I would like to ask for a debate, which we need urgently, on the meaning of commemorations at this sensitive time. When we had various commemorations of the Famine, and marked it and remembered all of those who lost their lives, it never occurred to me that we might be celebrating the fact that so many people died and suffered. I do not think many of us would have gotten involved if it was the case.

However, a strange confusion seems to have arisen whereby commemorating something or marking it, one is somehow celebrating it. I thought we had arrived at a different understanding in recent years, and that we commemorated and marked things which were of significance to us all, which some of us might celebrate and others might not, but that that joint commemoration would be the basis for going forward together in mutual understanding. I thought that was our understanding, but the people who should be leading us in this area seem to be adding to the confusion.

The expert advisory group on the centenary celebrations recommended for the 2017 to 2023 period that an academic conference be held to mark the centenary of the petitioning of Ireland and the foundation of Northern Ireland. This is exactly the same language that was used by the organisers of the event to take place in Armagh next month. Extraordinarily, one member involved in the expert group, Professor Diarmaid Ferriter, has weighed in to criticise vocally that Armagh event which I find extraordinary. Our President, who is not accountable to these Houses, has spoken eloquently about the concept-----

For the benefit of the House, it has been ruled upon and has been Seanad practice for a long time that the President should not be brought into debates within this House because of the separation of powers. I understand this issue is in the public arena, but as it is a practice of the House then it would not be appropriate to directly refer to the President.

Understood. I fully intended to honour what the Constitution says and the practice of this House. His phrase is inescapably relevant. The President has spoken of "narrative hospitality", an eloquent phrase that talks about a willingness to be open to the perspectives, stories, memories and pains of the stranger. All I am saying is that I am confused. It would take a wise man to figure all of this out or, as Pope Francis would term it, a saggio. The idea of a saggio is reflected in the Irish language in the word "saoi".

We know nach mbíonn saoi gan locht. It will be interesting to see if the Irish Government sends a representative to this event in Armagh. What will it say if it does and what will it say if it does not? To borrow another Italian word, we are in an imbroglio. It is undeniable that the President had no intention of causing trouble but we find ourselves in a state of confusion.

I am sorry, Senator. I have outlined the practice in the House and the provision in the Constitution. I will not get into the Constitution. The President should not be referred to or criticised directly or indirectly with regard to any matter in this House.

We often see fit to praise him and I think we should, when he deserves that. If we find ourselves in disagreement, I think we should be free to say it.

I will outline the practice one more time. It refers to criticising the President. You can praise the President all you wish but the practice in the House is not to criticise or refer directly or indirectly to the President. I ask the Senator to respect that.

I will conclude. I will not do anything to disturb the tranquillity of the Cathaoirleach's job other than to say that we now need to have a discussion about what commemoration means. It is undeniable that a choice that has been made has certainly stoked up something in Irish public opinion that might not be entirely helpful. Forse un saggio e forse anche un furbo. We need to address and reflect on this.

I second Senator Boyhan's proposal to amend the Order of Business today.