HOME PAGE | FACTFILES | QUOTES | COMMENT FORM |

"The English and, more latterly, the British have the habit of acquiring their institutions by chance or inadvertence, and shedding them in a fit of absent-mindedness."
Lord Hailsham, Guildhall Lecture 1987.

5. The advantages of being an Institute

An Institute is a rarely-awarded title for a very particular kind of body. Setting one up is neither easy nor quick. As Companies House explains, 'Institute' '…is one of the most sensitive words that the Secretary of State considers. It is normally only allowed to professional bodies of the highest standing. In applying this policy, the Secretary of State is safeguarding the standing of those Institutions already on the Register of Companies. Before we can accept the proposed name of the Institute of Cricket Umpires & Scorers, you must provide any available background information about the proposed Institute. In particular, you must produce evidence to show that; (1) It is generally recognised that there is a need for such an Institute and that the field is not already covered by existing bodies; (2) Regulations relating to the qualifications for membership will be at a high academic level and recognised and approved by the appropriate authorities. You must also give details of how the membership will be regulated.'

Part of the reason for the stringency of these requirements is undoubtedly because an Institute, as a recognised bona-fide training and examining body, not only acquires the right to apply for educational grants that are available from time to time, but can also offer possibilities for tax and VAT benefits to potential 'investor-sponsors', the advantages of which they are keenly aware.

After a great deal of research and hard work, which started in September 2005 and included the considerable expense of employing lawyers specialising in particular types of company incorporations, we are pleased to be able to tell you that, having evidently satisfied the requirements of both the Secretary of State and Companies House, the Institute of Cricket Umpires and Scorers was officially registered on March 10, 2006.

The above is an extract from the Renaissance document issued by the Institute of Cricket Officials Ltd.

Mr. Bastable raises some very interesting and pertinent points in this section of the otherwise rambling document. As he states, setting up an Institute is neither easy nor quick and use of that title is rarely permitted.

Let us quote from Companies House, "To use the word institute or institution - approval for use of these words is normally given only to those organisations which are carrying out research at the highest level or to professional bodies of the highest standing. They will need to show us that there is a need for the proposed institute and that it has appropriate regulations or examinations standards.

They will need evidence of support from other representative and independent bodies."

We would ask these questions: -

1. What research is there for this body to carry out?
   We intend no disrespect to MCC nor to the memory of Tom Smith, but we must point out that cricket is governed by a mere 42 Laws, many of which are absolute such as the weight and dimensions of ball, wickets, bats, etc. Things can crop up which need critical assessment but these are hardly akin to splitting the atom.
2. Why would the opinion of a body such as the Institute ever be needed?
   Final judgement on the Laws is given by the MCC, the owners and guardians of them. In the Preface to the Laws it states "Many queries on the Laws...are sent to MCC for decision each year. MCC...has always been prepared to answer the queries and to give interpretations...."
3. How can ICUS seek to represent itself as a "professional body of the highest standing?"
   It was only formed on 10th March. Nowhere in the 30 pages of the so-called 'renaissance' document is there specific detail of its finances, if they exist at all. Like NACLCC, it has never traded. It has no premises, no staff, no substance. Not quite Harvard is it?
4. Why would there be a need for such a body?
   ACU&S, although in poor financial health, is still in being. The former Treasurer, Mr Freeman, despite his newly revealed allegiances, seemed sanguine as regards its prospects in his page-and-one-half report. The England & Wales Cricket Board, the governing body of cricket in the country, has set up its own association (note: association, not institute). MCC appears to be thriving. The field is indecently overcrowded.
5. What regulations and examinations are in place?
   Without doubt, insufficient to satisfy the Registrar of Companies when, as will be happening shortly, he revisits the ICUS application. At present, the only means of examination in existence lie with the ACU&S, including the laptops and projectors, CD's and the copyright to Tom Smith, the Umpire's Bible.
6. Who supported the ICUS application?
   Other representative and independent bodies must support the application. Who can have done so? Not ECB, obviously. Nor MCC, which has a seat on the ECB Board. Hardly ACU&S either, as it would have had to vote to do so and it would have been mentioned at the AGM, if they had.

Misrepresentation in an application to Companies House is a matter which they tend to take quite seriously and it can be safely assumed that they will be investigating the Institute quite closely over the coming months. Members of General Council have some interesting questions to pose at the meeting on Saturday April 8th. They would be wise not to be drawn into giving retrospective approval to a decision about which they were not originally consulted. If a mistake was made, it is desirable that those who made it should do the explaining. And, of course, take the rap for it.