The Etherington Review’s proposed ‘Fundraising Preference Service’ has been met predominantly with horror in the sector. Hugh Radojev examines whether the worrying may be premature.  

Amongst the raft of recommendations contained within Sir Stuart’s voluminous review into fundraising self-regulation, nothing has provoked more heated debate amongst the sector than the proposed ‘Fundraising Preference Service’.

The debate that has raged for the best part of a week now has been predominantly relegated to the boundless confines of the Internet. The bloggers have blogged, the tweeters have tweeted and everyone has waded in with their two cents. But to what end?

There are a number of questions that the sector want answered. For example:

• How will the proposed FPS sit amongst the raft of existing legislation regarding fundraising?
• If an existing donor signs up to the FPS, will a charity ever be able to contact them again?
• Who will be responsible for setting and monitoring the FPS?
• Will the list of people signed up to the FPS be easily accessible for fundraising charities and telephone fundraising agencies?
• What sort of powers will the new Fundraising Regulator – the proposed new sector arbiter – have in relation to organisations that infringe upon the FPS?
• What communications with people will be prohibited by virtue of their being FPS registered?

The answer to all of those questions is that nobody really knows. Sir Stuart has called for a fundraising summit to be held at some point in the near future where the proposals in his review will be explained to the sector in greater detail.

However, NCVO has already gone to great lengths to try and reassure the sector that the proposals in the review are not yet set in stone and that the sector will be consulted every step of the way.

What we do know

The ‘Fundraising Preference Service’ is, in theory, an equaliser for the British public – a means of opting-out of all fundraising communication with the click of a button. It is not right, says Sir Stuart that it is currently easier for the public to be put on a fundraising contact list than it is to get off one.

It all sounds fairly innocuous and yet, as has already been discussed in great detail, some in the sector have reacted with vitriol.

In fairness to the doom-mongers, the wording used in the review regarding FPS does sound rather draconian. Phrases like “reset button” and “suppression list” were never going to go down particularly well with a sector still trying to digest harsh new amendments to the IoF’s Code of Fundraising Practice handed down by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

And yet, it’s still hard to see why some areas of the sector have reacted so fiercely to the FPS. If and when the FPS comes into practice, it surely won't look the same as it does currently. 

The NCVO also says that all those fundraisers decrying the proposed FPS as some kind of sector-wide apocalypse ought to listen to the public, whose reaction to the review – and to the FPS in particular - has been largely positive.

As always with things of this nature, both sides of the argument have a point. If the FPS is to be implemented word-for-word the way it is proposed in the review, life is going to be exceptionally tough for fundraisers. It’s an incredibly big ‘if’ though.

NCVO says that - in its collective imagination anyway – the FPS won’t be “widely used” by the public and will instead be utilised more to protect the vulnerable and the elderly. The fundraising sector must surely agree that better protection for vulnerable persons is a good thing.  

And the Etherington proposal for the FPS is a sketch of an idea, rather than the finished product, and fundraisers will have a lot of opportunity to influence it. If it comes to pass at all, there is still plenty of time to ensure that it does so in a form the sector can live with.

Nobody is suggesting for a minute that the Etherington Review is perfect. The seven week turn-around – two weeks for evidence gathering and five for consultation, drafting and finally publishing – was always going to mean that some proposals came out a little half-baked.

Yet, with the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill lurching its way through the House of Commons now, the sector needs to make a case - any case - for self-regulation.   

While the Cabinet Office doesn’t want to have to find the funds for statutory regulation, it would be a mistake for the sector to think the government won’t act if things don’t change.