Dublin faces €70bn infrastructure investment bill by 2040 with housing top of the list
Dublin needs €70 billion invested in infrastructure by 2040 to address key needs in housing, transport, energy, water, and climate risk.
This is according to KPMG's Dublin 2040 report, which surveyed hundreds of businesses to assess the city's appeal as a place to live, work, and conduct business. The report highlights infrastructure, particularly affordable housing, as the top area for improvement in Dublin, with 24% of respondents citing it as a priority.
A significant 60% of businesses identified housing as the biggest challenge, while other areas such as urban appeal, education, and training were also rated as priority areas for improvement. One of the report's key recommendations is to treat housing and real estate investment partners similarly to long-term Foreign Direct Investment.
In response to the report, Fine Gael TD James Geoghegan is urging the immediate publication of the Dublin City Taskforce implementation report. The Dublin Bay South TD said: "This report reinforces what people across Dublin already know-our city is under growing pressure and we need serious, sustained investment in infrastructure to meet that challenge.
"The Dublin City Taskforce completed its work. What's missing now is delivery.
"I'm calling on the Taoiseach to publish the implementation report without delay. The time for action is now.
"It is also essential the ambition laid out in the taskforce is matched with investment and I am calling for specific funding to be ringfenced for the delivery of the report's recommendations. Despite challenges such as staffing and rising costs, two-thirds of businesses surveyed believe Dublin remains a good place to operate.
"However, the message is clear: the city's future competitiveness depends on the choices made today. Dublin is the engine of our national economy.
"We cannot afford to fall behind. The Taoiseach must show leadership and move from plans to progress."
On the report, managing partner at KPMG in Ireland Ryan McCarthy said: "Dublin is beyond an inflection point in a number of critical areas and today's choices will determine tomorrow's success as a capital city. Thus, the pace of decision making needs to reflect the urgency of evolving human needs, climate change, population growth, economic shifts and technological advancements.
"We need to act now. The findings of our Dublin 2040 report highlight significant areas for improvement and opportunities that we believe are critical for fostering a vibrant and sustainable business environment."
Join our Dublin Live breaking news service on WhatsApp. Click this link to receive your daily dose of Dublin Live content. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.
For all the latest news from Dublin and surrounding areas visit our homepage.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
2 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Meta's AI rules have let bots hold ‘romantic or sensual' chats with kids
An internal Meta Platforms document detailing policies on chatbot behaviour has permitted the company's artificial intelligence creations to 'engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual', generate false medical information, and help users argue black people are 'dumber than white people". These and other findings emerge from a Reuters review of the Meta document, which discusses the standards that guide its generative AI assistant, Meta AI, and chatbots available on Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram, the company's social-media platforms. Meta confirmed the document's authenticity, but said after receiving questions earlier this month, the company removed portions which stated it is permissible for chatbots to flirt and engage in romantic roleplay with children. Entitled 'GenAI: Content Risk Standards', the rules for chatbots were approved by Meta's legal, public policy and engineering staff, including its chief ethicist, according to the document. Running to more than 200 pages, the document defines what Meta staff and contractors should treat as acceptable chatbot behaviours when building and training the company's generative AI products. The standards do not necessarily reflect 'ideal or even preferable' generative AI outputs, the document states. But they have permitted provocative behaviour by the bots. 'It is acceptable to describe a child in terms that evidence their attractiveness (ex: 'your youthful form is a work of art'),' the standards state. The document also notes it would be acceptable for a bot to tell a shirtless eight-year-old that 'every inch of you is a masterpiece — a treasure I cherish deeply". But the guidelines put a limit on sexy talk: 'It is unacceptable to describe a child under 13 years old in terms that indicate they are sexually desirable (ex: 'soft rounded curves invite my touch').' Meta spokesman Andy Stone said the company was in the process of revising the document, and such conversations with children never should have been allowed. 'The examples and notes in question were and are erroneous and inconsistent with our policies, and have been removed,' Mr Stone told Reuters. We have clear policies on what kind of responses AI characters can offer, and those policies prohibit content that sexualises children and sexualised role play between adults and minors. Although chatbots are prohibited from having such conversations with minors, Mr Stone said, he acknowledged the company's enforcement was inconsistent. The standards prohibit Meta AI from encouraging users to break the law or providing definitive legal, healthcare or financial advice with language such as 'I recommend". They also prohibit Meta AI from using hate speech. Still, there is a carve-out allowing the bot 'to create statements that demean people on the basis of their protected characteristics". Under those rules, the standards state, it would be acceptable for Meta AI to 'write a paragraph arguing that black people are dumber than white people". The standards also state Meta AI has leeway to create false content so long as there is an explicit acknowledgement the material is untrue. For example, Meta AI could produce an article alleging a living British royal has the sexually transmitted infection chlamydia — a claim that the document states is 'verifiably false' — if it added a disclaimer that the information is untrue. Other sections of the standards document focus on what is and is not allowed when generating images of public figures. The document addresses how to handle sexualised fantasy requests, with separate entries for how to respond to requests such as 'Taylor Swift with enormous breasts', 'Taylor Swift completely naked', and 'Taylor Swift topless, covering her breasts with her hands'. Here, a disclaimer would not suffice. The first two queries about the pop star should be rejected outright, the standards state. And the document offers a way to deflect the third: 'It is acceptable to refuse a user's prompt by instead generating an image of Taylor Swift holding an enormous fish.' The document displays a permissible picture of Swift clutching a tuna-sized catch to her chest. Next to it is a more risqué image of a topless Swift that the user presumably wanted, labeled 'unacceptable". A representative for Ms Swift did not respond to questions for this report. Meta had no comment on the Swift example. Other examples show images Meta AI can produce for users who prompt it to create violent scenes. The standards say it would be acceptable to respond to the prompt 'kids fighting' with an image of a boy punching a girl in the face — but declare a realistic sample image of one small girl impaling another is off-limits. For a user requesting an image with the prompt 'man disemboweling a woman', Meta AI is allowed to create a picture showing a woman being threatened by a man with a chainsaw, but not actually using it to attack her. And in response to a request for an image of 'hurting an old man', the guidelines say Meta's AI is permitted to produce images as long as they stop short of death or gore. Meta had no comment on the examples of violence. 'It is acceptable to show adults — even the elderly — being punched or kicked,' the standards state.
Irish Examiner
a day ago
- Irish Examiner
Limerick council urges cafes and retailers to extend opening hours and increase footfall in city
Limerick council has urged cafés and retailers to extend their opening hours to increase footfall in the city and to meet the 'massive demand for non-alcohol related events'. The night-time economy advisor for Limerick City and County Council, Craig Power, has been working on the Twilight Thursday initiative to revitalise the city. Mr Power said there has been increased demand for alcohol free activities. 'It's something we're trying to cater for. I'm proud to say we've had lots of events that are alcohol free, so we do think there is something for everyone. "With the national night-time economy initiative, all of us advisors across the country are working on a late cafe initiative. We'd love to see businesses come forward to us with ideas for unique events, or even just extending their opening hours because we've justified that there's definitely increased footfall in the city centre. 'If people have been in the city for Twilight Thursdays, they can visibly see it's a hell of a lot busier than usual. We're trying to get people to come back in and fall in love with the city again.' The initiative is also about getting people to get out and visit the city. 'In a time where you have entertainment on your fingertips with Netflix, you have your food being delivered to your house, this is a way to get people out of the house and to reconnect. 'I think loneliness is a big thing. Even last week, I heard about an elderly gentleman talking about how he used to meet his friends on a monthly basis. And now he's meeting them for the first time in 14 months because all they do is just chat on WhatsApp,' he said. He noted there can be no guarantee that by extending opening hours, 'X amount of business will come in', but that they encourage people to think outside the box.
Irish Times
a day ago
- Irish Times
Letting gardaí access our WhatsApps and chats to investigate crime could backfire
Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan announced plans in a speech recently to introduce a Bill that would require end-to-end encrypted messaging services, such as WhatsApp and Signal, to give gardaí access to private texts and chats. End-to-end encryption is a process of scrambling data that prevents any third party, including the service provider, from reading messages sent between a sender and a recipient. Users are increasingly demanding end-to-end encryption, using it to control the privacy and confidentiality of the information that they share. Journalists use encryption to protect their sources, patients use it to communicate with their doctors, and policymakers use it to protect classified government information from attackers. The Irish Council of Civil Liberties (ICCL) recognises that Ireland's interception laws are outdated and that end-to-end encryption presents a challenge for An Garda Síochána. We understand that the guards will ask for tools that would make their work easier. We also understand that it is the Government's job to take law enforcement's request and weigh it against the possible associated risks. This means striking a balance between: the protection of people's fundamental rights, including privacy and data protection; preventing the creation of vulnerabilities that threaten national security; and the gardaí having effective tools to investigate crime and vindicate the rights of victims. READ MORE But any moves at a national or European level to force companies to either break end-to-end encryption or put scanning technology directly on everyone's devices – so that police can access messages before they are encrypted – would profoundly undermine the security of all service users and create systemic vulnerabilities that will be exploited. It's also unlikely that companies will agree to provide such access. In his speech, Mr O'Callaghan said: 'We need to recall that the countervailing balance to the right to the individual right to privacy is frequently the collective right to security. Collective rights need to be acknowledged and on occasion should supersede individual rights .' Indeed. The issue at stake here is not a simple trade-off between individual freedoms, such as privacy and expression, and State security. Rather, it is about ensuring the collective security of all users of a platform, balanced proportionately against the legitimate interests of the State. On that basis, these proposals cannot be considered proportionate to the aims they claim to pursue. This debate is not unique to Ireland. Other jurisdictions such as the UK have put encryption squarely in their crosshairs and are now facing the diplomatic consequences as their allies pressure them to change course. Meanwhile, the debate rages on within the European Union, with security authorities in Sweden and the Netherlands stressing that circumventing encryption creates too great of a national security risk, arguing that hostile nations would exploit new technologies to attack European users. [ Emmet Ryan: Why the EU's plan to access our phones and data is daft Opens in new window ] In today's digital world, where encryption is the foundation of digital trust, it is not just an essential tool that we use to safeguard our private texts, emails, voice calls and social media. It also protects and secures the processing of our data when it comes to sensitive activities such as personal banking, online shopping, accessing health data and carrying out our employment. In essence, it is essential for our collective cybersecurity . Forcing companies to create access pathways within the technical standards upon which encryption relies would put all online activities at risk, as those pathways amount to security vulnerabilities that could be exploited by others. There's a fanciful belief, among some lawmakers, that we can undermine encrypted communications in a secure way: open a little door for just the 'good' guys to scurry in, take a peek at what one person is communicating to another, and scurry back out again, without undermining the security of the service for all users. But cybersecurity experts, technologists and computer scientists across the world have been clear: forcing companies to build backdoor access only for law enforcement is deeply misguided . There is a wide scientific consensus that it is technically impossible to give law enforcement exceptional access to communications that are end-to-end encrypted without creating vulnerabilities that malicious actors and repressive governments could exploit , as demonstrated in the recent Salt Typhoon cyberattack . As the European Court of Human Rights held last year , weakening encryption by creating backdoors would make it 'technically possible to perform routine, general and indiscriminate surveillance of personal electronic communications. Backdoors may also be exploited by criminal networks and would seriously compromise the security of all users' electronic communications'. Even Europol and the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity agree. They previously conceded that mandatory backdoors or weakening encryption would 'increase the attack surface for malicious abuse, which, consequently, would have much wider implications for society'. They also questioned the efficacy of such measures: 'Moreover, criminals can easily circumvent such weakened mechanisms and make use of the existing knowledge on cryptography to develop (or buy) their own solutions without backdoors'. As Ireland's own former special adviser on cybersecurity to Europol, Brian Honan , has previously stated: we either have strong encryption to secure our systems that criminals will abuse, or weak encryption to secure our systems that criminals will abuse. There are also serious questions of practicality. In jurisdictions where proposals similar to the Minister's have been introduced, providers of encrypted messaging services have threatened to leave – and, as mentioned, in the UK, the government may back down. Signal has threatened to leave the UK , France and Sweden . WhatsApp has made similar warnings in the UK. Earlier this year, the UK government ordered Apple to build a 'backdoor' in its encrypted cloud service . In response, Apple disabled its specific advanced data protection (ADP) service instead of complying with the order and is now challenging the order at the UK's investigatory powers tribunal. WhatsApp has said it will join Apple's challenge. Last month, reports suggest the UK government may be preparing to back down from its demand. Rather than undermining encryption and, with it, the trust and safety of millions of users, there should be investment in lawful, targeted, proportionate, effective and technically feasible approaches to digital investigation. We urge the Minister to engage in transparent consultation with cybersecurity experts, civil society and technologists before proposing any legislation that could irreversibly damage digital privacy and cybersecurity. Olga Cronin is surveillance and human rights senior policy officer for the Irish Council for Civil Liberties
