I do not accept the characterisation that Deputy Gilmore puts on matters. I have no intention of giving a history lesson. We are looking here to the present and to the future, and that is certainly what we will be concentrating on in the coming days and weeks.
However, for the purpose of not allowing statements to pass as if they should be passed for fact, the fact of the matter is, first, this economy is far more than simply a property issue. We have a far more deepened, sophisticated and developed economy than was the case five, ten, 15 or 20 years ago, and we do ourselves a disservice by suggesting otherwise.
Taking the point, that certainly it was true that up to 12% of output was coming from the construction and the construction-related sector, it related also to increased public investment.
On private sector interests or people who built houses, the vagaries of the market will determine how they get on. The Government did introduce Part V. Section 23 relief was not available in every part of the country. It was available in certain parts of the country since the early 1980s and we have seen major renewal in our towns and cities as a result. There is now far more activity and they have been brought to life after the prolonged recession of the 1980s. Those were the right policy decisions at the time and we have seen the benefits that resulted in terms of increased receipts, increased employment and increased investment. There is no doubt about that.
My point, however, is that, as Minister for Finance, I terminated those property reliefs on a planned basis to ensure we could move on to other areas of investment, be they research and development, technology, science or innovation, and serious amounts of taxpayers' money, generated from that increased level of activity, are now being provided in those new areas. That is a far fairer perspective on the change in policy formulation there has been in this country to meet the new demands and requirements of the time and of the modern society and economy we have built. That is the situation.
To come back to the specific point raised, I am glad that people are being housed and that so many houses were built not only in the private sector, but also through the public programme. I am also glad that we are bringing forward new, innovative ways to provide for those who depend on public housing through social and affordable housing initiatives from the voluntary sector, the Affordable Homes Partnership and local authorities. I welcome all that development. I congratulate my colleague, Deputy Noel Dempsey, who, as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, introduced the Part V provision to ensure the public good was addressed in the context of development land prices. That is what happened.
What is relevant for the people listening to this debate is the question the Deputy asked today and to which I wish to reply. Yes, there will be challenges facing us in the months and years ahead and there will be a requirement for everybody in the system to pay more than was the case previously. That is true. However, in relative terms after this budget and the next couple of budgets, as we face into this situation in the next year or two, we will ensure that we are still in a far better position than we were five or ten years ago. The relative position, therefore, having increased the level of economic activity from one point to another, and even if it does not proceed in an incremental positive line now and even flatlines, is that we are still in a far better position now or in the year ahead than we were five or ten years ago when 600,000 fewer houses were built and 1 million fewer people were working in our country.
