Would the Tánaiste agree that in current circumstances it is desirable for the Government to speak with one voice? Can she explain the differences, which have emerged between Ministers and between the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, and the Taoiseach? Does she understand why the Taoiseach keeps saying that exclusion of the republican movement brought us 30 years of murder and mayhem when in fact precisely the opposite has happened? It is the 30 years of mayhem that brought us exclusion. Exclusion did not produce the violence. Against the background of the most extraordinary events in recent days, apparent international money laundering, the murder of Robert McCartney, the attempted purchase of a bank in Bulgaria and so many other matters, is it not important for this House to seek, in as far as we can, to best protect our democracy?

In the matter of public money being made available for the practice of politics and execution of parliamentary duties, does the Tánaiste agree that we should consider changing the criteria necessary for a qualifying party, applied equally across the board to all of us in terms of public funds being made available and that the most basic prerequisite that we should require of all democratic parties, which want to access public money, ought to be fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State? If a party were not prepared to insert in its constitution a requirement that it subscribes to the institutions of the State that party would exclude itself as a qualifying party eligible for public money to carry on its political affairs.

The matters that came to light last week are grave and very serious. They fundamentally alter many matters. In the first instance, I congratulate the Garda Síochána in defence of democracy. The Government speaks with one voice on these matters and it is important that it should. The reason for the breakdown in the talks process before Christmas was, as I said in the House, that some were not prepared to commit themselves to an end to criminality in all its forms. They were not prepared to sign on for a phrase that stated they would guarantee the personal freedom and liberty and all citizens. At many levels one would think that should be a simple matter to which to agree. However, for some it was far too much.

It is not in the interests of or compatible with democracy that some have access to huge amounts of money — the proceeds of crime — to fund a political campaign. That is neither desirable nor fair. While this is the first time I have heard Deputy Rabbitte suggest a basis on which the taxpayer should fund political parties, I would assume the vast bulk of the people would only want their money to go to parties that subscribed to the basic fundamentals of democracy and all it entails.

Hear, hear.