I/II. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/prerogative-of-presiding-officers-to-refer-bill-to-panel/632178/0
<http://www.indianexpress.com/news/prerogative-of-presiding-officers-to-refer-bill-to-panel/632178/0>‘Prerogative of presiding officers to refer Bill to panel’ *Posted: Fri Jun 11 2010, 22:45 hrs** **Letter from Rajya Sabha Secretary General: Sir, This is with reference to a news article in your newspaper on May 14, 2010 regarding reference to the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010, to the Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests. The news has disseminated misleading information to the public that the government has deliberately chosen to refer the Bill to a Congress-led Committee, instead of referring the same to the Committee on Energy. The factual position though is that it is the sole prerogative of the presiding officers of the Houses to refer a Bill to a Committee which deals with the subject matter of the Bill. As per the procedure and the practice being followed for referring a Bill introduced in either House of Parliament, a Bill after its introduction is referred to a Committee which deals with the Ministry or the Department under the charge of the Minister who pilots the Bill. As the said Bill was brought by the Minister of Science and Technology and Earth Sciences, who is in charge of the Department of Atomic Energy too, it was rightly and appropriately referred to the Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests by the Chairman, Rajya Sabha in consultation with the Speaker, Lok Sabha. The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of the Council of States allocates the matters relating to Atomic Energy to the Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests, whereas the Committee on Energy deals with Non-Conventional Energy Sources and Power. The news article has disseminated malicious information which amounts to attributing motives to the Hon’ble Speaker and the Hon’ble Chairman and, therefore, prime facie constitutes contempt of the Houses. You are requested to publish this rejoinder, rectifying the factual inaccuracy prominently. Our correspondent replies: The report was written in the backdrop of the controversy which preceded and followed the introduction of the Bill. It essentially dealt with the politics which surrounded the issue. It was in no way intended to either question any prerogative of the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or attribute motives to them or undermine the dignity of the two Houses of Parliament. There were clear indications to the media from people occupying responsible positions in the government after the introduction of the Bill that it would be referred to the Committee on Energy. There was no denial after Samajwadi Party general secretary and Rajya Sabha member Ram Gopal Yadav publicly claimed that the reference to the said committee amounted to a “betrayal” by the government (The Indian Express, May 15). He claimed that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Minister of State in the PMO Prithviraj Chavan had “personally assured me” that the Bill would be referred to the Committee on Energy, headed by Mulayam Singh Yadav. It is not correct to say that Prithviraj Chavan is in charge of Department of Atomic Energy too. The fact is that the Prime Minister is in charge of the Department of Atomic Energy. According to the PIB website, “Parliament questions relating to ministries and departments of which PM is in charge are answered by a MoS nominated for the purpose by PM himself.” The website further states that Chavan is mandated to handle “Parliament questions pertaining to Department of Atomic Energy, Department of Space and Cabinet Secretariat.” Chavan is understood to have piloted the Bill in this capacity and not as minister in-charge. The Rajya Sabha website link “introduction” listed Atomic Energy under the Committee on Energy. II. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/govt-plays-safe-sends-ndamage-liability-bill-to-congled-house-panel/618777/ Govt plays safe, sends n-damage liability Bill to Cong-led House panel Pradeep Kaushal <http://www.indianexpress.com/columnist/pradeepkaushal/> Posted: Fri May 14 2010 In a surprise development, the government has decided to refer the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests instead of the one on Energy as was widely expected. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Energy is headed by SP leader Mulayam Singh Yadav while the one on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests is chaired by Congress member in Rajya Sabha T Subbarami Reddy. Yadav was a vocal critic of the Bill till some time back though he was apparently won over by the government at the time of the Bill’s introduction in Lok Sabha on the last day of the Budget session. The legislations of the Department of Atomic Energy — the department that has moved the Nuclear Liability Bill — have traditionally been referred to the standing committee on Energy. According to an official bulletin, Vice-President and chairman of the House Hamid Ansari forwarded the Bill to the committee for an “examination” after consulting Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar. The panel is required to submit its report within two months. If all goes well, the government may be ready with follow-up action in the monsoon session of Parliament. Sources said a section of the PMO favoured the idea of the proposed legislation being assigned to the Standing Committee on Energy on the ground that an endorsement from a panel presided by Mulayam Singh would enhance the credibility of the Bill. Since the SP chief, along with RJD president Lalu Prasad Yadav, had already sided with the government at the time of the introduction, the government could well count on him this time too. At the same time, the whole exercise would look perfectly normal and democratic. In a surprise development, the government has decided to refer the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests instead of the one on Energy as was widely expected. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Energy is headed by SP leader Mulayam Singh Yadav while the one on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests is chaired by Congress member in Rajya Sabha T Subbarami Reddy. Yadav was a vocal critic of the Bill till some time back though he was apparently won over by the government at the time of the Bill’s introduction in Lok Sabha on the last day of the Budget session. The legislations of the Department of Atomic Energy — the department that has moved the Nuclear Liability Bill — have traditionally been referred to the standing committee on Energy. According to an official bulletin, Vice-President and chairman of the House Hamid Ansari forwarded the Bill to the committee for an “examination” after consulting Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar. The panel is required to submit its report within two months. If all goes well, the government may be ready with follow-up action in the monsoon session of Parliament. Sources said a section of the PMO favoured the idea of the proposed legislation being assigned to the Standing Committee on Energy on the ground that an endorsement from a panel presided by Mulayam Singh would enhance the credibility of the Bill. Since the SP chief, along with RJD president Lalu Prasad Yadav, had already sided with the government at the time of the introduction, the government could well count on him this time too. At the same time, the whole exercise would look perfectly normal and democratic. The other section did not wish to take any chances and felt that the choice of Reddy would mean zero-risk. Obviously, the second section has prevailed, though the move is likely to attract flak from the Opposition. The Bill seeks to fix the responsibility of paying monetary compensation to the victims of a nuclear accident solely on the operator of the nuclear power plant but caps this liability to a maximum of Rs 500 crore. Liability of damages beyond this amount is to be borne by the government up to a maximum of an additional amount of about Rs 2100 crore. The opposition parties, including the BJP and Left, have been campaigning against the Bill, arguing that the maximum compensation provided for in the Bill was extremely inadequate. They have expressed dissatisfaction with a number of other provisions as well. The passage of the Bill by Parliament is essential for operationalisation of the Indo-US civil nuclear cooperation agreement. * -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
