We need to talk about secular humanism.

[jeremyp]

so do you think your 100% certainty steers you toward Hard or soft secularism?

I don't care. I have my opinions and you trying to shoehorn me into a particular box doesn't change them.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So do many non religious organisations VG - and while I accept that only a religious organisation might be able to support the religious emotional needs of individuals it is also the case that they may be ill equipped to support the needs of those who are non religious who may actually treat a religious charity with a level of scepticism for fear of evangelising etc.

So non religious emotional needs are, to my mind, better served through organisations that have no religious ethos and mission so to speak. And let's face it most people in the UK do not consider religious to be important so I'd argue that those with specifically religious emotional needs will represent a very small proportion of those with emotional needs.

And it will be certainly true that non religious charities will have much greater impact in terms of the number of people needing emotional support that they are able to help.

That was my point - it's not an either or situation. The religious organisations with their charitable status cater to the religious and the non-religious organisations with their charitable status cater to the non-religious.

I don't think it matter which group is bigger, the point is both groups have needs that are served by the respective organisations that they feel most connected with, and the government takes a pragmatic approach that taking away that emotional support would not be useful or in their best interests.

[Outrider]

Yeh, I had you down as a hard secularist anyway.

I know, because the evidence of the world around you, and what people say and do, doesn't appear to mean as much to you as your preconceived notions. Hence my comments about your detachment from reality.

O.

[Outrider]

Given that secular humanism is these days, antireligious

Is it, or is that just you.... (checks notes)... 'wankfantasy'?

I'm wondering what there is in it above atheist titillation and ''campaigns'' that is spiritually or morally uplifting or philosophically edifying.

Who needs 'spiritually uplifting' when you can practically more egalitarian?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is it,

Name one ''campaign'' that doesn't take the deficit view of religion namely that is that there is something basically wrong about religion.
We've already established that secular humanism or the british version at least is not the equivalent of egalitarianism.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I have no issues with charities getting tax breaks to incentive and support their work. My issue is that there are certainly tax breaks which are provided to religious organisation with charitable status that are not available to any other charities. These provide an unloved playing field where a charity that is also religious is placed in an advantageous position compared to a charity that isn't religious. Two examples being higher threshold exemption from needing to apply for charitable status and exemption from onerous reporting and also complete exemption from business rates, while other charities have only a partial reduction.

My understanding is that the higher threshold was temporary in order to allow a managed process of registration -

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/55/pdfs/uksiem_20210055_en.pdf

And only religious buildings open to the public (regardless of the beliefs of the member of the public) are exempt from business rates. Any places of worship that are closed to the general public are not exempt from business rates.

There is a broader argument whether delivering religious worship alone should be a charitable aim, regardless of whether that organisation does any broader charitable activities. But that is an argument over the appropriate scope of charitable aims, rather than very clear and very specific special privileges that religious charities benefit from that non religious ones don't.

A charitable aim should have a public benefit. As religious worship provides public benefit, it qualifies as a charitable aim.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Name one ''campaign'' that doesn't take the deficit view of religion namely that is that there is something basically wrong about religion.
We've already established that secular humanism or the british version at least is not the equivalent of egalitarianism.

I think secular humanism campaigns want equal treatment for all, including religion. So not so much saying there is something basically wrong with religion, I think their argument is why privilege beliefs at all but if you are going to distinguish communities and groups based on belief then that should include non-religious beliefs as well as religious beliefs. See below from their website:

Where there are legitimate reasons (although we can imagine these would only ever be very few) for working with communities identified by beliefs, then this must include humanists and other non-religious people, as well as religious people.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think there are two types of religious programming - the first being programmes about religion, with the aim of informing and educating the audience about some aspect of religious belief. I don't think such programming is controversial, provided is is done in an appropriately balanced manner.

The second type of programme is, in effect, broadcast worship of some form or other, specifically aimed at meeting the religious needs of religious people. Here is where greater care needs to be taken. While I have no great issue on principle care needs to be taken for a public service broadcaster such as the BBC, who needs to be impartial, from being seen to support or even promote particular religious views without balance or challenge. So if within the broadcast of a religious service a minister of religion is permitted to make a statement of faith and opinion (which they will often do within a sermon) which may go well beyond pure religious views, then in the form of balance the BBC needs to ensure that those views can be balanced by other views and challenged appropriately.

In the world of politics, while the BBC might broadcast a minister's speech at a party conference, it will ensure balance by also broadcasting speeches from other parties and having some editorial opinion/challenge from BBC journalists. This never happens with religion. And of course the most egregious example is Thought for the Day - a slot smack in the middle of BBC radios prefer news show, which allows a person to promulgate a specific view, uninterrupted, without balance and without challenge. And that person is not permitted to be someone who is not religious. It is the equivalent of having a 3 minute slot every day where a politician from one of a number of right wing parties can provide any opinion they wish, completely unchallenged, but a left wing politican is never allowed to give their view (or reverse the left/right). That simply isn't right.
The BBC has been challenged repeatedly to open up Thought for the Day to non religious people who may have just as 'valid' moral and philosophical 'thoughts' pertaining to the issues of the day compared to religious people. The notion has been repeatedly vetoed by the BBC who continue to ban non religious people from the slot.

Are you arguing that the BBC does not give an opportunity for non-religious perspectives on current issues to be broadcast? It does not have to be within Thought for the Day presumably if there are sufficient other programmes on the BBC that allow non-religious views to be heard? 

[ProfessorDavey]

My understanding is that the higher threshold was temporary in order to allow a managed process of registration -

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/55/pdfs/uksiem_20210055_en.pdf

Then you understand wrong VG.

Although this provision has extended the exception even further this is no temporary measure - I can trace the legal exception for religious charities back through legislation at least as far back as The Charities (Exception from Registration and Accounts) Regulations 1963. I suspect it goes way further back than that, but I really cannot be arsed to research any further.

So even assuming that 1963 is the starting point (I doubt it is) these charities have a temporary provision to sort out registration that extends for 68 years!!!

This is not temporary measure - it is, in reality, a permanent exception that applies to religious charities that doesn't apply to non religious charities except in extremely narrowly defined and rare circumstances (mainly Scouts and military charities).

[ProfessorDavey]

And only religious buildings open to the public (regardless of the beliefs of the member of the public) are exempt from business rates. Any places of worship that are closed to the general public are not exempt from business rates.

Again you are wrong.

To be completely exempt from business rates a building need only be registered as a place of worship under The Places of Worship Registration Act 1855. That doesn't mean the place must be open to the general public in the sense that the public can visit when they wish (within reason) for a variety of purposes. No all it means is that any act of worship cannot be theoretically restricted to members of that religion. It allows a building to be locked for virtually the whole week and only unlocked when worship is taking place, when of course general members of the public who aren't adherents of that religion are unlikely to feel they can visit.

And these buildings don't even exist on the Value Agency Office's database of buildings so it isn't really that they are exempt, they don't even exist as far as the ratings system is concerned. So as the VOA has no visibility of the premised how on earth would it know to what extent the building is available to be used by the general public.

Yet, of course, all other places that may be generally open to the public to use for a variety of purposes - e.g. libraries, museums, community centres, covered public realm spaces do not get the same exemption - typically even if run by a charity then they'd still pay 20% business rates.

And it gets worse when a religious building has, for example, a cafe run as a commercial venture - as the whole building doesn't exist as far as the VOA is concerned then they pay zero business rates on that cafe space. And for a charity that may have a cafe (e.g. a museum) that space is typically considered to be 'commercial' and therefore full business rates are paid.

So as a real example - where I live there I can think of three cafes within perhaps one minutes walk of each other (all are rather nice by the way):

1. An independent cafe - pays full business rates.
2. A cafe in the foyer of a local museum - the museum itself as a charity gets 80% business rates relief - the cafe area is subject to full business rates.
3. A cafe in the foyer of a baptist church - as the whole building doesn't exist on the VOA list the cafe space is completely exempt from business rates.

While I can see an argument that example 1 might be different from 2 and 3, how on earth can it be right that the cafe in example 2 pays full business rates, while the cafe in example 3 pays nothing.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Then you understand wrong VG.

Although this provision has extended the exception even further this is no temporary measure - I can trace the legal exception for religious charities back through legislation at least as far back as The Charities (Exception from Registration and Accounts) Regulations 1963. I suspect it goes way further back than that, but I really cannot be arsed to research any further.

So even assuming that 1963 is the starting point (I doubt it is) these charities have a temporary provision to sort out registration that extends for 68 years!!!

This is not temporary measure - it is a permanent exception that applies to all religious charities that doesn't apply to non religious charities except in extremely narrowly defined and rare circumstances (mainly Scouts and military charities).

Incorrect PD.

The government's explanatory note I linked to specifically says the £100k exception is only for some religious charities, is a temporary measure for operational reasons, and they intend to bring the threshold of the excepted religious charities in line with other charities. So I understood correctly. We might not like how long the Charity Commission's lack of resources/ inefficiency is taking to bring religious charities in line with other charities but it isn't intended to be a permanent exception.

Per Para 6.1, the exception is since the Charities Act 1960 apparently when charities were first required to register with the Charities Commission  - per the government explanatory note I linked to - "The provision allowing the Charity Commission and the Minister to except some charities from registration was included in the 1960 Act."

And as you say, the exception is there for Scouts and military charities - so not just a religious exception then. And the exception is not for all religious denominations and faiths.

From Gov website https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/excepted-charities/excepted-charities--2

Some charities are ‘excepted’ from charity registration. This just means they don’t have to register or submit annual returns. Apart from that, the Charity Commission regulates them just like registered charities and can use any of its powers if it needs to. A charity is excepted if its income is £100,000 or less and it is in one of the following groups:

• churches and chapels belonging to some Christian denominations (see section 5)
• charities that provide premises for some types of schools (see section 9)
• Scout and Guide groups (see section 10)
• charitable service funds of the armed forces (see section 11)
• student unions (see section 12)

See point 4 : Most exceptions are permanent; only one – the exception for certain churches – has an end date (31 March 2031). This is to give the commission and denominational bodies time to help these churches prepare for registration by, or soon after this end date in 2031.

See point 5 which begins:

Churches and other charities that are wholly or mainly for public religious worship linked to any of the following bodies are excepted if their income is £100,000 or less:

And ends with: Charities linked to other faith bodies must register if their income is more than £5,000.

[ProfessorDavey]

Incorrect PD.

The government's explanatory note I linked to specifically says the £100k exception is only for some religious charities, is a temporary measure for operational reasons, and they intend to bring the threshold of the excepted religious charities in line with other charities.

Yes - I'm well aware of the legal aspects - so this temporary measure has been in place since at least 1963 and has just been extended for a further 10 years. It is, let's face it a permanent measure. What kind of organisation needs 68 (or more) years to get their registration in place. And why is this temporary measure somehow important for a religious charity, but virtually all non-religious charities (e.g. my local homeless charity I mentioned earlier) aren't in need of a temporary measure and have been expected to sort their registration and reporting obligations for decades.

I think you need to learn a little more about the background to this very clear (and very clearly not temporary) special privilege.

[ProfessorDavey]

Churches and other charities that are wholly or mainly for public religious worship linked to any of the following bodies are excepted if their income is £100,000 or less:

And ends with: Charities linked to other faith bodies must register if their income is more than £5,000.

Just because a special privilege doesn't apply to all religions doesn't mean it isn't a special privilege, if it is targeted at organisations on the basis of their religious foundation, but not available to equivalent non religious organisations. See too the automatic places for the Bishops - this applies only to the Cofe, but is still a no-no from a secular point of view. So it clearly falls foul of the goal of secularism of a level playing field regardless of whether you are religious or not, and which religion you might affiliate to.

As a muslim, surely you too should be annoyed that while your local mosque may have to go through the bureacracy of registering with the charity commission and having to make annual returns, the church next door (with exactly the same religious charitable purpose and exactly the same income) doesn't have to in order to gain the same benefits of charitable status. And surely you should be annoyed that your local mosque has never been given time to sort out their registration while the neighbouring church and has been given a bit more time since at least 1963 to sort out registration.

All charities, regardless of their provenance and charitable purpose should be held to the same basic obligations in order to gain the benefits of charitable status. Why should some charities gain special privileges when others don't. Surely that is self evident if you believe in fairness and a level playing field.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Again you are wrong.

To be completely exempt from business rates a building need only be registered as a place of worship under The Places of Worship Registration Act 1855. That doesn't mean the place must be open to the general public in the sense that the public can visit when they wish (within reason) for a variety of purposes. No all it means is that any act of worship cannot be theoretically restricted to members of that religion. It allows a building to be locked for virtually the whole week and only unlocked when worship is taking place, when of course general members of the public who aren't adherents of that religion are unlikely to feel they can visit.

I assume it is because religious worship is not considered a commercial activity and is considered a particular type of activity that provides moral guidance to its participants and therefore is of benefit to society. The government seems to think it is better for these acts of worship and moral guidance to continue for the people who like to attend, rather than do away with them, though I understand that atheists may disagree and think it all a pointless waste of time.

Members of the public are not prevented from entering when the building is open. Apparently the purpose of the exemption was to benefit churches who worshipped with open doors which in turn could dispel myths and prejudices in a multi cultural society. There is some kind of "invitation test" that needs to be satisfied to qualify for the exception - the public have to feel suitable invited into the premises and not excluded.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rating-manual-section-6-chhallenges-to-the-rating-list/part-6-part-b-churches-church-and-chapel-halls-and-similar-buildings

And these buildings don't even exist on the Value Agency Office's database of buildings so it isn't really that they are exempt, they don't even exist as far as the ratings system is concerned. So as the VOA has no visibility of the premised how on earth would it know to what extent the building is available to be used by the general public.

Yet, of course, all other places that may be generally open to the public to use for a variety of purposes - e.g. libraries, museums, community centres, covered public realm spaces do not get the same exemption - typically even if run by a charity then they'd still pay 20% business rates.

And it gets worse when a religious building has, for example, a cafe run as a commercial venture - as the whole building doesn't exist as far as the VOA is concerned then they pay zero business rates on that cafe space. And for a charity that may have a cafe (e.g. a museum) that space is typically considered to be 'commercial' and therefore full business rates are paid.

So as a real example - where I live there I can think of three cafes within perhaps one minutes walk of each other (all are rather nice by the way):

1. An independent cafe - pays full business rates.
2. A cafe in the foyer of a local museum - the museum itself as a charity gets 80% business rates relief - the cafe area is subject to full business rates.
3. A cafe in the foyer of a baptist church - as the whole building doesn't exist on the VOA list the cafe space is completely exempt from business rates.

While I can see an argument that example 1 might be different from 2 and 3, how on earth can it be right that the cafe in example 2 pays full business rates, while the cafe in example 3 pays nothing.

Yes I can see that the distinction might be difficult to justify. Though apparently where café facilities are considered to be a prominent and commercial character rather than as part of a non-commercial activity such as an act of worship, they won't get the 100% business rates exemption.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes - I'm well aware of the legal aspects - so this temporary measure has been in place since at least 1963 and has just been extended for a further 10 years. It is, let's face it a permanent measure. What kind of organisation needs 68 (or more) years to get their registration in place. And why is this temporary measure somehow important for a religious charity, but virtually all non-religious charities (e.g. my local homeless charity I mentioned earlier) aren't in need of a temporary measure and have been expected to sort their registration and reporting obligations for decades.

I think you need to learn a little more about the background to this very clear (and very clearly not temporary) special privilege.

No idea why the Charity Commission and the churches are taking so long. Inefficiency? Or because there were lots of churches in 1960 - more than the number of homeless charities. Happy to learn about the background if you want to post some links.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Just because a special privilege doesn't apply to all religions doesn't mean it isn't a special privilege, if it is targeted at organisations on the basis of their religious foundation, but not available to equivalent non religious organisations. See too the automatic places for the Bishops - this applies only to the Cofe, but is still a no-no from a secular point of view. So it clearly falls foul of the goal of secularism of a level playing field regardless of whether you are religious or not, and which religion you might affiliate to.

As a muslim, surely you too should be annoyed that while your local mosque may have to go through the bureacracy of registering with the charity commission and having to make annual returns, the church next door (with exactly the same religious charitable purpose and exactly the same income) doesn't have to in order to gain the same benefits of charitable status. And surely you should be annoyed that your local mosque has never been given time to sort out their registration while the neighbouring church and has been given a bit more time since at least 1963 to sort out registration.

All charities, regardless of their provenance and charitable purpose should be held to the same basic obligations in order to gain the benefits of charitable status. Why should some charities gain special privileges when others don't. Surely that is self evident if you believe in fairness and a level playing field.

Well, I can't say I'm annoyed that mosques have to register and churches don't - as there are only about 1200 mosques in the UK and they arrived on the scene way after the churches. There are far more Anglican churches so the process seems to be a headache the Charity Commission keeps postponing apparently.

[jeremyp]

Why should some charities gain special privileges when others don't.

History. The Church of England occupies a unique place in English history.

Of corse "we've always done it that way" is not a justification for carrying on.

I'll maker two observations on the subject

My mother was the treasurer for her parish church during the pandemic years. Their income, even during the pandemic, exceeded £100k. They are not a particularly rich parish so I think removing the exemption would not be quite as difficult as it may seem at first sight since I expect it already doesn't apply to many parishes.

Secondly, most parishes are run by amateurs. Excepting the priest, most of the officers are doing it in their spare time. A lot of them (I'm basing this on my observations of the parishes my parents have been in) really have no idea of their duties and responsibilities under English law. More oversight is a must IMO.

[ProfessorDavey]

My mother was the treasurer for her parish church during the pandemic years. Their income, even during the pandemic, exceeded £100k. They are not a particularly rich parish so I think removing the exemption would not be quite as difficult as it may seem at first sight since I expect it already doesn't apply to many parishes.

Secondly, most parishes are run by amateurs. Excepting the priest, most of the officers are doing it in their spare time. A lot of them (I'm basing this on my observations of the parishes my parents have been in) really have no idea of their duties and responsibilities under English law. More oversight is a must IMO.

Firstly reducing the exemption would mean that parishes with income over £5k would need to register - I suspect there will be very few parishes with income below £5k, and I suspect there will be a lot in that £5k-£100k band who are currently benefiting from the special privilege, and of course there are huge numbers of non religious charities in that £5k-£100k band who have to register while the religious charities are exempt.

Secondly - sure many parishes are run by amateurs - so what, so are countless other non religious charities. I am a Trustee of two charities (both of which are required to register), I'm an amateur in that context. However being an amateur (i.e. an unpaid Trustee) doesn't mean you don't have skills - I'm sure there are plenty of unremunerated Trustees of religious and non religious charities who are qualified lawyers, accountants, successful business people etc.

Also CofE parishes have the support of a huge higher level infrastructure above then to support them to fulfil their obligations as Trustees - I think that would make it far easier to be able to cope with the tasks of charity registration and reporting than for a small stand alone charity that may have no similar support.

That said - I agree that proper oversight is important for charities which is why I cannot accept a situation where some charities are given exemptions from registration and reporting obligation while other similar sized charities are required to.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The delays in removing the exception for registration might be due to the lack of resources of the Charity Commission rather than the resources of the Parish amateurs. I know as a voluntary trustee that contacting the Charity Commission involves long delays before they respond. Similarly, contacting HMRC to register anything also takes a while. And what the government explanation that I linked to said was (my emphasis):

In 2002, the Prime Minister’s
Strategy Unit (“the Strategy Unit”) published a report on proposals for charity law
reform, “Private action, public benefit: a review of charities and the wider not-forprofit sector”. In relation to excepted charities, it asserted (para 7.89) that “to promote
trust and confidence in the regulatory system as a whole it is important that all
organisations with charitable status should be subject to the same accountability
requirements”.

THE CHARITIES (EXCEPTION FROM REGISTRATION) (AMENDMENT)
REGULATIONS 2021 extended the exception of these religious charities until 31st March
2031. This will enable the Charity Commission to develop a manageable approach for
phasing these organisations onto the register over the course of the extension period.
The Commission will begin liaising with church bodies in the first half of 2021-22 to
co-design and consult on a programme of phased voluntary registration.

[ProfessorDavey]

THE CHARITIES (EXCEPTION FROM REGISTRATION) (AMENDMENT)
REGULATIONS 2021 extended the exception of these religious charities until 31st March
2031. This will enable the Charity Commission to develop a manageable approach for
phasing these organisations onto the register over the course of the extension period.
The Commission will begin liaising with church bodies in the first half of 2021-22 to
co-design and consult on a programme of phased voluntary registration.

Yawn - they've been saying the same since at least 1963 - how kong do these people need to develop a manageable approach for
phasing these organisations onto the register over the course of the extension period. By the time we reach 2031 they will have had at least 68 years. And why do churches need this extension when most charities with incomes between £5k and £100k apparently need no extension and haven't been granted one. Are churches particularly crap at getting their affairs in order?

[ProfessorDavey]

The delays in removing the exception for registration might be due to the lack of resources of the Charity Commission rather than the resources of the Parish amateurs. I know as a voluntary trustee that contacting the Charity Commission involves long delays before they respond.

Hmm - so do churches have their own version of the Charity Commission which is particularly rubbish at answering calls. Do you think somehow that it is somehow easier for my local homeless charity to contact them than my local United Reform Church. Why do you think the Trustees of church charities are any more 'amateur' than the trustees of non religious small charities with incomes between £5k and £100k.

Special privilege on stilts.

[ProfessorDavey]

THE CHARITIES (EXCEPTION FROM REGISTRATION) (AMENDMENT)
REGULATIONS 2021 extended the exception of these religious charities until 31st March
2031. This will enable the Charity Commission to develop a manageable approach for
phasing these organisations onto the register over the course of the extension period.
The Commission will begin liaising with church bodies in the first half of 2021-22 to
co-design and consult on a programme of phased voluntary registration.

You do realise that regularly since at least 1963 there has been the suggestion of an additional temporary extension. Weirdly this never is temporary and always gets extended again.

This commentary about the Charities (Exception from Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2012, which was only supposed to extend the exemption until 2014:

'The temporary exception from the requirement to register has been extended on several occasions since 1996 – but the suspicion is that this is the last extension. It is unlikely, however, that the Charity Commission would  be able to cope with large numbers of small congregations registering simultaneously, so the presumption must be that registration will be staged.'

So exactly the same argument has been used numerous times over the past decades, and apparently there was to be no further extension of the special privilege beyond 2014, yet weirdly this is still in place until at least 2031.

And the mention of 1996 refers to the The Charities (Exception from Registration) Regulations 1996 which were intended to be a 'temporary' measure, supposedly only until 2001 and replaced the The Charities (Exception from Registration and Accounts) Regulations 1963.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Hmm - so do churches have their own version of the Charity Commission which is particularly rubbish at answering calls. Do you think somehow that it is somehow easier for my local homeless charity to contact them than my local United Reform Church. Why do you think the Trustees of church charities are any more 'amateur' than the trustees of non religious small charities with incomes between £5k and £100k.

Special privilege on stilts.

No idea what the bureaucracy hold up is - from experience I assume the project has been passed from one manager to another without anyone taking the initiative, rolling their sleeves up, working over-time and getting it done. That is generally why big projects get held up - individual people given the responsibility look at the size of the project and the admin involved and procrastinate suddenly found all these other important things they mysteriously find the time to do instead of tackling the big project. They presumably want to get all the churches registered without big gaps where some get registered and others don't.

There is probably little incentive in dealing with the project as the churches are raking money in without being registered. It seems the public like to donate to churches. Whereas the smaller charities want to be registered as it gives the public confidence in them and they get more donations.

[ProfessorDavey]

In 2002, the Prime Minister’s
Strategy Unit (“the Strategy Unit”) published a report on proposals for charity law
reform, “Private action, public benefit: a review of charities and the wider not-forprofit sector”. In relation to excepted charities, it asserted (para 7.89) that “to promote
trust and confidence in the regulatory system as a whole it is important that all
organisations with charitable status should be subject to the same accountability
requirements”.

Have you looked at the date on this statement - 2002. So apparently in 2002 it was important that all organisations with charitable status should be subject to the same accountability requirements' - yet this will not happen until at least 2031. If this was important in 2002 how come it will take at least 29 years to achieve.

[ProfessorDavey]

They presumably want to get all the churches registered without big gaps where some get registered and others don't.

Hmm - yes, obviously requires at least 68 year to achieve this. Weirdly for the non religious charities this is achieved as they go along as if they have incomes greater than £5k then they must register - not 68 year extension for them.