The Hon. (Dr.) Nalinda Jayatissa

¶ 01 Hon. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to the practical issues regarding questions under Standing Order 27(2). We appreciate the opportunity given to Party Leaders, but consider today’s question: if the font were any smaller, one cannot read it; within 10 main questions there are about 24 sub-questions. My office received it at 2.55 p.m. yesterday; forwarding to the Ministry and expecting an answer by 9.30 a.m. today is impractical. I raised a similar matter earlier regarding a question from the Leader of the Opposition to my Ministry; we still answered, though it had seven parts.

¶ 02 Standing Order 27(2) should be for a single subject, set out in detail, not for multiple subjects spanning many Ministries. Also, printing on two pages with small font allows 24 sub-questions. Then we cannot answer the same day and must seek time. Either we agree to grant a week or two to answer, or we set fair parameters so both the questioner and the responding Minister are treated fairly. Otherwise the meaning of SO 27(2) questions is lost. I value Hon. Ravi Karunanayake’s question, but we all should focus on this. If we take a week or two to answer, its political essence is lost and only a technical reply appears in Hansard.

¶ 03 Ministerial Statements then get crowded. I have raised this with the Secretary to the Leader of the House: if there are more than two Ministerial Statements a day, along with SO 27(2) questions, we cannot manage time. Ministers also need fair time to prepare answers.

¶ 04 For example, I saw Hon. Ravi Karunanayake’s question in the morning; font about 9.5 or 10; I timed it – nine minutes and 45 seconds just to read. Then how can the Minister reply in five minutes and 45 seconds? I request respectfully: use this opportunity properly. I do not insist Ministers must reply the next day; they need reasonable time.