Tim Martin’s suggestion that 16 and 17-year-olds would be better off drinking in his pubs than on the streets is not as deranged as it might sound.

My own rewarding relationship with ethyl alcohol started at the bar of Rosslyn Park Rugby Club in southwest London at a time when players such as Andy Ripley were at their height there. It was a safe environment, there were sensible adults around and a barman who would call a halt before things went too far.

It was certainly better than the alternative - various blasted heaths in the Surrey stockbroker belt where we would congregate with cans of cider and bottles of vodka. It is not too starry-eyed a vision to suggest that a well-run local pub, full of familiar faces, might be a better place to start one’s drinking career than outside in the high street with a six-pack of illegally purchased alcopops.

Tim Martin was not saying that underage drinkers should be allowed in his pubs, or that the age limit of 18 should be reduced. But in an article in Wetherspoon’s staff magazine that triggered the debate, he attacked the “hypocrisy and stupidity” of the stance on underage drinking.

It means that teenagers are barred from drinking relatively weak beer in pubs, falling back on vodka bought at supermarkets. This is, he argues, “a classic example of displacement activity”.

The drinks industry, through organisations such as the Portman Group, has tried to promote sensible drinking, even if its efforts have at times seemed as genuine as those of arms manufacturers trying to persuade customers not to point those nasty, dangerous things at real people.

This is the industry that cynically developed the alcopop to target the inexperienced drinker. But Mr Martin’s remarks deserve a wider debate.

Times Recommends

• Lies and cover-up at MG Rover exposed by report
• High oil prices push manufacturing costs up
• Primark founder steps down as chief executive