I am a reasonable person but I find it hard to take from Deputy Woods and Deputy Keogh that, when this Government brings forward this radical and extensive Bill providing anti-discrimination measures on a range of grounds, they talk about the Government's attitude to discrimination. Did the Progressive Democrats or Fianna Fáil introduce anti-discrimination legislation before 1993, when Labour was in Government? Did they outlaw discrimination against members of the travelling community? They did not — it was never suggested nor was it in their programme for Government. Did they outlaw discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, nationality or ethnic origins? They did not. What about the big issue of disability? People with disabilities make up 10 per cent of our population. This Government, for the first time ever, is introducing a Bill to make it unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of disability, age, religious belief, sexual orientation and family status. This is a broad spectrum range yet the Opposition talk about this Government's attitude to discrimination when they did absolutely nothing.
We have identified nine categories of people in our introduction of anti-discrimination measures. Did the Opposition even talk about it before? Did it ever cross their minds? They are now concerned about membership of trade unions and political opinion. What was their position on those with disabilities, on sexual orientation, on members of the travelling community and on race, religion and colour? They never spoke about it, mentioned it or raised it. They had no interest in the subject whatsoever. As far as those successive Governments were concerned, that range of discrimination could go on.
This Government feels differently. We identified nine categories to provide protection within the ambit of this legislation, which is remarkable. We could have introduced a disabilities act, such as the much vaunted, and wonderful, Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990, which deals only with those with disabilities. I and this Government could have done that but we were interested in the broad spectrum. That is not to say I am not unsympathetic to other categories. The numbers of categories for this purpose is potentially endless. Perhaps at a further stage, inclusion of other categories will become appropriate.
This legislation is complex and each category has its own complexities. It is difficult to strike a balance in dealing with sexual orientation. The category of religious beliefs also presents huge difficulties. One does not act casually in introducing a Bill like this and we cannot arbitrarily add other categories to the list. Each has its own problems which would have to be analysed. Exceptions would have to be worked out as well as what is appropriate. The Americans concentrated on disability and nothing else. We cover nine categories, but some of those are composite categories with three or four different divisions.
This is major legislation which we should push through, put into operation and then consider what additional categories may be appropriate. The categories proposed here may not have merit either, but broadly speaking they do. One would have to work out the particular situations that would apply to other categories and I do not want to hold up this legislation on that account. Those with disabilities, members of the travelling community, those of minority religions and races are waiting. We want to proceed. That is my position on these amendments. I sympathise with them in broad terms but at this point, I regret I cannot accept them.
