Why should we have a Cabinet minister responsible for regulating use of the word ‘institute’?
Tempting thought it might be for me to laugh at another Brexiter brush with the law, this story makes me wonder: why should we have a Cabinet minister responsible for regulating use of the word ‘institute’? Use of the word ‘charity’ or ‘doctor’ I can get. But ‘institute’?
A hard Brexit-supporting thinktank faces being forced to change its name or pay a fine after describing itself as an “institute” without permission.
Use of the title is protected by law and reserved for established organisations “that typically undertake research at the highest level, or are professional bodies of the highest standing”. It can be used only after permission has been granted by Companies House and Greg Clark, the business secretary. [The Guardian]
Also in the list of regulated words is ‘Sheffield’. Something in that case to do with Sheffield’s history in the cutlery industry, I think, as in this case permission to use the word has to be sought from The Company of Cutlers in Hallamshire.
Meanwhile, I’m off to axe my plans to create the Royal Sheffield Institute Insurance Fund.
The reasons for regulating ‘Institute’ are pretty much the same as for regulating ‘university’ (effectively it’s an element of consumer protection against quacks, (Trump University UK anyone?)). I for one am happy if the institute of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and others want to protect the term.
Of course that does throw up anomalies with other well-established bodies like the National Federation of Women’s Institutes and the CIU (Working Mens’ Clubs) which are neither research or professional associations. but such protections (exactly like like Sheffield steel and Melton Mowbray pies) are surely a form of quality assurance?