The editor of the Mail on Sunday has written to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to express “serious concerns over the effectiveness" of the FRSB in the wake of its investigation into Oxfam and Listen Ltd.

Geordie Grieg, who has been editor of the Mail on Sunday since 2012, wrote in his submission to the inquiry that the FRSB’s criticism of the Mail in its investigation report published on 18 December 2015, was a “divisionary tactic” designed to deflect “attention from the actual wrongdoing uncovered”.

“All focus is now on how the Mail on Sunday got it wrong, when in fact we got it very right. The abuses we uncovered are censured, but only after we are criticised in an unfounded and unconscionable way, which dilutes the impact of the criticism against the charities which should have been the key message.

“By allowing this to happen the FRSB loses all credibility, undermines its investigation and its effectiveness and allows those it is condemning to claim they are pleased with the result.”

On 7 June 2015, the Mail on Sunday wrote an article entitled ‘Oxfam targets donors aged 98’ which claimed that Oxfam, through its partner Listen Ltd, was deliberately targeting elderly supporters as part of its “two-step” campaign.

While the FRSB found that both Oxfam and Listen Ltd had been guilty of "putting undue pressure" on people to give, it described the Mail on Sunday's headline as "misleading" and "untrue". 

The fact that Oxfam “had to make a remarkable 15 fundamental and far-reaching changes to their policies” is sighted by Grieg as vindication of the Mail on Sunday’s investigative piece.

Mail on Sunday kept in the dark over investigation

The Mail on Sunday editor also criticised the FRSB for essentially keeping the newspaper in the dark over its investigation proceedings, despite the Mail making its “journalistic material” available to the regulator.

“As a result of our article, the FRSB launched an investigation. It approached the Mail on Sunday, claiming it needed to see our film footage so it could investigate matters fully. We do not routinely share our journalistic material but were keen to support the FRSB and provided it.

“We had asked for a list of the matters being investigated but were not provided with one. We also asked to be kept informed and were told we would be, as would any other complainant.  Indeed, we rang regularly to check on progress, including only last week, and were consistently told there was no news.

“Despite this, without any advance warning to us, or any attempt to seek our comment, the FRSB published its report and related press release. When read carefully, the report entirely vindicates our reporting and roundly condemns Oxfam and the others involved in this matter, finding all the allegations we made were well founded and represented serious breaches of the regulatory code.

"But all of this was lost by the report’s first and most prominent conclusion, namely that that our front page headline was 'untrue', 'inaccurate' and 'misleading'.”

In conclusion, Grieg writes that the FRSB is not fit for purpose and said the “sooner it is replaced with a powerful and sensible regulator the sooner the public can once again engage with a charity without fearing they will forever after be pressured mercilessly into giving money”.

FRSB response

Alistair McLean, chief executive of the Fundraising Standards Board, says: "We are aware of the Mail on Sunday’s objections to our recent investigation findings.
 
“It is important to note that the focus of the investigation was on the charity fundraising practices of Oxfam, Listen and Street Academy and not the Mail on Sunday’s reporting. 
 
“With the help of the newspaper’s investigative team, we were able to identify and address a number of Code breaches committed by Oxfam, Listen limited and the Street Academy. We are encouraged that all parties have accepted our findings and implemented remedial actions where required.
 
“While the Board indicated that the newspaper headline was misleading, this has not overshadowed the fact that standards were breached or the importance of maintaining the highest fundraising standards going forward.”