Last week Mary Bale, a woman from Coventry, was convicted in a prosecution brought by the RSPCA of causing unnecessary suffering to a cat by putting it in a wheelie bin in which it was then trapped for 15 hours. She received a fine of £250 and was ordered to pay £1,171 in costs. She has also been banned from keeping animals for five years. Many of you will remember the uproar when the CCTV footage of the incident was first posted online a couple of months ago. For the background to the story, see the BBC story, and the RSPCA press release.
Bystander, a magistrate blogger, complains about the size of the costs award and the special status of the RSPCA as prosecuting authority. The odd status of the RSPCA is something that has bothered me for a while, and which I really do feel is a problem for the charity and for animal welfare and protection in general in this country.
The RSPCA is an independent charitable body which (as they never tire from telling us when fundraising) receives no government funding, and has no statutory legal authority, but which nevertheless finds itself cast in the role of investigating and prosecuting authority for much animal welfare law in this country.
As well as their work in prosecuting cruelty cases, the RSPCA provides rescue and rehoming services, free and cut-price veterinary services to pet owners on low incomes through a variety of channels, provides some rescue and rehabilitation for wildlife casualties, and campaigns on issues of animal welfare including farm animal welfare, welfare of performing animals, agitates against blood sports, and funds overseas animal welfare projects. They also lobby on, and participate in consultations regarding the writing of animal welfare law in England and Wales, (for instance campaigning against badger culling). You can read more detail in the RSPCA Mission Statement.
Essentially the RSPCA is suffering from a huge identity crisis. Is it the Police? The Crime Prosecution Service? Social Services? An NHS for pets? The League Against Cruel Sports? Amnesty International (animal division)?
RSPCA Inspectors have no statutory powers, but you would be easily forgiven for believing otherwise on occasion when watching them at work. The RSPCA were interviewed quite revealingly on the subject for a Sunday Times article from July 2007, discussing the widespread perception that RSPCA Inspectors have powers of entry and seizure. I can see why individual inspectors find this useful in getting their work done, and you certainly hear stories of them overstepping the mark in throwing their weight around. The adoption of police ranks and police-alike uniforms certainly help this public perception. Be in no doubt, then - RSPCA Inspectors have no power of entry to properties - unlike the TV licensing man, or the chap from the water board - and no power to seize your property (and animals in your possession *are* your property). Power of seizure is restricted to police, officers of the local authority and Animal Health officials (Hansard - Lords Questions - Feb 23, 2010). Prosecutions for animal cruelty brought by the RSPCA are private prosecutions, using the same legal powers that any citizen could wield, if they were minded to.
How, then, has the RSPCA ended up with this perception of pseudo-statutory powers and essentially established itself as the ultimate arbiter of animal welfare in England and Wales? I can only guess, but it seems partly that they've self-appointed themselves thus, and partly that the correct authorities are content to allow them to continue to do so out of laziness and a sense of lack of relevant knowledge and experience on their own parts. Incidentally - Trading Standards (the people at the local council who worry about whether the pound of spuds you bought at the market really *was* a pound, or who take on dodgy cowboy builders) are the enforcement authority for farm animal welfare.
In my day to day practicing life I come across the RSPCA in two main circumstances - the first being when inspectors ask my advice or bring animals to me for assessment and treatment. In general I have found individual RSPCA Inspectors I have met to be caring, competent and professional - however their priorities can be distorted, one assumes by central priorities. One particular Inspector, shortly after the partial docking ban was passed, was memorably much more interested in whether a sick puppy we were concerned about had a docked tail than about its perilous immediate state of health.
My other main interaction with them is when trying to arrange treatment and care for stray and injured animals brought in by members of the public. These animals generally come to the surgery after a concerned member of the public has phoned the RSPCA and been told to bring them to us. The process of caring for such patients is governed by a Memorandum of Understanding drawn up between the RSPCA and the BVA which sets out what treatment the RSPCA will fund, and how. This should make the process of organising emergency treatment nice and straightforward, however it's rarely that simple. It can take a number of hours of telephone tag and sitting on hold for our nurses or receptionists to get the critical 'Log Number' to allow us to start treatment, and getting the RSPCA to then take these stray animals into shelters once their medical needs have been met is, at least at the moment, nearly impossible. We are left, as a private practice, to try to find homes for these animals, or find local welfare and rescue organisations willing to take them on. In the meantime the poor animal is in one of our hospital cages - not appropriate long-term accommodation - and at potential risk from other sick animals in the practice. It is hard to find a single practicing Veterinary Surgeon who finds dealing with the RSPCA anything other than a profoundly difficult and frustrating experience - and many, believe me, have far less polite things to say than that…
So my question is this - today, in 2010, 186 years after it was first founded, what is the RSPCA for? What do people think they are funding when they put their pound or two in the collecting box, and how does that stack up against reality? I strongly believe that most people who are involved with the RSPCA, as employees, volunteers, campaigners and fundraisers, are genuinely guided by good intentions and are working very hard to do the best job they can. But which job? So little of their time and effort seems directed to what most people would probably regard as the 'core' role - providing emergency treatment and shelter for animals in need - and so much on political campaigning and their pseudo-statutory role in law enforcement.
It seems to me that we desperately need some clarity. My pipe dream? For investigations into animal welfare and abuse to be carried out and prosecuted by specialist teams working and funded within the normal police and criminal prosecution channels (though in the current public financial straights it seems sadly unlikely that the police would willingly take on extra work) and for the RSPCA to distinguish carefully between their rescue and rehabilitation and rehoming work, and their political campaigns.
And while that remains pie in the sky? I would just ask you to think carefully about the large amounts of money donated to animal charities in the UK every year. Decide where you actually want your hard-earned money going. Rescue and rehoming? There are wonderful, dedicated, local animal shelters and wildlife rehabilitation services up and down the country to whom you could donate - after all, that's where many stray and unwanted animals referred to the RSPCA are likely to end up anyway - or national organisations like the Cats Protection, Dogs Trust, and Redwings Horse Sanctuary. Charity veterinary treatment? Think about the Blue Cross. Political campaigning on animal welfare issues? You have a world of choice, from the sensible to the militant. And if you're interested in improving the health and veterinary care for animals all over the world, by increasing our clinical knowledge of conditions and treatments, please consider donating to Petsavers. Finally remember, most charities would much rather you donated your time and expertise than your money, so in these cash-strapped times do please consider volunteering!
Recent Comments