NCVO has defended the need for a Fundraising Preference Service after facing widespread criticism from fundraising think tanks, consultants and charities.

Fundraisers have criticised it as "neither consistent nor fair", said it has "so many problems it's hard to know where to start" and criticised the lack of clarity around issues such as its relation with the current Telephone Preference Service.

Speaking to Civil Society News today, an NCVO spokesman said that the proposed FPS is needed and urged those who have criticised it to listen to what the public has been saying since the review was made public yesterday.

“There’s more than a few things that need to be worked out about the FPS but we’re almost damned if we do and damned if we don’t," he said.

"If the review had been published with a fully working model for an FPS, we would have been slaughtered for not giving fundraisers a chance to have their input. This way we’re trying to give fundraisers the chance to have some input with their professional expertise.

“Since the review was made public, the single biggest thing that has gained traction is the proposed FPS. Those who have criticised it should start reading public comments and opinion.”

The spokesman said that the review felt “something was needed” to make it easier for the public to have control over contact from fundraisers as there are too many “grey areas” surrounding current TPS legislation.

“There is quite a number of grey areas that exist in the current TPS. Does TPS override consent or does consent override TPS? And what exactly does consent look like?”

For more information read our analysis on why charities are concerned about the FPS.

Feel like having your say on the Etherington Review? Take our poll here.