The Hon. Bimal Rathnayake — Minister of Transport, Highways and Urban Development and the Leader of the House of Parliament

¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, before indicating agreement and moving into Committee Stage, I request a few minutes to place several matters on record.

¶ 02 This Institute of Real Estate Professionals of Sri Lanka Bill has a long history, being presented in various Cabinet memoranda since around 2017, with Cabinet approvals in 2017, 2023 and 2025. The Institute of Valuers of Sri Lanka challenged provisions of this Bill before the Supreme Court. A determination has been delivered.

¶ 03 Before addressing the need for this law, I note that in the Supreme Court Determination reference is made to former Ministers such as Dr. N.M. Perera and Bernard Soysa who brought similar laws in the past. Thus, in amending such legislation, the points presented by the then Minister, and the views of the Supreme Court and this Parliament, will be considered in the future. We bring this Bill primarily to establish an institution related to real estate professionals.

¶ 04 The need is also identified by the Central Bank of Sri Lanka. Furthermore, retired Supreme Court Judge and President’s Counsel Buwaneka Aluwihare, through the Task Force on Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing, has also indicated the necessity of such a law. At the same time, professional organizations have raised concerns on possible conflicts with the objectives and functions of the Government Valuation Department and the Institute of Valuers of Sri Lanka regarding the proposed Institute of Real Estate Professionals.

¶ 05 Therefore, we conducted extensive consultations, including today’s debate, striving to ensure, at the end, passage of this Bill without conflict between professional bodies and without overlaps. The amendments proposed by those organizations were considered at the Ministry level, with the Attorney General and the Legal Draftsman. I table those documents.

¶ 06 Accordingly, we proposed Committee Stage amendments to replace “real estate projects” with “in relation to investors”; and to replace “to price and to assess” with “to calculate and to review”. After forwarding these from the Ministry, the Attorney General’s Department sent us a letter, which I also table.

¶ 07 The Constitution’s Article 123(4) states that when a Bill or provisions are determined consistent with the Constitution by the Supreme Court, it should not be passed except in the form declared, unless amendments remove the inconsistency. The Attorney General’s Department has informed us that the proposed Committee Stage amendments to Clauses 3(b)(i), 3(b)(iii) and 3(b)(v) are inconsistent with the Constitution, having regard to the Supreme Court’s prior determination upholding those clauses.

¶ 08 This Supreme Court Determination was presented by the Hon. Speaker on 2026.01.06; I table it to assist future constitutional drafting.

¶ 09 The Determination, by Justices Arjuna Obeyesekere, Priyantha Fernando and Menaka Wijesundera, clearly addresses whether powers of the Institute of Valuers of Sri Lanka are being taken by the new body. I quote:

¶ 10 “The Bill only seeks to create a professional body of members and does not confer upon the members a specific right to engage in the practice of real estate management and/or valuation. The only benefit that a member of the Institute would receive in terms of the Bill is an embellishment in the form of an acronym of the title ‘FIREPSL’ or ‘MIREPSL’ against their name... the profession of valuers has so far not been regulated unlike in the case of surveyors, engineers, architects and medical practitioners, and even though it may appear by looking at the objects clause that the Bill has gone beyond the policy objective of the Cabinet of Ministers, a closer examination would reveal that the members of the Institute have not been conferred with the right to engage in the practice of valuation by virtue of being members of the Institute, thus demonstrating that the Bill is within the stated objective of the Cabinet of Ministers.

¶ 11 Conclusion

¶ 12 [30] In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Bill as a whole or any provision thereof is not inconsistent with the Constitution and may be passed by the simple majority of Parliament.”

¶ 13 I state these points to prevent unnecessary social division, conflict or debate. The central purpose here is only to establish an institution for real estate professionals. The Supreme Court’s guidance and concerns raised on both sides have been considered. The Court is clear that this law will not confer powers of another body upon members of the new body. On strong requests we repeatedly referred matters to the Attorney General and the Legal Draftsman; however, we were informed certain changes could not be made consistently with the Constitution.

¶ 14 The sole aim is to establish a new institution for professionals. If, in the future, the Government or society finds significant issues in its operation, Parliament can amend it. Such institutions evolve in this manner. We firmly believe this Bill confirms the rights of one group without trespassing upon the rights of others. We have worked hard to build some consensus between the two institutions, and certain aspects are reflected. I thank you for allowing me to clarify this.

¶ 15 Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

¶ 16 Resolved: “That the Bill be referred to a Committee of the whole Parliament.” — [The Hon. Bimal Rathnayake.]

¶ 17 Considered in Committee. [THE HON. PRESIDING MEMBER in the Chair.]

¶ 18 Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.