John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)

I am delighted the Minister of State found his connection to Arthur Guinness as he was looking for it feverishly all morning. It is fair to assume we do not have any difficulty with this Bill, as initiated, to repeal 1,351 spent and obsolete Acts. It has been characterised as one of the most extensive clean-outs of legislation and considering we were colonised for so long, one would expect to be left with thousands of spent and obsolete Acts as a remnant of British rule, dating back in this case to the early 16th century.

Was it absolutely necessary to have this process? The underlying reason for it was that it would increase the certainty and clarity of the Statute Book, both for business and the citizen, and it would help to identify remaining legislation which can then be consolidated or rewritten in a modern format. Is it the case that these private Acts and public and general Acts were in some way confusing the administration of other statutes? I am not sure. When the Minister of State wraps up the debate, I would like him to go through the cost of this process, which takes in this and previous Bills.

This is not just a piece of technical legislation for me as it is also a slice of Irish history spanning 400 years. It represents 400 years of European history. People may call me a nerd - I have a history degree - but I find some of this fascinating and all of these statutes have their own stories. The Minister of State has already outlined some of these.

It begins in the reign of Henry VIII, with Acts regarding the liberty of the county of Wexford and Acts creating weirs upon the Boyne or building walls and making defensible the town of Navan. Most people would still find it incredible that statutes made by King Henry VIII are still part of the law of the land in this country. People would not expect this, although it is the case.

There is an Act from 1542 which concerns Lady Parr's children, making them illegitimate. I wonder if that is Catherine Parr, who married King Henry VIII in 1543 and who, more important, avoided getting her head chopped off. In Elizabethan times, there was an Act in 1575 naturalising 12 citizens of Antwerp. I do not know who those people were but they were extremely lucky because in the following year, Antwerp was plundered by Spaniards and 6,000 citizens of the town were massacred. This is an interesting piece of European history.

The legislation takes in the reigns of James I and Charles I and we get a sense from these Acts of the kind of turmoil which existed in Ireland during the 17th century in particular. In the reign of Charles II, one can see Acts such as that restoring honours, manners, lands and tenements in Ireland to people like the Earl of Inchiquin. This Act caught my eye as he was a flexible character, a Protestant and one of the several commanders who played a semi-independent role in the confusion which followed the Irish rising in 1641. He took up arms against the Catholic confederation and inflicted several defeats upon it in Munster. He was passed over by Charles I for the presidency of Munster, something which he expected. He joined the parliamentary side - that is, Cromwell's side - in 1644 and won an important victory over the confederation troops near Mallow in 1647. The following year, he rejoined the royalists but was driven into exile when Cromwell landed in Ireland. Charles ll conferred an earldom upon him in 1654, he converted to Catholicism and fought for the French. During the restoration, and as the statute explains, his Irish lands were returned to him. He was, by all accounts, an expedient and very flexible fellow, and was probably very representative of the times in which he lived.

One also obtains from the Bill an impression of how divided Irish society was in the past. It contains numerous references to Protestant issue - namely, Protestant children. We must remember that in 1641 Catholics owned approximately 60% of the land of Ireland. By 1776, Catholic land ownership stood at 5%. This is evidence that a land grab of extraordinary proportions had occurred.

I only obtained my copy of the Bill at 10 p.m. last evening. However, it contains details of a number of interesting statutes, such as that relating to the granting to two individuals of sole use of an invention for the benefit of shipping. The invention in question was a lead sheathing for ships' hulls which would prevent the growth of barnacles. There is also an Act from 1700 which facilitates the separation of James Earl of Anglesea from his wife Countess Katharine by reason of his cruelty. It is interesting that some 309 years ago, the Parliament legislated for a specific instance of domestic violence.

I also discovered an Act to enable John Viscount Molesworth and Richard Molesworth to make leases in respect of lands near Stephen's Green and Dawson St. in County Dublin which were in their possession. The Houses of the Oireachtas stand, therefore, in what used to be Molesworth field and the Act in question relates to land which, almost 300 years later, is the most expensive piece of real estate in the country.

As the Minister of State outlined, the Bill also details Acts that were introduced for the purpose of naturalising certain individuals such as Mainhardt, Duke of Leinster, whose father was second in command at the Battle of the Boyne. Mainhardt was the first Duke of Leinster and this Parliament occupies what was his family's house. From the reign of William and Mary, there is an Act for the naturalisation of Henry de Nassau, a general who lived in London, in Overkirk House, which is now known as No. 10 Downing St. Another Act relates to the naturalisation of Prince George of Denmark, which had to occur as a result of the fact that he was married to Queen Anne and had to be made a British subject.

I find the legislation fascinating from a historical point of view. I like to take meaning from something of this nature, namely, a Bill that represents 400 years of Irish and European history. I have a degree in history and another in law but I do not believe one needs either to take some meaning from the legislation, particularly at a time when we were about to decide the direction this nation will take with regard to Europe. It would be no harm to remind ourselves of our history when we are about to decide whether our alliance with Europe will be as strong as it has been for the past 36 years. It is also worth reminding ourselves that there was a period - not that long ago - when Irish people were subjects and took orders. At that time, Ireland had no appreciable and definitive alliances with other European countries and was, as a result, completely powerless to determine its own fate.

My point is that small nations such as Ireland gain strength through their relationships with other states. In Ireland's case, such relationships might be that with the United States, which developed on foot of the intense historical links brought about through emigration, or those with other European countries, which came about through our economic ties within the framework of the EU.

As people consider how they intend to vote on the Lisbon treaty, this matter becomes particularly important. History has shown us that our growth and our strength as a small island nation lies in giving ourselves options. Our future does not lie in some kind of forced isolation or in a departure from those ties we have developed during the past three to four decades. The alternative is a scenario which promises only vulnerability and the shutting off of our options as a nation of Europe. People should consider this country's history and our society's origins before they get sucked in by bogus arguments regarding the benefits of isolationism.

See this speech in context