London Olympics Bill

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I shall keep my comments brief to allow other hon. Members to make their contributions, but first I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) on his excellent maiden speech. I had the opportunity to visit his constituency recently and can confirm that it has many beautiful and leafy roads for people to walk along. I look forward to returning in the not-too-distant future. I want to echo many of the sentiments already expressed in the debate about the benefits that staging the Olympic games in London in 2012 will bring to the UK. I am very proud that Scott Wilson, an engineering consultancy in my constituency, will play an important part in some of the logistics behind the event. The Secretary of State spoke about the potential benefits for the whole of the UK, and I agree that the Olympics will provide a lasting legacy in terms of sporting facilities. The games will give us a unique opportunity to showcase our country and to unite behind the event. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) said, it is time to ask questions. I want to bring to the attention of the House concerns that the scope of the Bill could make it difficult for community organisations and the business community to show their support for the 2012 Olympics. Community organisations and many small and medium-sized firms can never hope to be official sponsors of this great event, as such a role costs many thousands of pounds, but I am sure that they will want to support an event that will be an integral part of our lives for the next seven years. One specific concern is that the Bill will prevent any references to the games from appearing in our communities other than those made by the media and the official sponsors. There is an important balance to be struck between protecting the official sponsors of the games and people’s broader freedom to note this important event. Official sponsorship is an important part of the revenue stream needed to fund the games, and I understand that we must protect the value of the games for potential sponsors. In many ways, the Bill is designed to prevent ambush marketing, in line with one of the IOC’s requirements. I am sure that hon. Members will be familiar with the IOC’s definition of ambush marketing, which refers to all"““intentional and unintentional attempts to create a false or unauthorised commercial association with the Olympic movement or the Olympic games.””" The inclusion of the relevant clause in the Bill is understandable, as large corporations have engaged in blatant ambush marketing in many recent high-profile sporting events. However, I believe it important that we distinguish between unfair association, involving an implied endorsement and a consequent marketing gain, and mere reference to or allusion to the games, in which an Olympic logo might not even be used. Here, I am referring to schedule 3, under the terms of which, any reference that may"““create in the public mind an association between the London Olympics””" and words such as"““2012 . . . twenty twelve . . . gold . . . silver . . . bronze . . . London . . . medals . . . sponsor””" and even ““summer”” would constitute an infringement. There is a big difference between ambush marketing and reference to the event by a third party who is not an official sponsor. Such a party could be a small local business or even a community group. That the use of the words that I have listed might infringe the law is a matter of great concern, and it does little to support our cross-party efforts today to get as many people as possible involved in the forthcoming event. If there is no implied suggestion that an organisation or business is an official sponsor, or that people could be confused into thinking that such an association existed, such an organisation should not fall foul of the legislation. We need to consider this issue very carefully. The danger is that we will tip the balance away from encouraging the country to support the event, toward what could look like censorship. That is a particular danger for community organisations and businesses. A passing reference by them to the games could mean that they were committing an offence, and they could face a fine of up to £20,000. I fully understand the need to provide certainty in order to protect sponsors’ rights and, indeed, the integrity of the Olympic movement. But I want the Minister to reassure us today that care will be taken and that we will not gold-plate this legislation. We must not put in place draconian rules that exceed the needs of the IOC, and which risk alienating the public and business by outlawing reference to the games in publicity or in events, for fear of incurring the heavy fines to which I have referred. This is a truly unique opportunity to unite the whole country, but it is important that we strike the correct balance between guarding against ambush marketing by those who seek to benefit from the games commercially without being sponsors, and taking account of those who want to support their community and the games—be they businesses or other organisations—and to be part of one of the most important events in our country’s history.