UK Parliament / Open data

London Olympics Bill

Proceeding contribution from Andy Reed (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 6 December 2005. It occurred during Debate on bills on London Olympics Bill 2005-06.
I wish briefly to speak in support of amendment No. 2. Whether it is carried is a different matter, but I hope that it is recognised that for all of us who are interested in community sports and how the Olympics can be used—not by commercial organisations; I fully understand the requirement to prevent ambush marketing—there are some fine lines between what is acceptable and what is not, and what can be regarded as community services. Having met some of those involved in brand protection, I fully understand just what needs to be done and the dangers involved. The wording of the amendment may not be perfect, but I hope that the Minister will take on board some of the comments that have been made in the House. Some Members have suggested that our sports colleges be renamed Olympics sports colleges for 2012. Each of us has individuals in our constituencies who are interested in promoting sports development by using the 2012 brand. I recognise that it is important that that brand is protected, but there must be some way in which many voluntary organisations and sporting organisations, including small clubs and individuals who come together to promote the Olympics and the build-up of sport development, are at least allowed to take that forward. I hope that in his discussions, particularly with the organising committee, the Minister will find a way of ensuring that there is some flexibility so that people are not put off at this early stage. As chair of the county sports partnership in Leicestershire, I have experience of many individuals coming forward with great ideas to brand themselves—for example, a half marathon that is built on 2012 branding, leading up to the Olympics. There are children and teenagers who would love to have been Olympians but, like me, recognise that they stand no chance of achieving that. At the same time, they wish to play some part in the Olympics. I have an interest in developing volunteers. For many people, the concept of the Olympics will be what they can contribute to the event, not what they can get out of it. Many people are asking, ““What will my town or my constituency get out of the Olympics?”” One of the great things about volunteering is that people will be able to put something in and thereby get something out of the event. At the same time, they will be making a major contribution. As for volunteering, most people do not have access to all the information about regulations. They just know that they have a good idea which they would like to see through. I hope that they do not become fearful of even suggesting using the branding for 2012 because of possible difficulties. I have been told about examples of events that are highly dubious—I heard yesterday of a wet T-shirt competition that used the five rings. I shall not go into detail about how they were used, but that is the sort of thing that London 2012 is dealing with regularly. It stretches the definition of ““voluntary”” and ““community””. I do not want such events to be encouraged because there are clearly commercial elements to some of them, but I hope that the Minister and others are cognisant of the difficulties facing genuine sports and voluntary groups that want to make major use of the 2012 Olympics to develop sport. We must ensure that they will not be put off. We may go too far if we do not take on board some of the points that are made in the amendments.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
440 c803-4 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top