2026-02-17 / Debate: Parliamentary Pensions (Repeal) Bill - Second Reading and Committee Stage 2026-02-17
## Summary
Hon. Chithral Fernando opposed the Bill to abolish MPs' pensions, arguing it was rushed without adequate study of the rationale behind contributory or non-contributory pension schemes, and called for at minimum a grandfather clause protecting those already entitled. He challenged the government's financial argument—that MPs' pensions cost Rs. 34 million monthly—by calculating that approximately Rs. 155 million monthly in MPs' salaries and local authority members' allowances flows into party coffers, accusing the government of inconsistency between its rhetoric and conduct. Fernando also cited several instances of what he characterised as mandate violations, including inaction on abolishing the Executive Presidency, delayed Provincial Council elections, and the retention of the Central Bank Governor despite campaign pledges. He further raised concern over the government's public characterisation of a recently killed lawyer as connected to the underworld, arguing this set a dangerous precedent and should be retracted pending proof, and demanded accountability regarding six individuals whose surrender had been previously announced.
Hon. Deputy Speaker, I am glad to speak after the Hon. Prime Minister. She clearly said this Bill is brought because people despise politicians. That contempt arose due to the behaviour of some politicians—it is true. But we have repeatedly cautioned against generalising everyone alike. Your government came to power with that very project. Let us see how that serves you in time.
We are discussing stopping MPs’ pensions. No one seems to have studied on what basis pensions—contributory or otherwise—are granted to public officers or to politicians. Why were they introduced? Without understanding that, this Bill is rushed here.
As a party, we hold the view that MPs should receive a pension. The Leader of the Opposition stated so clearly. At least a grandfather clause should be brought for the smaller number already entitled. Hon. Chamara Sampath too says he has amendments. But the government displays undue haste and agitation.
The Justice Minister said public money is being misused to maintain former MPs, costing Rs. 34 million monthly. But is it not public money that maintains parties today? I calculated: about Rs. 55 million monthly in MPs’ salaries goes to parties. Are those spent on the public? There are thousands of local authority members—at least Rs. 100 million more monthly goes that way. Those who speak of Rs. 34 million take around Rs. 155 million monthly into party coffers. There is a mismatch between rhetoric and conduct.
They say there was a mandate. True—you received one. But this “mandate‑honouring” government has violated the mandate many times—from the IMF agreement onwards. You took a mandate from Development Officers shivering in the rain that their problems would be solved; what answers are given now? On the Central Bank Governor—you called him names and took a mandate on that basis, yet he remains. On abolishing the Executive Presidency—eighteen months have passed; the Minister himself admits no Cabinet discussion, no committee, no expert appointed. On Provincial Council elections—your policy statement’s “Activities” promised them; now forgotten. Yet you quote a poll showing 65% support. If so, hold the PC elections tomorrow. If you truly have 65%, why fund smear brigades with public money?
On the recent killing of a lawyer: almost all lawyers feel unsafe. It is their duty to appear for clients presumed innocent. What did the Government do? The moment the lawyer was killed, they issued a statement branding him “underworld.” That is a dangerous precedent; withdraw it until proven. Just because he appeared for a client does not make him underworld. Also, the State Minister earlier boasted that six persons surrendered fearing arrest. Where are they now? Give us the list and say whether they were arrested.
Thank you for the opportunity. As a party, we support granting pensions to MPs.