|
,
Re: The Licensing Act 2003
- The Circus Industry
The European Entertainment Corporation is
the largest operator of travelling tenting circuses in the UK. We
promote the tours of The Moscow State Circus and The Chinese State Circus,
both of which tour for 40 weeks in each year and also the Continental Circus Berlin which tours for
a shorter period. All of our circuses will usually visit a different
town each week, although occasionally they will visit two towns in a
week and very occasionally stay in a town for two weeks. The seating
capacity of our tents is above that permitted under the Temporary Events
procedure and consequently we require a Premises License for each of our circuses
for each week that we operate. Our circus tours, which are planned on a
three year cycle take us throughout England
and Wales and for a few
weeks into Scotland
where the licensing system is much easier because it is largely based
on theHealth and Safety standards of that
particular circus and not of the circus site.
Some of the circus sites which we have
used since the introduction of the Licensing Act have been licensed by the
owner, usually the Local Authority, but a larger number are not licensed and
we have had to make our own applications. We have never had a licence
refused and there appears to be little concern about the way reputable
circuses conduct their business.
We are fortunate that, unlike some
circuses, we operate a permanent office but the staff needed to keep up with
our licensing applications and the amount which we have spent both on making
and then advertising the application has been excessive. It must be
remembered that we are having to make a separate application for every unlicensed
site which we use, often three in any one week, whereas premises selling
alcohol only need to make one application. This is unfair and results
in a considerable financial burden that my company has had to
carry. We are still applying for licences either because we are finding
alternative circus sites which we want to try or we are visiting smaller
towns where our circuses have not previously been seen.
You have received a submission from our
trade body, The Association of Circus Proprietors of Great Britain, which I
wholeheartedly support. It highlights, in addition to the cost of
licensing which the industry is having to carry, the problem of the lack of
flexibility. There are situations where a circus site becomes unusable
because our visit follows exceptionally wet weather but we are unable to move
to an alternative site because we are out of time to apply for a
Premises Licence for it. The overheads in running each of my circuses
runs into tens of thousands of pounds each week and these expenses are
largely the same whether or not we are able to open for business. It is
not just the wet weather that can make the inflexibility of licensing unfair,
there are often other factors. The circus routes are planned a long
time in advance so that we minimise the distance which we have to travel
between towns. Often a Local Authority will, at very short notice, ask
if we would change our dates because they realise that we are going to clash
with an event that they are organising in the same park and as our business
is dependent on a working relationship with those Councils, we have no option
but to agree. iInstead of being able to move
to a different site in the town, which we would have done prior to licensing,
we have insufficient time to apply for a licence and must travel to a town
where we know there is a licensed site. Similarly, we are operating in
a very competitive industry and many towns have more than one circus
site. It is not uncommon for us to find that one of our competitors is
using a site in a town which we were planning to visit only two or three
weeks later. In commercial terms, we cannot follow a circus within such
a short period and again we have to look for an alternative, and
often less satisactory, site but we are limited
because it must be one which is already licensed for a circus. There
cannot be any other sector of the leisure and entertainment industry which
has been so restricted by the Licensing Act in the ordinary course of it's
business.
I have been operating circuses for almost
forty years and I cannot recall any problems which arose because circuses
were not being controlled through licensing. As most of our sites are
owned by Local Authorities, any control is contained within the agreement for
the use of that site. At times, the Licensing Act has reduced my
business, which is normally exceptionally well organises, to chaos.
I consider that the responsibility for
all of these problems is with the DCMS.
It produced legislation which does not state that circuses are licensable,
but then in its Guidance notes says that because there is an element of
music, circuses should be licensed. Music is only played to accompany
acts as background to a display of circus skills and in two of my circuses I
rely entirely on recorded music.
I hope the committee will understand that
circuses are being licensed only through the opinion of the DCMS and that this licensing is too
restrictive, too inflexible, too expensive and too onorous
for this traditional industry which for several years has been struggling to
survive.
September
2008
|
