Madam, - In the body of an otherwise well-reasoned opinion (Feb 27th) from my counterpart in the Vintners' Federation of Ireland, Pádraig Cribben, he suggested that the increase in numbers of convenience stores and forecourts that have obtained licences to sell alcohol was related to an increase in underage drinking and anti-social behaviour. The Convenience Stores' and Newsagents' Association is committed to engaging, on behalf of its members, in a rational and logical discussion on the very obvious difficulties Ireland as a country has in relation to over-indulgence in alcohol. It is not helpful when opinion is displayed as fact.
It is true that, in the past seven years, there has been a very substantial increase in the numbers of licences, both wine and spirit/beer, obtained by the convenience and forecourt sector, but it is not a fact that the incidence of underage drinking has increased. The most recent CSO figures, supplied by the Garda Síochána, actually show a 50 per cent decrease in prosecutions in the eight categories of liquor offences that pertain to young people under the age of 18. We certainly do not suggest that this decrease has anything to do with the increase in off-licence outlets, and would suggest that the two matters have no relationship at all.
Access to alcohol by young people, over the age of 18 is a problem that requires Governmental regulation. The CSNA believe that mandatory use of the Garda age card, with limitations to the type of alcohol (non-spirit etc) for the first number of years over the age of 18, controlled by chip technology, verified at the point of sale, is the best way to ensure that young adults, still immature in areas of responsibility, can enjoy, on a gradual basis, alcohol sensibly. The hue and cry for sacrificial lambs in the current debate lacks a consistent logic. If a forecourt in a town in Ireland is to be denied a licence to sell alcohol as one of its offerings, solely on the basis that it sells fuel, or has cars entering on to the premises what is the primary objection? We have heard suggestions that it is promoting drink-driving, but do not the vast supermarkets placed on the outskirts of every town in Ireland also require a person to drive to them? Indeed, the pubs and hotels in Ireland quite frequently have, as a condition of their planning permission, large car parks.
The solution to prevent a consumer from using recently purchased alcohol whilst driving is to make it a criminal offence, with penalty points attached, for any bottle or can of alcohol to be opened or in an open state within a car, irrespective of whether the alcohol was opened by a passenger or driver. This is the situation in many of the states in the US where drink driving is treated for what it is, a menace to all.
As a society, it has been suggested that we have an unhealthy relationship with drink; we do not believe that by closing outlets the State will be dealing with this fixation. The issue of alcohol availability is complex both in areas of societal, economic and competitive questions. We suggest that blaming one sector without substantial proof is a lazy option, which would fail the important tests that would still remain after the blunt and ineffective instrument of closure. - Yours, etc,
VINCENT JENNINGS
CEO,
Convenience Stores' and
Newsagents' Association,
Kildare.
Madam, - I find Pádraig Cribben's article, chronicling the challenges facing Irish pubs (Feb 27th), self-centred and irresponsible. He asserted that most drink-driving related accidents involved a blood alcohol level greater than 150mg and that lowering the current threshold from 80 to 50mg would have no effect. Does he not realise that people start under the threshold of 50mg and then work upwards? This is due to the mindset that people think they can have one drink and still drive. However, that allowance leads to greater liberties - one can lead to two or three with the potential driver still believing he is under the limit.
If we had a threshold that meant you couldn't get away with any amount of alcohol and drive then that would certainly change the mindset of drinkers. That this might lead to further decline in rural areas could well be a necessary evil.Driving is a convenience, not an absolute right - after all 50 years ago most people would have walked or cycled to their local. One drink impairs the ability to drive; the reason we tolerate even that is down to neglectful lobby groups like the VFI. - Yours, etc,
PETER O'BRIEN,
Inniscarra,
Co Cork.