I come here to talk about problems in my own area and those of the people who elected me to Dáil Éireann. We have major problems, but we must also view matters in a more global context. Before coming here, I was on Radio Waterford talking about the lack of a radiotherapy unit there. The interviewer said to me that there were no votes in it and asked me why I was doing it. I said to her that I was doing it because I believed in it and because it was very important. The Minister was supposed to come in this morning to talk to us about the radiotherapy report, but he did not turn up, since he has gone to the Continent. His job is at home in Ireland and he should look after Ireland first. He promised to attend but did not do so.
Having said that, on some occasions we must take a broader view. I am very proud to stand here and talk about this Bill, since it is doing something that we should be doing. I know we have made certain commitments, along with many other nations. By 2007, we are supposed to be dedicating 0.7% of our GNP to overseas aid. That is a very important and laudable thing and we should be doing it. Other countries may not have been as good as us, though, even donating 0.4% of GNP, we are not as good as we should be. At the same time, we are making an effort. However, there has been a freeze on that money and that is both lamentable and regrettable. The Government should get on track.
In Ireland, the island of saints and scholars, we always had something for someone else. In my area of the country, it is called a meitheal. There was always something there for the neighbour. Though times were hard, people helped each other by sharing what they had, even though it was very little. In our economy, now the fourth richest in the world, if we do not have money for our less well-off brethren, who does? That is something that we should be proud to do, and that is why I am very happy to speak on this Bill.
There are other issues surrounding this Bill. It may be seen as a hand-out encouraging the wrong mentality, with the result that people feel it is better to give something requiring repayments. That is part of the equation and it is part of the work of the IDA to give money, but with a repayment commitment. That allows it to give even more, since the money comes back again, and it is very important that that happens. However, AIDS and some other transmittable diseases are not a problem for us compared with Africa, where AIDS is the biggest killer. To people there, HIV-AIDS is extremely important, and it must be addressed. We know what is going on, so we have an obligation to try to help out in that regard.
When one thinks about it, the world is a small place and travel has made it smaller still. People go to bed hungry and die of TB and AIDS. Millions die of malaria, polio and so on, while others lack basic social services and adequate running water. Money is available for international help but the completely preventable war in Iraq, which should not have happened, has meant there are competing needs for funds, such as the rebuilding of that country. We have got things very wrong regarding what we should be doing. Ireland has a great opportunity as holder of the EU Presidency to give some direction in all this. "Make love, not war" was the catchphrase in the old San Francisco days, but perhaps that should have been remembered in this House when we aided and abetted the USA in going into Iraq and doing such damage.
We have a very proud record of helping one another and that is why I support this Bill. We are doing something of which we can be proud. Let us consider the terrible problems. I mentioned the idea of a grant versus a loan. The old saying is that, if one gives a man a fish, one feeds him for a day, but if one teaches him to fish, one feeds him for life. That is very much taken on board. There has been a debate about whether this money should be used for public projects such as social services, AIDS prevention and so on, or to give a hand-up to small companies which could boost their economies by being viable themselves. When one considers the number of people living on less than $1 a day in the world, it seems ludicrous that some countries have so much while others have so little. The World Bank has 184 member nations and they should be able to contribute globally to much greater effect than at present. There were 98 new cases of polio in 2002. Nigeria is the most polio-endemic country in Africa. These diseases should not be found in those countries. If the world was right all these diseases would be eliminated because the means exist to tackle them. I know there is major support for education.
Education is very important, and almost half of the children in Africa and one quarter of those in south and west Asia are not in education. If people do not have a basic education, where can they go? These are all major problems that require proper solutions.
The AIDS problem in Africa has to be considered. In the 19th century the means were not available to deal with those diseases. Nothing could be done about them. Science and knowledge were inadequate and this prevented lives from being saved. However, now that the necessary science and technology exist, we must face the reality that we do not care enough. There is a major input to be made. While there is as yet no vaccine for AIDS, one might well be developed. Extra expenditure on vaccines in general, however, could save an extra 2 million lives a year.
It must be remembered that these are people like ourselves, with needs, who go to bed hungry at night and die of these diseases. Think of the life expectancy for the AIDS victim and the problems people have. Is it right that their problems are so acute? In sub-Saharan Africa life expectancy peaked at 49 years in the 1980s and is projected to fall to just under 46 years by 2005. Everyone in this Chamber would be dead if they lived in sub-Saharan Africa, such is the life expectancy there. That is shocking.
An estimated 2.2 million HIV positive women give birth every year. There are currently about 14 million HIV-AIDS orphans in the world, most of them in Africa, and that figure is expected to reach 25 million by 2010. By then up to 25% of the children in some sub-Saharan countries will be orphans. Think about it. Prophylactic treatment and anti-retrovirals in combination with other interventions have almost entirely eliminated HIV infection in infants in industrialised countries. In other words, we can reverse all this. We can virtually eliminate this in our own country with money, but when it is not there, people just die.
The risk of HIV transmission in infants in developing countries where breast feeding is the norm can be reduced by more than 50% in mothers receiving short courses of anti-retroviral therapy. Almost six million people in developing countries need anti-retroviral therapy, but only about 400,000 of them received it in 2003. It is obvious that there is much to be done in light of these statistics, and it is possible. Early intervention can solve the problem. There is a great lesson in that for Africa. Senegal, for instance, began its anti-AIDS programme in 1986 before the virus had got a proper grip on the population, and it has managed to keep its infection rate below 2%. Uganda began its programme early in the 1990s when 40% of the adult population was already infected. Now that figure is down to 8% and falling. The disease has been stopped in its tracks in those countries.
In other countries, however, such as Botswana, the incidence is extremely high, with 38.8% of the population infected with HIV-AIDS. When one thinks of it like that one realises there are so many problems and so much to be done. I welcome this Bill. It is a step in the right direction, but we should be doing much more.
