We need to talk about secular humanism.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'm leaning towards inefficiency, procrastination and almost wilful obstruction ... not on the part of the Charities Commission, but on the part of the religious organisations themselves.

Sure - if you got any links giving evidence of the wilful obstruction, I would certainly be interested in reading them. 

So I read that the Commission has estimated that there may be 30,000-40,000 excepted charities just from the CofE. Of course they don't know because these charities aren't registered. But it is entirely up to the CofE to choose how they organise their churches in order to register them. And they sure as hell don't look to be helping matters. So if that estimate is anything like true, and with CofE membership at approx 1 million that means there is a separate charity for every 29 parishioners. That is nuts and massively inefficient - except of course by doing things this way the CofE can both avoid registration under the excepted charities approach but also claim they will overwhelm the Charities Commission.

Simple solution al round - the CofE combines mini- charities into sensibly sized ones, maybe they might look at whether they already have a structure in place ... hmm, like a diocese. Refusing to do this looks like wilful obstruction, as there is no way that the CofE would want to have 30,000 registered charities in their name, all with reporting obligations.

It's almost as if not many people are really that bothered about this and it's not a high priority that is worth spending money on organising. But if you want to call it wilful obstruction, ok - but some links with some evidence would be more convincing.

[ProfessorDavey]

And when you provide some links about this lobbying and its influence on the thinking of successive governments since 1996, I will review my opinion.

In the absence of actual evidence, it's no different to my speculation that Harry and Meghan planned their exit to LA in order to make money and control their money-making opportunities in the public eye and not because they were willing to become poorer in order to have a quiet life out of the media spotlight.

Faith groups have been actively lobbying government to gain advantage and protect their interests for a lot longer than just 1996. And often this pays scant regard to notions of equality and fairness with common focus being the preservation of special privileges.

So you want some research on this - well here you go. Bang up to date, from 3 months ago, detailed and specifically mentions lobbying to influence Charity Law.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-religion/article/christian-interest-groups-in-a-religiously-changing-united-kingdom-issues-strategies-influence/959784482002C4EFF74DE240E2E89B80

You note that the author also focussed on blocking change - 'There are also indications that some Christian group influence may take the form of limiting policy change rather than securing it — an intriguing finding that may tell us much about the ways in which religious interests still matter in contexts of declining adherence.'

You will also note the focus on 'insider' strategies - effectively that religious lobbying groups recognise that the actively religious are significantly disproportionately represented amongst MPs and peers compared to the general public (correct use of the term again) and therefore quietly influencing on the inside is a highly effective tactic.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Faith groups have been actively lobbying government to gain advantage and protect their interests for a lot longer than just 1996. And often this pays scant regard to notions of equality and fairness with common focus being the preservation of special privileges.

So you want some research on this - well here you go. Bang up to date, from 3 months ago, detailed and specifically mentions lobbying to influence Charity Law.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-religion/article/christian-interest-groups-in-a-religiously-changing-united-kingdom-issues-strategies-influence/959784482002C4EFF74DE240E2E89B80

You note that the author also focussed on blocking change - 'There are also indications that some Christian group influence may take the form of limiting policy change rather than securing it — an intriguing finding that may tell us much about the ways in which religious interests still matter in contexts of declining adherence.'

You will also note the focus on 'insider' strategies - effectively that religious lobbying groups recognise that the actively religious are significantly disproportionately represented amongst MPs and peers compared to the general public (correct use of the term again) and therefore quietly influencing on the inside is a highly effective tactic.

Ok I read it. So all the research is saying is that yes, religious groups, the churches etc are an interest group just like many other non-religious interest groups and ultimately, interest groups seek to influence policy outcomes.....so far so normal for a democratic political system. No reason why religious groups can't lobby to influence policy.

But no evidence or mention of any lobbying on this specific issue - no evidence of wilful obstruction or lobbying regarding registering religious charities. Then your link says:

If the churches are declining in UK society, we might naturally expect them to be less capable of achieving successes. Kettell (Reference Kettell2016a, 1) observes that UK conservative Christian lobby groups are “typically considered to exert little practical influence”. Even in the case of the Church of England, despite its established status and presumed greater access, influence has been questioned—partly because establishment may temper its behavior (Minkenberg Reference Minkenberg2003, 210), but also because it does not enjoy strong social authority (Grzymała-Busse Reference Grzymała-Busse2015, 333).

The research indicated at least three factors explaining why denominations limited their engagement with UK-level public policy. First, some denominations operate principally in parts of the UK with devolved governments; In addition, however, some groups clearly lacked the resources to pursue policy work. One survey respondent stated that “we have no resource to do so”. Third, and linked to the question of resources, some inevitably prioritized their core religious functions.

And your link says the churches employ some insider strategies and some outsider strategies. This is no different from many other interest groups - where interest groups have access to MPs they use that and cultivate the relationship. Again this is a normal part of representative Parliamentary democracies.

As can be seen, the findings indicate no obvious preference for insider or outsider strategies, instead suggesting a range of tactics. While the most important tactic was encouraging supporters to write to their elected representatives (an outsider tactic), the next three responses are all insider tactics: contacting parliamentarians directly, responding to a government consultation, and direct contact with government representatives. Yet the remaining insider tactic—direct participation in parliamentary proceedings—appears further down the list.

The final section talks about the influence and impact they have. From your link:

Finally, in terms of impact and influence, the paper found evidence of widespread, albeit often modest, success.

Nonetheless, as shown in the table, almost half did report some influence on UK-level policy itself. These responses were manually coded into the 24 policy topics featured in Table 2, and the results indicate potential influence across a very wide range of issues, with at least one example given from 19 of the 24 policy topics.Footnote10 The top category was “marriage and sexuality,” with four respondents indicating influence, three of which were in support of legalization of same-sex marriage—itself challenging simplistic caricatures of the sector. Other policy topics with at least two respondents included housing, welfare, commerce (Sunday trading), the environment, immigration, international development, religious freedom, and life issues. It can therefore once again be seen that the range of policy issues on which Christian interest groups report some policy influence is more varied than might be expected.
 
There wasn't any mention of registering charities as being an important issue they had been lobbying on. Do you have any links to information on that particular issue?

[ProfessorDavey]

But no evidence or mention of any lobbying on this specific issue ...

Wrong.

'In other cases, there are more obvious “sectional” interests—most obviously the category labeled “institutional interest” (comprising responses such as charity law, buildings, burial and cremation)'.[/i]

[ProfessorDavey]

And your link says the churches employ some insider strategies and some outsider strategies. This is no different from many other interest groups - where interest groups have access to MPs they use that and cultivate the relationship. Again this is a normal part of representative Parliamentary democracies.

How many other lobbying organisation have their 26 most senior officials as permanent members of one of the houses of Parliament? Oh yes, none. The ability to engage in insider lobbying strategies is unrivalled for the CofE - and of course they are often the cheerleaders for wider religious lobbying. Again from the article:

An interviewee from the established Church of England described it as “less campaigny” than some other groups, as “We try and influence from within, if you like—we're part of the establishment—rather than without.”

No other campaigning organisation could argue in such a manner.

[Outrider]

Name one ''campaign'' that doesn't take the deficit view of religion namely that is that there is something basically wrong about religion.

Just from this thread alone, to remove privileged seats for Bishops in the Lords, to open up Thought for the Day to non-religious viewpoints. I'd add to that the campaign to remove the requirement for an 'act of broadly Christian worship' from schools, as well.

We've already established that secular humanism or the british version at least is not the equivalent of egalitarianism.

No, you've tried to make the claim, and keep falling foul of failing to distinguish between removing religious privilege and disadvantaging religion.

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Wrong.

'In other cases, there are more obvious “sectional” interests—most obviously the category labeled “institutional interest” (comprising responses such as charity law, buildings, burial and cremation)'.[/i]

Not wrong and of course you're talking complete nonsense if you think what you have quoted here counts as evidence of wilful obstruction. For a start parishes that receive a gross income over £100k will be concerned with Charity Law and Charity Law covers many areas.

So you have fun with your unevidenced speculation about wilful obstruction and lobbying on the issue of registering smaller religious charities with the Charity Commission. Just comes across as prejudiced assumptions on your part.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

How many other lobbying organisation have their 26 most senior officials as permanent members of one of the houses of Parliament? Oh yes, none. The ability to engage in insider lobbying strategies is unrivalled for the CofE - and of course they are often the cheerleaders for wider religious lobbying. Again from the article:

An interviewee from the established Church of England described it as “less campaigny” than some other groups, as “We try and influence from within, if you like—we're part of the establishment—rather than without.”

No other campaigning organisation could argue in such a manner.

So you have no actual evidence of wilful obstruction on the issue of registering smaller religious charities with the Charity Commission.

Ok you have fun with your unevidenced speculation about wilful obstruction and lobbying on this issue. Just comes across as prejudiced assumptions on your part.

ETA: Though I agree with the idea of removing automatic seats for Bishops in the HofL. My view is that in a Parliamentary democracy, Bishops should get a voice on the merits of their message and not by automatic privilege. It seems paternalistic to argue for forced religious guidance within politics, especially given the decline in moral authority of the religious establishments.

[ProfessorDavey]

There wasn't any mention of registering charities as being an important issue they had been lobbying on. Do you have any links to information on that particular issue?

Of course - this from the Christian Institute, claiming to be an umbrella lobbying organisation representing 'almost all christian denominations'. This was in relation to the Charities Act 2006, one of the numerous attempts to end the special privilege of the excepted charity status for churches, which means they don't have to register if their income is below £100k while virtually all other charities must register if their income is over £5k.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmpubadm/writev/charity/m26.htm

Note the very clear lobbying to retain the special privilege of excepted status:

Firstly, most of the major Christian denominations which are represented in the Institute’s support base are "excepted" from registration, subject to the £100,000 threshold currently relevant to each congregation. This historic excepted status recognises that those charities are connected with an umbrella body, such as a diocese, denomination or association, which exercise some oversight. Far from being an "anomaly", excepted status remains a sensible and efficient way of maintaining a degree of oversight without the unnecessary and bureaucratic burden placed on smaller churches which necessarily goes with compulsory registration.

And the special pleading:

As a result of the current law, thousands of small churches, chapels and other charities face being forced to register, creating a not insignificant burden on them as well as on the Charity Commission. - yet thousands of other small charities of exactly the same size had been forced to register for years.

and

Religious charities are spending disproportionate resources on unnecessary bureaucracy to comply with charity law. - why only religious charities, noting that they have reduced burden due to excepted charity status, compared to most non religious charities.

and

We believe that excepted charities should continue to concentrate on furthering their charitable objects free from the cost and bureaucracy of registration, including the associated reporting requirements. - yet all non excepted charities have to comply.

and

Many small churches have an income exceeding £25,000 but expend disproportionate resources in meeting reporting requirements, often paying professional fees to assist them. - so do many non religious charities, why is this only an issue for churches.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Of course - this from the Christian Institute, claiming to be an umbrella lobbying organisation representing 'almost all christian denominations. This was in relation to the Charities Act 2006, one of the numerous attempts to end the special privilege of the excepted charity status for churches, which means they don't have to register if their income is below £100k while virtually all other charities must register if their income is over £5k.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmpubadm/writev/charity/m26.htm

Note the very clear lobbying to retain the special privilege of excepted status:

Firstly, most of the major Christian denominations which are represented in the Institute’s support base are "excepted" from registration, subject to the £100,000 threshold currently relevant to each congregation. This historic excepted status recognises that those charities are connected with an umbrella body, such as a diocese, denomination or association, which exercise some oversight. Far from being an "anomaly", excepted status remains a sensible and efficient way of maintaining a degree of oversight without the unnecessary and bureaucratic burden placed on smaller churches which necessarily goes with compulsory registration.


And the special pleading:

As a result of the current law, thousands of small churches, chapels and other charities face being forced to register, creating a not insignificant burden on them as well as on the Charity Commission. - yet thousands of other small charities of exactly the same size had been forced to register for years.

Yes and there is no problem with lobbying - it's how democracies work. The government consult bodies and they provide written evidence of their views. So far so normal workings of a Parliamentary democracy.

Thanks for identifying that these small religious charities seem to be different from other small charities as they are subject to some oversight from a larger umbrella body.

and

Religious charities are spending disproportionate resources on unnecessary bureaucracy to comply with charity law. - why only religious charities, noting that they have reduced burden due to excepted charity status, compared to most non religious charities.

and

We believe that excepted charities should continue to concentrate on furthering their charitable objects free from the cost and bureaucracy of registration, including the associated reporting requirements. - yet all non excepted charities have to comply.

and

Many small churches have an income exceeding £25,000 but expend disproportionate resources in meeting reporting requirements, often paying professional fees to assist them. - so do many non religious charities, why is this only an issue for churches.

So no evidence of wilful obstruction then? And no evidence that the Charity Commission has the resources to register these charities.

I don't know why it's an issue for religious charities as I haven't read anything on the actual issues and you haven't liked to any information on what the issues. I am not convinced by your speculation that it is wilful obstruction on the part of churches with no actual evidence to back up your assumptions. You can take your assumptions as true if you want - the same way I made assumptions about Harry and Meghan without presenting evidence. Other people weren't convinced by my speculation - and that's fine. It should not surprise you that people might not be convinced by your speculations either.
 
This legal forum has some info that might be relevant but no detail about the actual issue for the Charity Commission: https://lawandreligionuk.com/2015/09/04/churches-as-charities-some-basics/
 
The legal status of church congregations is that they are individual charities  established under Measure- so Parochial Church Councils (PCCs) are accepted as charities by the Charity Commission and they are governed by Charities Law even if they are excepted from registering with the Charity Commission.

Maybe the delays are because of complications in changing the governing documents of churches. According to this article governing documents cannot be drawn up or amended by local congregational trustees but are subject instead to regulation at a higher level within the denomination concerned. In some cases, no local constitution or governing document exists as such, where each congregation is obliged to operate under a constitutional document determined centrally.

Or maybe it is because the Charities Act 2006 removed the presumption that the advancement of religion was for public benefit and now would require religious charities that need to register with them who say their purpose is to advance religion to actually demonstrate how what they do is for public benefit.

In the absence of evidence of wilful obstruction, I just keep reading that (1)the Charities Commission doesn't have the resources to register them and (2) that charities that have historically served their communities are required to comply with new Charities laws by  converting established legal entities such as PCCs by amending or writing governing documents before they can register and that this is a bit of a bureaucratic process. My impression is that the government thought it was easier to extend the legislation to except these religious charities and this was a pragmatic response to lack of resources to get them registered. 

[ProfessorDavey]

The legal status of church congregations is that they are individual charities  established under Measure- so Parochial Church Councils (PCCs) are accepted as charities by the Charity Commission and they are governed by Charities Law even if they are excepted from registering with the Charity Commission.

Yes I know how parishes are currently structured, but that is their choice - there there is no reason why the CofE needs to register its charities in a similar ultra-inefficient manner.

And you try to explain this one VG. It is reported that just the CofE has about 35,000 excepted charities that need to be registered. That, of course doesn't include PCCs with income over £100k which will already have had to register. Nor will it include any PCCs with incomes between £5k and £100k who have actually taken action and registered, noting that this requirement has been in place since 1996.

So 35,000 still to go ... and yet the CofE only has 16,000 churches Does not compute - that's over two charities for each parish and one charity for every 29 worshippers. So perhaps you might want to rethink where any inefficiency and unnecessary bureaucracy is coming from. I don't see why the Charities Commission should have to pay for the gross inefficiency of the CofE. They should be required to organise their charitable registrations into numbers manageable by the Charities Commission or simply lose charitable status.

To note, you will perhaps have missed it, but the Roman Catholic church is not on the list of excepted charities. Why? Well because they organise their charitable activity by diocese so they have just 22 separate charities, all of which are registered. The RCC and CofE have broadly similar numbers of worshippers, yet one has 22 charities, the other apparently over 35,000. Total non-sense and the Charities Commission shouldn't be expected to have to deal with such errant inefficiency.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes I know how parishes are currently structured, but that is their choice - there there is no reason why the CofE needs to register its charities in a similar ultra-inefficient manner.

And you try to explain this one VG. It is reported that just the CofE has about 35,000 excepted charities that need to be registered. That, of course doesn't include PCCs with income over £100k which will already have had to register. Nor will it include any PCCs with incomes between £5k and £100k who have actually taken action and registered, noting that this requirement has been in place since 1996.

So 35,000 still to go ... and yet the CofE only has 16,000 churches Does not compute - that's over two charities for each parish and one charity for every 29 worshippers. So perhaps you might want to rethink where any inefficiency and unnecessary bureaucracy is coming from. I don't see why the Charities Commission should have to pay for the gross inefficiency of the CofE. They should be required to organise their charitable registrations into numbers manageable by the Charities Commission or simply lose charitable status.

To note, you will perhaps have missed it, but the Roman Catholic church is not on the list of excepted charities. Why? Well because they organise their charitable activity by diocese so they have just 22 separate charities, all of which are registered. The RCC and CofE have broadly similar numbers of worshippers, yet one has 22 charities, the other apparently over 35,000. Total non-sense and the Charities Commission shouldn't be expected to have to deal with such errant inefficiency.

According to my previous link https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/55/pdfs/uksiem_20210055_en.pdf it was a government department that offered the charities a choice of whether to end the exception or to extend it. And they seemed to assess the impact of extending as "no impact" on business, charities or voluntary bodies, and the public sector. They wrote that an Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument (t extend the exception) because no impact on the private or voluntary sector is foreseen.

The Office for Civil Society wrote to the representative bodies of the charities affected proposing two options, allowing the 1996 Regulations to lapse, so ending the exception, or extending them for a period of between five to ten years while working with the Charity Commission to prepare the affected organisations for registration.

The representative bodies unanimously supported a continuation of the exception for a fixed period of time. The 1996 Regulations will be extended on the basis that a comprehensive plan to phase organisations onto the register over the extension period will be developed. The Charity Commission will begin consultation on this programme of registration in the first half of 2021-22 financial year.

And there are lots more charities that are excepted - and it's a funding issue apparently.

There’s now legislation which requires church charities to register with the Charity Commission by 2021. However it’s questionable whether it will be enacted. The legislation was first introduced in 1996, and it’s been delayed several times since then. The cost of registering thousands of churches will be astronomical, and the Commission doesn’t appear flush with cash, so there is likely to be a problem funding it. - See more at: https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/voices/there-are-more-than-twice-as-many-charities-in-the-uk-as-you-ve-been-told.html#sthash.Z9aLhBBP.dpuf

[ProfessorDavey]

According to my previous link https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/55/pdfs/uksiem_20210055_en.pdf it was a government department that offered the charities a choice of whether to end the exception or to extend it. And they seemed to assess the impact of extending as "no impact" on business, charities or voluntary bodies, and the public sector. They wrote that an Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument (t extend the exception) because no impact on the private or voluntary sector is foreseen.

The Office for Civil Society wrote to the representative bodies of the charities affected proposing two options, allowing the 1996 Regulations to lapse, so ending the exception, or extending them for a period of between five to ten years while working with the Charity Commission to prepare the affected organisations for registration.

The representative bodies unanimously supported a continuation of the exception for a fixed period of time. The 1996 Regulations will be extended on the basis that a comprehensive plan to phase organisations onto the register over the extension period will be developed. The Charity Commission will begin consultation on this programme of registration in the first half of 2021-22 financial year.

Yet the very same document is very clear that registration of all charities is extremely important:

“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”.

So by their very words a situation in which some charities are registered while others are not and therefore subject to differing accountability requirements acts to undermine trust and confidence in the system.

And on the consultation, the only bodies consulted were those associated with excepted charities - so effectively they asked a block of charities that had the full benefits of charitable status, yet did not have to register, nor had to submit annual reports whether:

A) They'd like to go through the process of registering and submitting annual reports or
B) They'd like to avoid registration and reporting for another 10 years with no loss of benefits.

They went for A) - no shit, Sherlock. Why didn't they also consult all those charities that currently have to register their views on the matter? I suspect they have got a very different response. And given that they'd already stated that to ensure 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 views of other charities is, of course, very important as an overall loss of confidence in the system linked to unregistered charities affects them.

But the broader point is that this is written as if the excepted charities had recently been hit with a bombshell that they have to register - they hadn't, they have know since 1963 that excepted status was temporary, with a clear deadline imposed in 1996 for registration to be complete by 2001. What on earth have these charities been doing. I struggling to find any evidence of any serious attempt by excepted charities with incomes between £5k and £100k to get themselves registered over the past 25 years.

Perhaps you can help me VG - can you provide evidence that the excepted charities have been diligently applying for registration since 1996, because I can't see any.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yet the very same document is very clear that registration of all charities is extremely important:

“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”.

So by their very words a situation in which some charities are registered while others are not and therefore subject to differing accountability requirements acts to undermine trust and confidence in the system.

And on the consultation, the only bodies consulted were those associated with excepted charities - so effectively they asked a block of charities that had the full benefits of charitable status, yet did not have to register, nor had to submit annual reports whether:

A) They'd like to go through the process of registering and submitting annual reports or
B) They'd like to avoid registration and reporting for another 10 years with no loss of benefits.

They went for A) - no shit, Sherlock.

Glad you agree with me that the charities went for the obvious choice given the options they were presented with by the government. So no evidence of wilful obstruction on the part of the charities as you claimed.

Why didn't they also consult all those charities that currently have to register their views on the matter? I suspect they have got a very different response. And given that they'd already stated that to ensure 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 views of other charities is, of course, very important as an overall loss of confidence in the system linked to unregistered charities affects them.

You should take that up with the government. I suspect it's just a simple case of they disagree with your view of the situation. It happens.

But the broader point is that this is written as if the excepted charities had recently been hit with a bombshell that they have to register - they hadn't, they have know since 1963 that excepted status was temporary, with a clear deadline imposed in 1996 for registration to be complete by 2001. What on earth have these charities been doing. I struggling to find any evidence of any serious attempt by excepted charities with incomes between £5k and £100k to get themselves registered over the past 25 years.

Perhaps you can help me VG - can you provide evidence that the excepted charities have been diligently applying for registration since 1996, because I can't see any.

Why would I do that? The way it works on here is if you want to convince people about the truth of your claims e.g. about wilful obstruction by religious charities PD - it's up to you to support your claim with evidence.

All I'm seeing so far is government-led consultations, a government view that extending the deadline and not registering these charities has no significant negative impact, and what seems to be fairly significant concern about funding and resources for the Charity Commission to register these charities. Guess you have your work cut out for you lobbying the government to come round to your way of thinking that the best course of action is to take away the charitable status of these religious charities. But that's what's so great about our Parliamentary democracy - diverse opinions are entertained and people can lobby and campaign to have their opinions heard.

[ProfessorDavey]

Glad you agree with me that the charities went for the obvious choice given the options they were presented with by the government.

So you ask groups who benefit from a special privilege, and only groups that benefit from a special privilege, whether they'd like to retain that special privilege, and they say 'yes please, we'd love to continue to have the special privilege'. Hardly a ringing endorsement of meaningful consultation on the matter.

So no evidence of wilful obstruction on the part of the charities as you claimed.

The obstruction, as I described it, is the failure of the churches to apply for registration since 1996 when they were told they had to against a deadline. If you disagree that they have failed to make any meaningful attempt to apply for registration in the 25 years since 1996 then you will be able to provide me with evidence of the number of excepted church charities with incomes between £5k and £100k that have applied for registration, and presumably you'd be able to indicate it to be a large proportion. If you cannot provide that evidence then my assertion that the churches have failed to apply for registration in a reasonable manner given they've had 25 years to do so, then I think my view stands.

My view is also strengthened by the claims that there are still 30-40k excepted CofE charities that had not been registered by 2021, which suggests no meaningful attempt to comply with the 1996 requirement by the churches (given that there are only 16,000 CofE churches in total). It is also strengthened by the fact that the numbers of registered charities in England & Wales has barely changed in the period 1996 to now. Had there been a major effort by the churches to register tens of thousands of charities, we would almost certainly have seen a major uptick in registered charities numbers.

The churches have, frankly, done nothing meaningful to comply with the 1996 requirements and that, in my opinion is wilful obstruction, knowing that as a deadline loss they will yet again claim that there are too many to deal with (because they have failed to be applying for registration in a measured and systematic manner) and therefore they need another extension. This is the argument used in 1996, and again in 2001, and in 2007, and in 2012, and in 2014 and again in 2021. And I suspect we will have exactly the same argument in 2031 when they demand a further extension.

And all the while as far as I can see they have done nothing meaningful to get these charities registered. If you disagree with me, please provide that evidence.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So you ask groups who benefit from a special privilege, and only groups that benefit from a special privilege, whether they'd like to retain that special privilege, and they say 'yes please, we'd love to continue to have the special privilege'. Hardly a ringing endorsement of meaningful consultation on the matter.

I didn't say it was meaningful consultation - I said it was a government-led consultation. It was the government that decided there was not any significant impact by extending the deadline for these excepted charities so they wrote and asked if the charities were ok with it as well, and not surprisingly the charities said they were fine with it. That's not wilful obstruction.

The obstruction, as I described it, is the failure of the churches to apply for registration since 1996 when they were told they had to against a deadline. If you disagree that they have failed to make any meaningful attempt to apply for registration in the 25 years since 1996 then you will be able to provide me with evidence of the number of excepted church charities with incomes between £5k and £100k that have applied for registration, and presumably you'd be able to indicate it to be a large proportion. If you cannot provide that evidence then my assertion that the churches have failed to apply for registration in a reasonable manner given they've had 25 years to do so, then I think my view stands.

My view is also strengthened by the claims that there are still 30-40k excepted CofE charities that had not been registered by 2021, which suggests no meaningful attempt to comply with the 1996 requirement by the churches (given that there are only 16,000 CofE churches in total). It is also strengthened by the fact that the numbers of registered charities in England & Wales has barely changed in the period 1996 to now. Had there been a major effort by the churches to register tens of thousands of charities, we would almost certainly have seen a major uptick in registered charities numbers.

The churches have, frankly, done nothing meaningful to comply with the 1996 requirements and that, in my opinion is wilful obstruction, knowing that as a deadline loss they will yet again claim that there are too many to deal with (because they have failed to be applying for registration in a measured and systematic manner) and therefore they need another extension. This is the argument used in 1996, and again in 2001, and in 2007, and in 2012, and in 2014 and again in 2021. And I suspect we will have exactly the same argument in 2031 when they demand a further extension.

And all the while as far as I can see they have done nothing meaningful to get these charities registered. If you disagree with me, please provide that evidence.

You don't seem to realise how the burden of proof works - your positive claim so it's up to you to provide supporting evidence.

Oh I see - you call it wilful obstruction when charities don't do something they are not legally obliged by the government to do and moreover when they are told that the Charity Commission can't cope with them all registering. Not convincing evidence I am afraid.

But then you do have your own peculiar way of defining things so I can't say I'm surprised that you call that wilful obstruction. It's a bit like where you linked to the Cambridge dictionary and defined "the public" as all ordinary people with your emphasis on the word "all" and then you defined "all" as many or most or a lot or some such thing. Logic is clearly not your strong point.

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh I see - you call it wilful obstruction when charities don't do something they are not legally obliged by the government to do and moreover when they are told that the Charity Commission can't cope with them all registering. Not convincing evidence I am afraid.

Sorry - they are legally obliged to register, by a deadline - they have routinely failed to meet that obligation.

And just on legal obligation - no doubt you will be aware that the Cathedrals (which will have undoubtedly have income over £100k) have also failed to register. They have had to do that for decades - no extension. The failure of Cathedrals to register for charitable status is a clear breech of their legal obligations.

[ProfessorDavey]

You don't seem to realise how the burden of proof works - your positive claim so it's up to you to provide supporting evidence.

My argument - as indicated in my previous post is that the CofE (i particularly) have failed to take any serious action to meet their legal obligation to register all too their excepted charities with incomes between £5k and £100k. Given that they'd had since 1996 to do this, serious action to meet their obligations would be evidenced by large numbers of applications submitted year on year to the Charities Commission since 1996. Yet there is no evidence for this, and plenty of evidence to the contrary - for example:

1. It is reported that there are still in the order of 35,000 CofE excepted charities that still haven't submitted applications for charitable status, which is more than twice the total number of Cof E churches.
2. That there has been no uptick in numbers of registered charities since 1996 - bringing in tens of thousands of new registered charities would be seen as overall increase - yet the numbers in 2022 are pretty well identical to those in the late 1990s.
3. The business plan for the Charities Commission which makes it clear this isn't 'work in progress' - i.e the CofE have diligently been registering their excepted charities, but this work it to be completed. No their wording is clear this is 'work to be started' i.e. the commission really haven't received any significant numbers of application for registration of the £5k-£100k excepted church charities in the past 25 years:
'We will also begin preparations for an expanded Register, working with the Church of England to pilot and manage the receipt of applications from cathedrals applying for charitable status and then up to 35,000 excepted church charities over the next decade.'
'start to register Cathedrals and set out our plan for the registration of Churches'
Basically the churches have done nothing over the past 25 years.

Perhaps you disagree with my (evidenced) conclusions that the churches have done nothing, or next to nothing, to get their churches registered since 1996. If so, you will no doubt be able to provide evidence to support an alternative view that the churches have been working diligently over the past 25 years with loads of application for registrations going in year on year. In which case, over to you, evidence please.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Sorry - they are legally obliged to register, by a deadline - they have routinely failed to meet that obligation.

And just on legal obligation - no doubt you will be aware that the Cathedrals (which will have undoubtedly have income over £100k) have also failed to register. They have had to do that for decades - no extension. The failure of Cathedrals to register for charitable status is a clear breech of their legal obligations.

The government is not exactly encouraging them to register so not sure how they are supposed to meet these obligations. From the government website:

4. Duration of exceptions
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.

The commission is not ready to accept voluntary registrations yet; it will publish more information about this when it has made the necessary arrangements.

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

[ProfessorDavey]

The government is not exactly encouraging them to register so not sure how they are supposed to meet these obligations. From the government website:

4. Duration of exceptions
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.

Disingenuous in the extreme.

The exceptions were announced to be temporary in 1996, with a deadline of 2001 - the churches failed to act.

So the deadline was extended to 2001- the churches failed to act.

So the deadline was extended to 2007 - the churches failed to act.

So the deadline was extended to 20012 - the churches failed to act.

So the deadline was extended to 2014 - the churches failed to act.

So the deadline was extended to 2021- the churches failed to act.

So the deadline has been extended to 2031- perhaps the churches will act this time. However I suspect we will reach 2030 and we will find we still have tens of thousands of charities that haven't applied for registration, and the churches will demand another extension. You can see that there is already the suggestion of further extension - note 'by, or soon after this end date in 2031.

So over to you VG - since 1996 how many CofE PCC's with incomes between £5k and £100k have applied for registration as they were told they needed to do.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Disingenuous in the extreme.

The exceptions were announced to be temporary in 1996, with a deadline of 2001 - the churches failed to act.

So the deadline was extended to 2001- the churches failed to act.

So the deadline was extended to 2007 - the churches failed to act.

So the deadline was extended to 20012 - the churches failed to act.

So the deadline was extended to 2014 - the churches failed to act.

So the deadline was extended to 2021- the churches failed to act.

So the deadline has been extended to 2031- perhaps the churches will act this time. However I suspect we will reach 2030 and we will find we still have tens of thousands of charities that haven't applied for registration, and the churches will demand another extension. You can see that there is already the suggestion of further extension - note 'by, or soon after this end date in 2031.

So over to you VG - since 1996 how many CofE PCC's with incomes between £5k and £100k have applied for registration as they were told they needed to do.

Nope - you're being disingenuous and it won't work trying to shift burden of proof to me. That's not how it works. It's still with you as you have not provided evidence to back up your claim of wilful obstruction by the religious charities. While you're at you can provide evidence the Charity Commission were ready for the religious charities to register before. They have a deadline of 2031 and according to the government  "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.

The commission is not ready to accept voluntary registrations yet; it will publish more information about this when it has made the necessary arrangements. "

What help does the commission need to give these churches to register? And do you have any evidence that they gave the help before for all those other deadlines and were rebuffed by the churches?

[ProfessorDavey]

The commission is not ready to accept voluntary registrations yet; it will publish more information about this when it has made the necessary arrangements. "

Firstly, check the date - that information is from 2014. Secondly, this is voluntary - i.e. related to excepted charities with permanent exception, not to those who have been required to register by a deadline since 1996 - that isn't voluntary.

There is nothing to stop church excepted charities with incomes between £5k and £100k from applying for registration and receiving that registration as checking the Charities Commission database demonstrates, as there are example, albeit precious few from the CofE. So it looks to me as if the other churches may have taken their obligations more seriously.

What help does the commission need to give these churches to register? And do you have any evidence that they gave the help before for all those other deadlines and were rebuffed by the churches?

What help does the commission give to any other charity with £5k to £100k income? Why should churches need special treatment and special help - they shouldn't. They are just as capable of checking the details needed to apply for registration that the commission sets out as any other charity. The help has always been there (and numerous other small charities have been able to understand it and apply successfully for registration since 1996) - the churches, particularly the CofE church, have simply ignored it and failed to take action.

[ProfessorDavey]

Nope - you're being disingenuous and it won't work trying to shift burden of proof to me. That's not how it works.

Given that you are dismissing the clear evidence that the churches, particularly the CofE, have failed to be applying for registration as required in law I have given then the burden of proof shifts to you - effectively to provide evidence to support your alternative view that the churches have been diligently applying for registration for their £5k to £100k excepted charities as they have been required to (note not voluntary as the requirement sits in the 1996 Charity Act) since 1996.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Given that you are dismissing the clear evidence that the churches, particularly the CofE, have failed to be applying for registration as required in law I have given then the burden of proof shifts to you - effectively to provide evidence to support your alternative view that the churches have been diligently applying for registration for their £5k to £100k excepted charities as they have been required to (note not voluntary as the requirement sits in the 1996 Charity Act) since 1996.

Nice try - but no point misrepresenting me just because you can't provide evidence for your claim of wilful obstruction by the churches.

Good luck with finding out what help the Commission thinks the charities need for them to register; and whether the charities were offered this help before all the other deadlines issued since 1996.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Firstly, check the date - that information is from 2014. Secondly, this is voluntary - i.e. related to excepted charities with permanent exception, not to those who have been required to register by a deadline since 1996 - that isn't voluntary.

It was updated since 2014 - it has a link to the 2021 legislation extending the exception to 2031. And if the charity is excepted and it tries to register when it is not required to, it is registering voluntarily.

Excepted charity: A charity that is not required to register with the Charity Commission because both of the following apply:

• It is permanently or temporarily excepted from the requirement to register by order of the Commission or by statutory instrument.

• Its gross annual income does not exceed £100,000.

(Sections 30(2)(b)-(c), Charities Act 2011.)

There is nothing to stop church excepted charities with incomes between £5k and £100k from applying for registration and receiving that registration as checking the Charities Commission database demonstrates, as there are example, albeit precious few from the CofE. So it looks to me as if the other churches may have taken their obligations more seriously.
What help does the commission give to any other charity with £5k to £100k income? Why should churches need special treatment and special help - they shouldn't. They are just as capable of checking the details needed to apply for registration that the commission sets out as any other charity. The help has always been there (and numerous other small charities have been able to understand it and apply successfully for registration since 1996) - the churches, particularly the CofE church, have simply ignored it and failed to take action.

Nope nothing stopping them from applying once the Charities Commission gives the go ahead. It currently seems to say:

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.
The commission is not ready to accept voluntary registrations yet; it will publish more information about this when it has made the necessary arrangements.

I would be interested to know what help the government thinks these churches need to register - let me know if you find out.