being kept in poor condition.

45 respondents opposed mandatory neutering on the basis that neutering is not always appropriate for an individual primate. They suggested that contraceptive measures should take into account the circumstances in which each animal is kept. Others argued that vasectomy is preferable to castration or spaying as vasectomies do not lead to the hormonal changes that can cause social problems.

Some argued that keepers of registered primates should be required to develop a contraceptive plan to prevent breeding, approved by a specialist veterinarian with appropriate skills and experience.

98% (4,421) of respondents expressed support for keepers of primates not subject to the new ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licence (or to a zoo licence) being required to register their primates with a veterinary practice. 1% (47) expressed opposition, and 0.9% (41) did not express a definitive opinion. 100% of respondents who identified themselves as vets supported non-licensed primates being registered with a veterinary practice. Many respondents argued that there was need for a publicly available list of primate specialist veterinarians.

80.1% (3,612) expressed support for keepers of primates not subject to the new ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licence (or to a zoo licence) being required to have their primates examined by a vet at least once a year. 16.9% (762) respondents expressed support for regular vet examinations but no on an annual basis. 1.7% (78) expressed opposition, and 1.3% (58) did not express a definitive opinion.

One respondents indicated that they could not agree with the proposal without further information regarding what would be involved in a vet examination and what the Local Authority would do with the information. Others opposed annual vet checks, with some arguing that direct examination was overly stressful for primates and other non-invasive health monitoring should be adopted as a requirement.

A number of respondents made suggestions regarding the enforcement of the proposed arrangements, this included options to undertake random inspections of premises where primates are kept, more power to remove primates if their welfare needs are not being met, the use of a centralised database to store primate information and changes to primate registration details triggering an inspection. Respondents again highlighted the need for extra support for Local Authorities to ensure they have the resources and expertise to enforce the proposed arrangements effectively. Others again suggested that a centralised enforcement body was necessary to effectively monitor the scheme.

Some respondents argued that the keeper of an existing primate should be required to provide evidence that they owned the animal before regulations came into force. This would help to understand supply chains to aid overall enforcement and could also allow for local authorities to take action if the primate was purchased after the regulations come into force.

104 respondents called on the zoo industry, and potentially specialist private primate keepers, take a more active role in the rescue and rehabilitation of primates that are currently kept privately with poor welfare standards. They suggested that the government should encourage the zoo and exotic industry to look at what measures they could put in place to respond to a surge in primates needing to be rehomed.

Penalties and enforcement

Questions 22 – 28 sought views on the enforcement of the new restrictions and the penalties for committing the new offences.

Q22: Do you agree that a civil penalty is appropriate for breaches of the new prohibition applying to privately kept primates?

Q23: What is the maximum level of fine that you would consider appropriate for breaching the prohibition applying to privately kept primates?

Q24: Do you agree that a civil penalty should apply to breaches of conditions of the new ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licence, together with the option of revoking the licence if the conditions are not met?

Q25: What is the maximum level of fine that you would consider appropriate for breaching conditions of the new ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licence?

Q26: Do you think a new power of entry should be introduced to allow Local Authorities to enter a property, with a warrant, where they reasonably believe an unlicensed primate is being kept without having been registered with the Local Authority?

Q27: Should the requirement for a warrant to enter a property, where a Local Authority reasonably believes an unlicensed primate is being kept without having been registered, be limited to residential premises?

Q28: Do you have any other comments on penalties or enforcement?

Respondents were supportive of strict enforcement of the proposed measures outlined in the consultation.

88.2% (3,978) of respondents expressed support for the introduction of a civil penalty for breaches of the new prohibitions applying to privately kept primates. 8.1% (363) expressed opposition, and 3.6% (169) did not express a definitive opinion. A larger percentage, 95.4% (4,291) of respondents expressed support for the introduction of a civil penalty for breaches of conditions of the new ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licence, together with the option of revoking the licence if conditions are not met. 2.6% (119) expressed opposition, and 2.2% (100) did not express a definitive opinion.

Respondents were also generally supportive of the use of a maximum fine for both offences with 80.4% (3,627) of respondents expressed support for a maximum fine of £5,000, 6.8% (309) for a maximum fine of £2,500, and 3% (135) a maximum fine of £1000 for breaching the prohibition applying to privately kept primates. 9.7% (439) did not express a definitive opinion. Similarly 81.1% (3,569) of respondents expressed support for a maximum fine of £5,000, 6% (271) for a maximum fine of £2,500, and 2.4% (106) for a maximum fine of £1,000 for breaching conditions on the new ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licence. 10.5% (474) did not express a definitive opinion.

603 respondents expressed support for more severe penalties. The suggestions put forward included the imposition of higher fines, the use of criminal rather than civil offences and the removal of primates. 92 respondents support stricter enforcement of the proposals including harsher penalties for reoffenders. Others argued that fines would not be sufficient to deter those engaged in organised crime from continuing to keep, breed and sell primates illegally and that fines did not reflect the severity of the welfare impact on the primate. They argued that short custodial sentences should be considered for serious or repeated breaches of the prohibitions due to commercial activities.

Those in favour of the use of civil penalties for both breaches of the new prohibitions and breaches of the conditions of the new licence argued that they would allow local authorities to enforce the legislation without the expense and complication of a prosecution. Some respondents argued in favour of a hybrid model of civil and criminal penalties.

81.1% (3,569) of respondents were in favour of a maximum fine of £5,000 for both breaches of the new prohibitions and breaches of the conditions of the new licence. Those in favour of the maximum fine argued this was necessary given the high prices monkeys can sell for, for example squirrel monkeys can sell for £5,000. The size of the fine must therefore be sufficient to deter illegal activity. Some respondents argued there was a need for a graduated fine system to allow for higher fines for more serious breaches and for fines to be proportional to the market value of the primate.

97.4% (4,393) of respondents expressed support for the introduction of a new power of entry to allow Local Authorities to enter a property, with a warrant, where they reasonably believe an unlicensed primate is being kept without have been registered with the Local Authority. 1.33% (60) of respondents expressed opposition, and 1.1% (57) did not express a definitive opinion. Those in favour of the new power of entry argued that is would be necessary to effectively enforce the measures.

81.6% (3,680) of respondents expressed opposition to limiting the requirement for a warrant to enter a property, where a Local Authority reasonably believes an unlicensed primate is being kept without having been registered, to residential premises. 5.3% (689) expressed support and 3.1% (141) did not express a definitive opinion. Those opposed to limiting the requirement for a warrant argued that privately kept primates have been known to be kept in commercial premises and therefore it could hinder enforcement if a local authority could not gain entry in these circumstances.

Unintended consequences

Q29: Do you have any comments on any potential unintended consequences that could arise as a result of any of the measures proposed in this consultation?

523 respondents raised the potential shortage in suitable places to rehome primates that are given up or removed as a result of the proposed measures which could lead to primates being left in unsuitable conditions for lengthy periods of time. Some respondents suggested this could be avoided by increasing funding for sanctuaries and greater collaboration with existing zoos. A number of respondents raised the need to discourage owners releasing unwanted primates in to the wild and suggested that this should be made a specific offence.

201 respondents raised concerns that prohibitions on private ownership will drive primate trade underground, with keepers seeking to avoid complying with the new standards and fees, and avoid being prosecuted for keeping or breeding primates illegally. Other argued that there is a risk that keepers will acquire more primates whilst they still can before the legislation comes into force.

They suggested that an effective public education campaign to raise public awareness on the issue which encouraged the public to notify their Local Authority if they are concerned a primate is being kept illegally would be beneficial. Many argued an education campaign would also be necessary to publicise the new prohibitions and licensing scheme and emphasise the standards to which a primate must be kept.

147 respondents again expressed their support for an outright ban on the private keepership of primates, suggesting that this policy does not go far enough to limit the keeping of primates. Some suggested that the proposed licensing regime should be seen as a first step towards an outright ban and should be kept under close review.

Some respondents raised concerns that the measures would only apply to England and therefore it would be difficult to prove the location of primate sellers and enforce the prohibition. This could be resolved if the Devolved Administrations adopted similar legislation.

Evidence

Q30: Do you have any quantitative evidence on the number of primates kept outside of zoos and scientific contexts in England?

Q31: Do you have any quantitative evidence on the number of primate keepers in England and the average number of primates held by primate keepers?

Respondents highlighted previous research undertaken by primate rescue and animal welfare organisations including Monkey World, the RSPCA, Born Free and Wild Futures and Animal Defenders International. A link to the following research was provided by one or more respondents.

• in 2012, Wild Futures, in partnership with the RSPCA, published a report outlining the need for regulation, a link can be found here

• in 2014 Monkey World submitted written evidence on the primate pet trade to an EFRA committee inquiry into primates being kept as pets, a link can be found here

• in 2015, the Born Free Foundation commissioned an investigation to look more closely at the sale of primates, a link can be found here

• in 2016, Blue Cross, in partnership with the Born Free Foundation, launched a report looking at the online sale of exotic species on UK classified websites, a link can be found here

• in 2016 the RSPCA published a report on outlining evidence supporting a ban on the keeping of primates as pets, a link can be found here

Part 2: Policy statement

Having considered the evidence available, including responses to this consultation, the government confirms it will proceed with a ban on the keeping and breeding of primates without a relevant licence, and a ban on the sale, or otherwise transferring of primates apart from to persons holding a relevant licence. A relevant licence would include a Zoo licence, an Animals (Scientific Procedures) licence and a new ‘specialist private primate keeper’ licence.

The new prohibitions and licensing regime will be introduced through legislation in the Kept Animals Bill. The Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill was introduced in parliament on 8 June 2021. A copy of the draft bill, including the new measures to tackle the issue of primates kept as pets, can be found on the Parliament website at https://bills.parliament.uk/

.