Substantial meal rule was unfair on minorities, court rules

THE Government may have unlawfully discriminated against black and minority ethnic people with its policy of ordering pubs to serve alcoholic drinks only with “substantial meals”, the High Court has ruled.

Hospitality chiefs brought a legal challenge against Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, over the contentious rule introduced in December, which shuttered so-called wet pubs which do not serve food and prompted a row over scotch eggs.

Sacha Lord, Greater Manchester’s night-time economy adviser, claimed that it discriminated against ethnic minority people in the city because they made up a bigger proportion of lowincome households, making substantial meals unaffordable for some.

In his ruling, Judge Richard Pearce said: “It is arguable that a policy which permits drinking alcohol with a meal in licensed premises but does not permit such premises to open if they do not serve a substantial table meal discriminates against people from a non-white or BAME background.”

He granted a judicial review of the policy but the claimants agreed not to proceed to trial because the policy was no longer in place.

Judge Pearce also found Mr Lord’s claim that there was no scientific evidence that drinking with a meal would reduce the risk of Covid transmission was an “arguable case”.

This meant that although cutting risk of transmission was a legitimate aim of social policy, “it is arguable that the Table Meal Exemption is not a proportionate means of achieving that aim”, thus the claimants had an “arguable case” of indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

Mr Lord said that the rule “felt like an attack on class culture” and hailed the judgment as “a landmark victory for the hospitality industry”, with many businesses affected by the rule “struggling to survive” and in poorer areas.

The case was backed by Ukhospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association, the Night Time Industries Association, several breweries and local businesses.

Mr Lord, the co-founder of Parklife music festival, claims that he forced the Government into an about-turn, with the substantial meal rule and curfews absent from Boris Johnson’s roadmap out of lockdown.

He is now seeking to a High Court challenge to force the Government to reopen indoor hospitality along with non-essential shops next month.

His solicitor, Oliver Wright, a partner at JMW Solicitors, said the case was “very significant in that not a lot of these coronavirus cases have got permission” for judicial review.

The Department of Health and Social Care was approached for comment.