Irish government reveals date new state-of-the-art data centre set to open
Work began on the site, in Backweston, Co. Kildare, in 2023 and the construction project was completed in July of this year.
The internal fit-out is expected to be completed by the end of this year, with services migrating to the new tech centre in early 2026.
Ireland's Digitilisation Minister Emer Higgins has provided an update on the new data centre
Developed as part of Ireland's National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), under the European Union's recovery plan, NextGenerationEU, the data centre is set to future proof the delivery of essential digital services in Ireland.
'The Backweston shared Government Data Centre is a fantastic example of how NextGenerationEU funding is delivering real, tangible results,' Minister Higgins said after visting the site this week.
'This complex build was completed on time and on budget, which is a testament to the skill and dedication of everyone involved,' she added.
'It will harness the latest and most efficient technologies to ensure that vital Government data is stored in a secure and energy-efficient way, meeting the Government's technology and energy-saving requirements both now and into the future.
'This state-of-the-art facility will give State bodies the ICT infrastructure they need to work more efficiently, streamline processes, reduce duplication and bring greater consistency to how public services are delivered,' the minister explained.
'It will be operational from 2026 onwards, marking a significant step forward in our digital transformation journey, delivering on commitments in the Programme for Government and ultimately helping us to provide better public services to the people of Ireland. I welcome this important progress.'
See More: Data Centre, Emer Higgins, Ireland, Kildare
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
5 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Academic row over 'temperature neutrality' vs 'climate neutrality'
Ireland's national climate objective is set out in the 2015 Climate Act. It is to "pursue and achieve" and make the transition to "a climate resilient, biodiversity rich, environmentally sustainable and climate neutral economy" by the year 2050. There are massive commitments packed into that single sentence, yet it is not really clear what precisely it means. Ireland's climate scientists are now fighting over that issue. The first bit is OK - climate resilience. We are going to have intense rain, more frequent and violent storms, bigger droughts and greater heat stress. Resilience means preparing to live with that. The biodiversity bit is OK too. Protecting nature is not hard to understand and most people would sign up for that. The third term – "environmentally sustainable". Some people think "sustainability" on its own is a bit of a wishy-washy term. But environmental sustainability is now commonly understood. Committees have been set up to focus on it in workplaces and communities all over the country. But that last phrase in the national climate objective, the commitment to a "climate neutral economy". That is a different ball game altogether. There is no agreement about what this entails, and a big academic row has now broken out among climate scientists about it. They are at loggerheads over what exactly climate neutrality is and how it should be measured. On one side is the Climate Change Advisory Council. This is the independent statutory body of climate experts that advises the Government about climate matters. It is their job to set Ireland's so-called "carbon budgets". This involves calculating how much cumulative greenhouse gas emissions need to be restricted to, every five years, if the country is to stay within its legally binding climate commitments. A huge amount of data and information, and some very important judgement calls, are needed for their calculations. The data and information parts are complicated but straightforward enough. Judgement calls however, are never straight forward and can be very controversial, as they are in this case. This week, a group of climate scientists took a major swipe at a most important judgement call recently made by the Climate Change Advisory Council when setting Ireland's carbon budget for the years 2031 to 2035. They accused the council of choosing to define climate neutrality in a way that confers a competitive advantage on Irish agriculture. Their complaint, which is a serious one, is that the Government's key climate advisers are choosing now, for the first time, to substitute "temperature neutrality" for "climate neutrality" when calculating Ireland's carbon budget. It means the Climate Change Advisory Council has told the Government it is OK to only ensure that by 2050 Ireland causes no additional warming to the earth's atmosphere. This is not the same as delivering "net zero" emissions from Ireland by 2050 which is much harder to achieve. The "net zero" approach puts the key emphasis on the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions. It requires, among other things, enormous changes in farming practices, forestry and land use to ensure that absolutely all greenhouse gases still coming out of Ireland by 2050 are re-absorb by natural processes here. Of course, the alternative "temperature neutrality" approach, now favoured by the Climate Change Advisory Council, aims to do everything possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But the difference with this approach is that the ultimate emphasis is to ensure the contribution Ireland is making to rising global temperatures is zero by 2050. The council explained that it considered multiple definitions of what climate neutrality means before deciding that, for Ireland in particular, it had to mean ensuring temperature neutrality. It also explained that in making this judgement call, it reflected on the national climate objective and was guided by the objectives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It said the Paris Agreement's long-term temperature goal - which is to limit global warming to well below 2C and pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5˚C - was also key in its deliberations. Ireland produces nine times more beef and dairy output than it consumes. Because of this it has an unusual greenhouse gas emissions profile, with a far higher share of methane emissions than most other countries. New Zealand is similar. But there are not many other places in the developed world where agriculture is so dominant. Methane from agriculture is an enormously potent greenhouse gas. It is capable of trapping about 85 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide over a short time frame. After about 10 years however, methane dissipates. It breaks down and disappears from the atmosphere. So, its impact on global temperature ceases in a few short years while the warming effect of carbon dioxide carries on for several hundred years. All this means that a country with a huge agriculture sector can have an outsized impact in terms of limiting global warming by doing a relatively small amount of methane reduction. It gives it more wriggle room if the main aim is to eliminate a nation's contribution to rising global temperature. In some circumstances it could even enable a country to ease up on carbon emission efforts in sectors outside of agriculture and still ensure a lower contribution to the global warming potential of its national greenhouse gas mix. It turns out that this is precisely the impact the Climate Change Advisory Council's adaptation of the temperature neutrality target has for Ireland. The council itself has gone to some length to explain and document this impact. It calculated that aiming for temperature neutrality instead of net zero emissions will enable Ireland to emit an additional nine million tonnes of greenhouse gases during the first five years of the next decade. It also said it is entirely up to the Government to decide which sectors of the economy can share in that additional climate mitigation wriggle room, and by how much. Its carbon budget proposal document says all this will be fine "provided the rest of the world follows an emissions pathway that can be considered compliant with the Paris Agreement long term temperature goals". In essence what they are saying is that since most countries in the world do not have as large an agriculture sector as Ireland, or New Zealand, they are unlikely to choose the same temperature neutrality approach. That is because there is no advantage for them in doing so. And if that remains the case then all will be well. It is an approach that has startled the critics who have specifically highlighted the polar opposite argument – that it would be a disaster if every country followed Ireland and adopted temperature neutrality as their climate target. The dissenters insist it would seriously jeopardise the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5˚C. These criticisms are outlined in a paper published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, by Dr Colm Duffy and David Styles of University of Galway, Dr Róisín Moriarty and Professor Hannah Daly of University College Cork, and Carl Doedens and Malte Meinshausen of the University of Melbourne. They claim that Ireland's approach rewards modest cuts in methane emissions and serves to protect what they describe as "methane emissions privileges" at the expense of poorer nations. In doing so, they say it locks in current inequalities in the global food system. Their paper highlights that, by enabling Ireland to maintain a high share of global agriculture emissions, adopting the temperature neutrality target undermines the global transition to a sustainable and equitable food system. They note too that it dramatically reduces the level of ambition needed for overall greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Many might argue that the additional wriggle room it provides of nine million tonnes of emissions for Ireland spread out over a nine-year period does not sound particularly dramatic. However, if lots of countries were to benefit from the same approach the impact could become dramatic very quickly.
Irish Times
5 hours ago
- Irish Times
Catherine Connolly says we ‘cannot trust' the US, England and France
Presidential election candidate Catherine Connolly has said the European Union has 'lost its moral compass' and that we 'cannot trust' the United States , England and France . She said Irish people should resist a 'trend towards imperialism' in the EU, as the bloc is becoming 'increasingly militarised'. Ms Connolly, the only confirmed candidate for the upcoming election, has also renewed her criticism of Russia, Nato and countries such as the US,, the UK and France, when asked about her stance on certain international issues. Setting out her position in response to questions posed by The Irish Times, Ms Connolly said: 'The US, England and France are deeply entrenched in an arms industry which causes bloodshed across the world – as a staunch advocate for neutrality, this behaviour must be condemned.' During a Dáil speech last February Ms Connolly referred to Government plans to scrap the 'triple lock' on the deployment of Irish troops abroad – a proposal she opposes, arguing it threatens Ireland's neutrality. She agreed with another contributor that there are countries 'we certainly cannot trust' adding: 'America is one of those and England and France are others. READ MORE 'What is behind their motivation is simply an arms industry, more war' and 'making huge profits'. She said: 'That needs to be called out over and over.' The left-wing Independent TD is the only confirmed candidate in the race for Áras an Uachtaráin after Fine Gael politician Mairead McGuinness dropped out for health reasons. Ms Connolly, who has the backing of the Social Democrats, Labour and People Before Profit to enter the election, has long been a campaigner for Irish neutrality and has been vocal on the horror of the war in Gaza. Her stance on global issues such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine are coming under scrutiny now that she is running for president. The Galway West TD has condemned Russia and branded its president Vladimir Putin a 'dictator' during Dáil statements on the conflict and has spoken of the need to 'show solidarity with the people of Ukraine'. She has also strongly criticised the Nato military alliance, accusing it of engaging in 'warmongering' on the eve of the conflict. In response to questions on this, Ms Connolly said: 'Russia is conducting an illegal invasion of Ukraine – it must immediately end its horrific assault.' She also said: 'I have criticised Nato as its warmongering and escalation towards conflict over the years is at odds with achieving peace in regions across the world.' She accused US president Donald Trump of 'supporting Israel trampling on international law and reducing Gaza to nothing'. Asked if she would meet Mr Trump should he visit Ireland, Ms Connolly replied: 'If elected, I would meet all heads of state as mandated by the Constitution and the office of president.' She also said she supports the EU but argued that it has 'lost sight of its foundations: a project developed to promote and preserve peace'. She contended that: 'The EU has become increasingly militarised under the leadership of Ursula von der Leyen and the European People's Party – this direction can only bring pain. 'As Irish people, we must resist this trend towards imperialism and show support for Palestine and Ukraine as Europeans. 'The EU has lost its moral compass.' Meanwhile, Ms Connolly has also been joined by former Independent TD Maureen O'Sullivan in defending a 2018 trip they took to Syria with then-fellow TDs Clare Daly and Mick Wallace at a time when brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad was still in power and a civil war was raging. Ms O'Sullivan said the trip was 'humanitarian visit' insisting: 'We weren't going there to support Assad.'
Irish Times
5 hours ago
- Irish Times
The more US tax money we get, the more dysfunctional the Irish economy becomes
From plutocrat to bureaucrat, everyone seems to have an opinion on Dublin's proposed MetroLink . Some argue it's too expensive to build, others that it's too expensive not to build. One opinion that appears to have more purchase in Government circles was articulated recently in this newspaper – and it is the view of corporate United States . The intervention of the multinationals will be critical because the State is captured by them. Being hostage to the concerns of large taxpayers and employers has its pros and cons. The impact on Ireland of boardroom US and its local handler, the Industrial Development Agency (IDA), is important. Most of the time we see only the impressive and unambiguously positive top-line tax and employment numbers. However, there is also a potentially harmful impact of Ireland's foreign investment policy, which explains some of the anomalies from the relative absence of local industrial champions and the attitude of the State bureaucracy, to the price of houses, rates of immigration and the high costs of doing business here. READ MORE The central fact that one sector is favoured over others is also a helpful framework in understanding how the Irish economic policy works, and for whom. In a nutshell, Ireland suffers from what economists term 'Dutch Disease'. In the late-1960s, the Netherlands found large quantities of natural gas in the North Sea. This was largely hailed as a fortuitous windfall, particularly in the 1970s as various Middle Eastern wars and crises sent the price of energy skywards. With its own source of power, the Netherlands didn't need to import energy and was benefiting when many European energy importers were suffering. So far so rosy. [ Growth in Irish living standards is likely to disappoint over the next 20 years Opens in new window ] However, over time the Dutch noticed that other industries in the Netherlands started to suffer. Wages in the booming and high-productivity gas sector began to drag up the wages in other areas of the economy, because workers were getting higher wages in the gas sector and moving or were demanding equivalent wages to their neighbour who was newly employed in the gasworks. Rents and house prices also started to rise, pushed up by the recently enriched workers in the gas sector who could pay more. Dutch society paid for the gas bonanza in a variety of unforeseen ways. Photograph: Getty Images The Dutch currency, the guilder, appreciated, making it more difficult for every industry not associated with gas, to export. Finally, as the gas industry was the sexy new industry, it lobbied the government for preferential treatment in terms of taxes and benefits, and these were granted. Over time not only were other industries and sectors squeezed out by the behemothic natural gas sector but the State itself fell in love with natural gas, to the detriment of the rest of the economy. By the mid-1980s what had been seen as a one-off, fortuitous, everyone's-a-winner, windfall came to be seen as something more complicated. Large parts of the Dutch economy suffered and the society paid for the gas bonanza in a variety of unforeseen ways. This more nuanced analysis, where the dominant new industry elbows out the more plodding but profitable old industries was termed 'Dutch Disease'. In poorer countries, the same dynamic is regularly known as the 'curse of resources', where a developing country finds oil, and the oil industry ends up dominating everything and ultimately lobbies to dictate and bend policy to its whims. All the money of the country is sucked up by the resources industry, and the fruits of the dividend are rarely evenly shared. Ireland is experiencing a form of Dutch Disease. The multinationals are akin to a resource find, a spigot that churns out tax revenue, resulting in other parts of the State bureaucracy trying to get their hands on this cash and divvy it up accordingly. Precisely because there is so much money gushing out of the multinationals and going directly into the public sector, that public sector spending increases dramatically and various lobby groups petition to grab some of the bonanza. The Department of Public Expenditure moves from being the guardian of hard-earned tax money, to the spender of what appears to be free money from the multinationals. In time, the entire public economy mutates into being a reckless spender of American money. There is no budget constraint, just a spend now, worry later mania. This has the effect of pushing up the price of everything, because the State spends over a third of every euro spent in the country. When the economy is already rocking along, prices and wages simply ratchet up. Apple was ordered to pay Ireland €13bn in unpaid taxes by Europe's top court in 2024. Photograph: Getty Images Because they are small, small private businesses can't match multinational wages and public sector wages, which themselves are paid for by the multinationals' tax deluge. Small businesses lose workers or have to pay even more to keep their workers from moving. Rents are pushed up by the higher-paid employees of the high-productivity multinational sector, squeezing the incomes of the rest, pushing down their quality of life in an ever more expensive economy. As long as the tax money keeps flowing, this process reinforces itself at every turn. At the same time, as long as the tax torrent keeps cascading, the entire State apparatus becomes entirely dependent on the whims of corporate United States, and the State becomes captured. The numbers are startling. Apart from the infamous Apple tax money , we collected a total of €28.1bn in corporation tax receipts last year, with a whopping 88 per cent of that revenue paid in by foreign-owned multinationals – despite these companies accounting for only 11 per cent of all companies. But looking just at one side of the balance sheet doesn't give us the whole picture. The bigger picture is one of an excessively dominant and favoured sector bending the economy and the society to its whim. Ironically, the more tax money we get from the US, the more dysfunctional the general Irish economy becomes. [ Three positive metrics point to health of economy Opens in new window ] Some might say this isn't a bad problem to have, and that is absolutely fair enough, but the question remains: where does this end? Most of my economics colleagues are worried about the quantitative aspect. I am concerned about the qualitative aspect of the multinational dominance, what it is doing to the economy in general, innovation and start-up culture, house prices and immigration, as well as the broader society and the way we make public decisions that are supposedly for the greater good. Maybe more importantly, the way the exchequer has become hostage to various lobby groups who have only become more emboldened as the coffers fill up, means Government judgment has become impaired by abundance. 'Dutch Disease' might not be the worst economic malady, but it's a dangerous one and Ireland doesn't seem to have figured out a vaccine.
