David Norris (Independent)

In those circumstances, it is regrettable that the objective of achieving the 0.7% figure has stalled. For a while it even went backwards. The comparatively small amounts of money involved make it shameful.

I respect that good northside Dublin Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern. Like the Minister of State, he has the capacity to make one feel as one walks out of his office that one has the sun, the moon and the stars. First, the stars dissolve, then the moonlight dwindles. As things begin to get darker, one finds that one has not got everything one originally believed one had. Ireland has withdrawn from a commitment made by the Taoiseach which is unfortunate and serious. I am sure of his sincerity at the time. However, there was also some politicking as Ireland sought a seat on the UN Security Council. For promising the 0.7% figure, we got all the votes from those little countries. It was clever horse trading at which the Taoiseach is good. However, one must deliver at the end. If one does not, not only is the international community disillusioned but the national community is likewise.

Has the Minister listened to the reports of this dispute between the hospital consultants and the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children? I support the Government on this matter. It is laughable that hospital consultants who receive these enormous fees and have 80% of their insurance premia paid by the Government should object to it brokering a good deal from the British insurers. It is a daft dispute. One argument made by the consultants is that one cannot rely on politicians. The first example given was what was described as the welching on the 0.7% overseas development aid target. I doubt too many consultants were actually heartbroken over the matter. However, they used it as an example. The other example used was the matter of the release of Jerry McCabe's killers, which is again off the table. It is interesting that the failure to reach the 0.7% target has entered the public perception as an example of how politicians cannot be trusted.

It is particularly sad when one considers AIDS infection, literacy levels and poverty in the developing world. The number of people infected with AIDS between 1990 and 2000 doubled. This is a horrifying situation when one considers that it is treatable. When AIDS first struck Ireland, I recall attending a procession of funerals for those lovely young people cut down in the flower of their youth in a most awful death. Now, those with AIDS are not dying and look as healthy as any of us because of the advances in drug treatments. The advances made in the West can be copied in Africa. We have the capacity to keep these people alive. Last night a television programme on AIDS in Africa showed an unfortunate little girl left on her own in a village. One marvellous woman, with her fantastic headgear and flamboyance, said that as all these people came to her, she had to take them in to look after them. She did so on nothing. The cost of AIDS treatment in Africa would amount to €150 million a year. Figuratively speaking it would get lost in a hole in one's tooth. This State, and its consumer society, will not miss €150 million a year.

As an independent Senator, I sometimes support the Government and sometimes the Opposition. I often praise the Government for the good work it does in this area. However, I cannot stand this shilly-shallying. The House, through this motion, wants to support the Minister of State in increasing overseas development aid as Deputy O'Donnell did. She was fantastic in doing so and we, along with many Fianna Fáil Members, will support the Minister of State if he tries to do the same.

Some 2.2 million children die each year from a lack of immunisation, a simple injection which costs a few cents. That is where the money could go. Some 1.2 billion people live on less than $1 per day and we in this overblown, bloated economy, bulging with cash, cannot afford €150 million annually to live up to the commitment solemnly given.

That is a pity and the excuse given is bizarre. There is a kind of Swiftian irony involved. Recently I heard the argument that the real problem is that we made the promise when we were comparatively poor, although the Minister of State says the opposite. The argument is that our success means more money is involved in the contribution because it is expressed as a fraction, so that 0.3% is more now because we have a bigger income.