Report argues problems need to be fixed or more money will be wasted, writes John McManus.
In a draft of the report on its mid-term review of the National Development Plan (NDP), the ESRI says it has decided against recommending substantial increases in many programmes because of "concerns with the ability [of the plan] to deliver a major increase efficiently and on time".
As examples, the institute singles out roads, urban transport and social housing as "serious economic bottle necks" and areas where the current provision in the plan is inadequate. But it argues that "there are serious concerns about over-design (especially in transport), poor cost control and the capacity of the building and construction sector to deliver increased output without inflationary consequences."
A more rapid roll-out of such infrastructure cannot be justified unless it is shown that these problems are being dealt with, according to the report.
The ESRI has reviewed all six of the operational programmes in the National Development Plan. Its report is based on its own analysis and work carried out for it by a number of consultancies.
The agency calls for cuts in many of the areas included in the €22.3 billion economic and social infrastructure programme, which is the largest of the six programmes. However, it argues that spending on both national roads and public transport should be maintained at current levels.
The agency believes that many roads are being built to a higher specification than necessary, singling out sections of the N8 and the N9. "No economic analysis has been offered to our knowledge to justify the design inflation which has occurred".
It recommends that all future road projects be scaled back to the minimum level recommended by an earlier report, the Road Needs Study.
The review is critical of the cost overrun on the Luas and recommends caution on any further fixed-line investments in Dublin. "The net impact to date of bus and rail investment in the Dublin area has been a substantial improvement in bus patronage, at modest cost, versus a disappointing passenger performance by rail, at substantial cost".
The review also calls for cuts in wastewater and water-supply measures, arguing that spending in this area is being driven by EU directives rather than "environmental priorities".
Spending on local authority housing, voluntary housing and access to affordable housing measures should also be trimmed back. Housing is currently the largest single area of spending under the infrastructure programme.
According to the ESRI, State spending on social housing actually drives up prices due to the shortage of supply and other constraints.
Spending under the acute hospitals programme should also be cut, says the ESRI. It argues that "further investment in the health system should only be undertaken in the context of meaningful reform, on the basis that identifiable benefits exceed the costs and that the delivery of these benefits is subsequently assessed."
The study queries the projection that 3,000 acute hospital beds will be needed by 2011. It suggests that the first priority should be to ensure that all beds in public hospitals remain open, rather than being closed for seasonal and funding reasons.
The ESRI also comments that "it is difficult to justify committing public money to building new beds when currently 20 per cent of beds in public hospitals are designated as private or semi-private."
The review also argues that "new hospital beds are very costly" compared to existing beds and "any suggestion that we need new hospitals should be greeted with great scepticism when there are glaring efficiency differences between the hospitals currently in the system".
The tax breaks for building private hospitals "make no sense" and should be ended, says the ESRI, because for the most part the very sick are treated in the public health system.
Cuts in spending are recommended in 12 out of the 26 main areas in the €6 billion regional operating programmes, which cover the Border, Midlands and Western region as well as the South and East region.
The review has identified areas in this programme where it is concerned over either a lack of economic justification or cost.
Amongst the areas where the ESRI believes spending should be curtailed are measures aimed at improving the rural water supply, the costs of which, the review says, are "quite high".
It also questions the quality of road improvements and maintenance under the non-national roads programme.
Spending under the local enterprise heading of the regional programme "are not supported well on economic grounds" and often the problems they seek to address are not obvious. Further investment in tourism under this measure "is unlikely to carry high returns," says the ESRI.
Cuts are also recommended in the four other operational programmes. In the €5.7 billion programme covering State support for industry, the ESRI wants to see cuts in three-quarters of the programmes. They argue that the sorts of problems this spending addresses have diminished. The main exception is support for foreign direct investment.
It calls for spending to be maintained on research, but argues that "ramping up" spending can be inefficient if there are not enough high-quality projects.
Spending under the €12.5 billion employment and human resources development operational programme should be refocused to put in place measures that will prevent people who are losing their jobs at the moment slipping into long-term unemployment, it recommends.
The review makes only limited comments on the PEACE II operational programme, which is at an early stage. The programme supports initiatives in the Border area and Northern Ireland. The ESRI warns that, "there is a danger that this ... could end up supporting projects that have failed to find funding elsewhere."
The final operational programme is the technical assistance programme, which provides support for the management of the plan. The ESRI calls for its funding to be increased.