Kmflett's Blog

What the law says about substantial pub meals (not much)

The question of what is or is not a substantial pub meal has received a good deal of focus recently. Areas under Tier 3 COVID-19 restrictions can only have open pubs if they also sell food. But how much food counts?

Common Bar in Manchester has been the source of social media and media commentary because a gauleiter of some description (I mean an overbearing official not a Nazi btw) decreed that a large slice of a 22 inch pizza did not qualify.

The law can be open to interpretation but it cant just be made up. In fact the pizza slice was suitable food.

It does remain the case though that legal definitions of what counts as pub food are quite thin. It is certainly more than a bag of crisps or nuts but beyond that it is fairly loose as Kim Howells then a Government Minister found out when he tried to find out in 2003.

The exchanges below are the most recent and relevant discussion of pub food. The key points here are:

Eating it at a table is essential

Pizza is a meal (how much not defined)

The are two legal judgements. One from 1965 determined that a substantial sandwich (not defined)met the definition provided it was accompanied by pickle and beetroot and of course eaten at a table. The other from 1955 defined substantial pub food as sandwiches and sausages on sticks

I suspect that more or less any pub staying open and serving food is likely to exceed the legal definitions such as they are by some distance.

Mr. Hoban (Tory): I cannot let the clause pass without raising the question of a table meal. What precisely does ”table meal” mean? The Minister gave examples of situations in which food might be served and referred to people of various ages between 16 and 18 consuming pizzas. If there is a group of people between the ages of 16 and 19, and the 16 and 17-year-olds have a sandwich in front of them, does that sandwich constitute a table meal and can they use it as a defence over consuming alcohol?

Dr. Howells (Labour Minister): It just so happens that I asked for and received an authoritative definition of what constitutes a table meal. The Licensing Act 1964 refers to

”a meal eaten by a person seated at a table, or at a counter or other structure that serves the purpose of a table and is not used for the service of refreshments for consumption by persons not seated at a table or structure serving the purpose of a table.”

I take that to mean that someone cannot get away with eating at the bar. Timmis v. Millman of 1965 states

”a substantial sandwich accompanied by pickles and beetroot was a table meal”.

I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman. If I could, I would try to find for him a better definition

Commons Select Committee on 2003 Licensing Act,15^th May 2003

Solomon v Green 1955 ‘Sandwiches & sausages on sticks’