I welcome news that minimum pricing for alcohol is to be introduced. Finally we are dealing with the issue in a serious way. Full details are to be released tomorrow. We were awaiting the result of the Scottish case in the European court that dealt with many of the issues raised by Senator Rónán Mullen. The more potent the alcohol, the higher the price. That will act as a disincentive and a deterrent in the case of beverages with a higher alcohol content. Large multiple retailers are using below-cost selling of alcohol to get people into their stores. A startling statistic is that they spend more than one fifth of their advertising budget on alcohol advertising. In a country where children born in the 1980s drank alcohol for the first time at 16 years and those born in the 1990s at 14 years, something must be done. There is potentially a huge cost to society, estimated at €1.2 billion every year. A huge volume of alcohol can be purchased and still have change from €10. The sponsorship issue must be addressed, but it is welcome that we are implementing this effective measure to address a serious issue. This is a country where 54% of children admit to being drunk before the age of 16 years. Establishing a minimum cost of alcohol-----

Is the Senator looking for a debate on the issue?

I am always looking for a debate on it. I am looking for a debate in the context of what Senator Rónan Mullen said, that we debate the strategy. I know where the Senator is coming from, but it is welcome that we are clearly implementing a strategy.

Before calling Senator Fidelma Healy Eames, I welcome to the Visitors Gallery members of the Nenagh branch of the Organisation of National Ex-Servicemen and Women.

We must face up to the fact that universal State provision of any benefit is a luxury. While it might be the ideal, in these times it is certainly a luxury. I listened to the debate on health service provision and free GP care for children under five years of age. We saw the folly of providing it for everyone over 70 years of age. Money should follow need, not the patient. If a child aged seven years has cancer or is in need, he or she should receive care, irrespective of the fact that he or she is older than five years. I support the call for a broad debate on the issue. Sometimes, it is not possible to have what is the ideal.

I agree with Senator Martin Conway that the Minister for Health was pilloried unfairly in the media last weekend. Let us think about the matter. Since the budget, a new report suggests maternity services must be benchmarked in a new way across every hospital in the country. That is right, but it is a new call on budgetary measures. There are also new measures for junior doctors. How could the Minister have planned for this? There is a call for extra money and, naturally, the budget will overrun. We must adopt a sensible approach to this matter, not just call for someone's head when something is different from what was expected initially.

I ask for a debate on universal State provision of benefits, in particular, health benefits for children under five years of age. I also want the wider issue of health insurance to be debated because the situation is getting out of control. It is very hard for families to afford health insurance. I was checking on the cost of health insurance and I find the only time one can get an improved deal is at the renewal date. That may not suit every family. They might have more time to do it at another stage. There should be flexibility from the health insurance companies.