Vol. 547 No. 1
944 Mr. P. Carey asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in view of a recent determination that children may be present in a licensed premises at any time provided they are accompanied by a parent or guardian, his views on whether aspects of the laws governing licensing, opening and operation of licensed premises need to be examined or reviewed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1552/02]
1022 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the background to the proposal which would allow children to remain on licensed premises until closing time; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2666/02]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 944 and 1022 together.
I assume that the Deputy is referring to the recent case of Maughan versus the Glimmer Man Limited which is a decision of the Office of the Director of Equality Investigations under the Equal Status Act 2000.
There has been a certain amount of misunderstanding concerning the actual finding of the equality officer in this case which has given rise to concern on the part of the licensed trade and, indeed, on the part of parents in relation to the licensing, opening and operation of licensed premises. For whatever reason, the impression that gained wide currency in the days immediately following the decision was that the equality officer had ruled, as Deputy Carey puts it, that children may be present in a licensed premises at any time provided they are accompanied by a parent or guardian.
There were, however, some important qualifications in the decision itself which, unfortunately, were not sufficiently highlighted in the public discussion and in media coverage etc. which followed. What the equality officer found was that having a blanket ban on under 18 year olds being in pubs with their parents is a discriminatory policy against parents of under 18 year olds on family status grounds under the Equal Status Act 2000. However, the equality officer specifically stated that his finding should not be interpreted as meaning that publicans must, in all circumstances, serve parents when accompanied by their children under 18 years old. Instances are cited by the equality officer where a publican could be entitled to refuse service, e.g. where a parent was drunk or if a parent or under 18 year old were disorderly. Moreover contrary to the impression that appears to have been created, the validity of a partial ban, for example, allowing children on the premises before a certain hour was not considered at all in this case.
