asked the Minister for health (i) the number of patients on the orthodontic waiting list in the Western Health Board on 31 December 1979, (ii) the number of such patients referred for treatment during 1979, and (iii) the number of such patients it is expected will be called for treatment in 1980.

The Western Health Board had 1,999 patients on its orthodontic waiting list on 31 December 1979. 285 patients were referred for treatment during 1979.

Under existing arrangements it could be expected that approximately 320 patients would be called for treatment in 1980. However, it is intended to appoint a whole-time orthodontist for this area during the year, with adequate clinical support staff. This should result in a significant increase in the number of cases commencing treatment.

Surely the Minister must agree that this is a scandalous situation and even at the present rate, some of these patients will have to wait up to ten years before they are treated.

The Deputy will be aware of the fact that there has been a vastly increasing demand for the services of these specialist orthodontists. In view of that, in relation to the area to which the question applies, I have said that it is intended, during this year, to appoint a full-time orthodontist. I cannot, at this point, do any more than that.

Would the Minister not agree that that is not even sufficient?

I accept that everyone would like to see many more specialists of all kinds, but this is only one health board area and there is a similar demand all over the country in all health board areas. In this event, the addition of a further orthodontist to this particular area will greatly ease the position.

Surely the Minister must agree that considering that there are approximately 2,000 patients on the list, the waiting period for people on the list now for this type of treatment will be at least seven years. Surely that is totally unreasonable?

I shall just stick to what I have said, that, in effect, we are appointing an additional specialist.

I am asking is that reasonable or unreasonable?

I think it is most reasonable of the Minister in the year that is in it, at this point in time, to respond to this question by saying that he will appoint one additional orthodontist to the area in which the Deputy is involved as well as Deputy Molloy, who put the question.

The Government spent all the money on votes.

Deputy Molloy put the question. This certainly is distinct progress in that area.

As a member of the said board, could I ask the Minister if he is aware that that particular kind of orthodontist treatment becomes very urgent because unless it is given or applied before the child reaches the age of 13 or 14 at the latest, it is useless. That is what I am told at least. Because of that, there is no way in which that kind of facility will clear that backlog and those children will be over the maximum age at which the treatment can be effective to them. We are talking about a specific area where the urgency is greater than in other medical or dental areas.

I accept that this is an area of considerable urgency. In fact, I have considerable personal experience in the area. I know and appreciate the importance of the work done there and know that it has been growing very rapidly in recent years. This is one of the reasons why I was particularly interested in seeing that something would be done even in the current circumstances. I am making arrangements not only for that area but also for other areas. The profession will accept that this will represent a major step ahead throughout the country generally and that a part of that improvement will take place in the area in question.

Could I ask the Minister when the orthodontist is to take up duty in the Western Health Board area?

I cannot answer that question. It was not the question in the first instance.

But the Minister is appointing one.

The appointment is approved, so it is a question of finding suitable people who are prepared to take the job. The first point arising following the budget is the question of approval and, as far as I am concerned, that is the point with which I can deal. It is a question of routine procedure and people being interested in taking up the post.

Could I ask the number of children between the ages of 12 and 16 who are not covered for dental treatment at the moment?

That is a different question.

The question is related to the number of applicants in that category.

I do not think that that information is included. That information is not given because that question was not asked.