Conclusions and recommendations
A ban on keeping pet primates
1. A ban remains a
possible way of addressing the welfare problems associated with
primates being kept as pets. However, this is not a solution that
should be adopted in the absence of reliable, compelling evidence
or while there is still potential for improving the operation
of the existing regulatory framework. Obtaining a more reliable
evidence base must be the first task for Government. (Paragraph
12)
The scope and scale of the problem
2. We have been struck
by the wide range of estimates of the numbers of primates both
kept and traded as pets in the UK, as well as the lack of confidence
in these numbers expressed by many witnesses. (Paragraph 24)
3. We recommend
that Defra commission independent research on the number and type
of primates being traded and kept as pets in the UK. To increase
the reliability of this research, we recommend that private keepers
be given six months to register their primates before research
begins. This call for registration should be supported by a publicity
campaign explaining the benefits of registration, or a sanction.
The Government should inform us of the results of this research
within six months of receiving them, along with its plans for
securing the welfare of pet primates in light of these results.
(Paragraph 25)
The regulatory framework
4. The Animal Welfare
Act was welcomed by a cross section of organisations when it passed
into law in 2006 and it remains popular today. We received little
evidence to suggest that the Act itself needs further amendment.
Where concerns were raised, they tended to focus on matters of
interpretation and enforcement which we address in separate sections
of this report. (Paragraph 33)
5. If the Primate
Code is to be effective, then it must contain information that
is both detailed and specific enough to enable private keepers
to meet the welfare needs of their animals. Equally, the Code
must be drafted with sufficient clarity to allow someone who has
never owned a primate of a particular species to gain a reasonable
understanding of how to comply with the law, and to allow a court
to determine whether or not the Code has been complied with. (Paragraph
39)
6. We recommend
that the Government take the opportunity presented by its forthcoming
review of the Primate Code to ensure that the Code is drafted
in a clear and precise manner that makes it easy to enforce and
comply with. We also recommend that species-specific appendices
are added to the Primate Code. The Government should begin its
review with immediate effect. (Paragraph
40)
7. While the specific
details involved in adequately caring for a primate vary according
to setting, there is a strong case for ensuring that primates
being held in any setting enjoy a similar standard of care. It
is also important to ensure that adequate protection is afforded
to privately kept and traded primates at all stages in their lives.
(Paragraph 44)
8. We recommend
that the Government adopt a "primate-centred" approach
when it reviews the Primate Code. This should include raising
the standards in the Code to a level equivalent to zoo standards
and ensuring that the Code adequately covers all stages in the
life of a privately kept primate, including breeding and transportation.
(Paragraph 45)
9. The Dangerous Wild
Animals Act 1976 cannot be considered to be an effective mechanism
for protecting the welfare of pet primates. Commonly kept primate
species do not have to be licensed under the Act and the focus
of the Act is on protecting people from animals rather than the
other way around. If the results of the research exercise we recommend
in Chapter 3 suggest that a more comprehensive licensing system
for pet primates is justified, this could be achieved under the
auspices of the DWAA or the Animal Welfare Act. However, the problems
associated with pet licensing schemes in the past suggest that
this should not be regarded as a panacea. (Paragraph 54)
10. The Pet Animals
Act 1951 entered the statute books at a time when there was much
less interest in keeping or breeding exotic animals as pets and
before online sales of pet primates had been contemplated. A review
of the Act would be beneficial to ensure that it remains relevant
in the internet age. (Paragraph 61)
11. We recommend
that Defra review the Pet Animals Act 1951 to ensure that it remains
relevant and effective in the internet age.
(Paragraph 62)
12. We received little
evidence to suggest that changes to the CITES system are necessary
to protect the welfare of privately kept primates in the UK. The
evidence we received suggested that the domestic trade in pet
primates represents a greater problem than international imports
into the UK. (Paragraph 69)
Application and enforcement
13. A regulatory framework
will not achieve its objectives if levels of non-compliance are
high, and evidence suggests that non-compliance with the framework
governing the welfare of pet primates is too high. Reasons for
this include low awareness of the rules and guidance amongst local
authorities, keepers and members of the public, and limitations
on the resources and expertise held by local authorities. Constraints
on public funding make it unlikely that more resources will become
available in the near future. (Paragraph 78)
14. We recommend
that Defra launch a public education campaign to raise awareness
of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 and the Primate Code among
local authorities, primate keepers and members of the public.
(Paragraph 79)
15. Guidance from
central Government to local authorities on the provisions and
implementation of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 is long
overdue. As a result, opportunities have been lost to reduce wide
variations in the application and enforcement of the Act and to
ensure that DWAA inspectors have sufficient expertise to carry
out their role effectively. (Paragraph 83)
16. We recommend
that Defra issue its guidance to local authorities on the provisions
and implementation of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 without
further delay. This guidance should include advice to authorities
on employing experts from the zoo-licensing inspectors list or
those with diplomas in zoo and wildlife medicine.
(Paragraph 84)
| 
