Memorandum submitted by The European Entertainment
Corporation
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 the Health
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.
Instead 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
|
