Áine Brady (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)

I do not consider that arbitration would serve a useful purpose in this context. Arbitration is a wonderful tool where disputes concern complex work projects or prolonged and detailed service agreements. However, the issue in question is the price charged for the purpose of the scheme. The resident will decide which nursing home to occupy, the quality of the service will be governed by the new standards and supervision will be a matter for the Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA.

The goods and services which constitute long-term residential care services will be effectively circumscribed by the information laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas by the Minister for Health and Children. As such, the NTPF and the nursing homes would not negotiate on the volume, range or quality of service to be provided. They will merely negotiate on price. If a nursing home cannot demonstrate to the NTPF that it is offering value for money, I fail to see the value of arbitration. The only possible role of an arbitrator would be to undermine the position of the NTPF, which effectively means undermining the taxpayer.

The issue of administrative costs also arises. The NTPF will negotiate with 400 nursing homes and the amendment would enable each of these to seek arbitration. The potential costs associated with such a provision would be significant both in terms of additional staff and the process of arbitration.

In framing this legislation, the Government has been mindful to place the person at the centre of every policy decision and to safeguard and protect the individual both as care recipient and taxpayer. It is not in the interest of care recipients or taxpayers to accept an amendment which would have the effect of undermining the NTPF's negotiating position before it commences its functions and diverting State funds away from the provision of financial support and towards an administrative procedure of questionable value. For these reasons I cannot accept amendment No. 33.

Amendment No. 34 limits the power of the NTPF to examine the records and accounts of approved nursing homes. This amendment is legally ambiguous because the interpretation of what is reasonable could differ between the NTPF and the private nursing home. It would be administratively cumbersome and time consuming because a number of written notices would be required from the NTPF, the nursing homes and the Minister. It would be necessary to designate separately an individual to examine the accounts of the nursing homes and prepare reports. The amendment excludes the board from receiving the final report and is unclear with regard to who determines the final outcome or agreed price. As such, it leaves a lacuna within legislation which would serve to undermine the entire scheme.

It should be noted that the existing provision states that the NTPF may examine the accounts of private nursing homes wishing to be part of the scheme. As such, the provision is enabling rather than prescriptive. It ensures the NTPF is legally supported in seeking prices for nursing home care which represent value for taxpayers' money and can guard against price collusion and cartel behaviour. I do not propose to accept the amendment, therefore.