[The draft Bill provides two categories of caps on liabilities: for the operators affiliated with the Central Government it is 300 million SDR; for other operators it Rs. 500 crore (adjustable to a minimum of Rs. 100 crore). The overall cap per incident, which applies to the GoI, is 300 million SDR. The implications are self-evident: two categories of operators are envisaged - public, with higher liability cap of 300 million SDR, and private, with much lower liability cap of Rs 500/100 crore.
The CNDP written submissions dated June 18th and 28th and oral submission to the Standing Committee on June 24th made this point amply clear. Also the aspect that given the unique nature of nuclear industry with its catastrophic potentials, the entry of private players, with profit making as the prime motive, as operators could just spell disaster. Apart from many other points, the other major point made was that there must not be any fixed overall cap on liabilities. That'd be a tremendous injustice to the victims. It has got to be openended.] I/III. http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/bjp-digs-its-heels-wants-govt-clarification-on-nbill/217883.html <http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/bjp-digs-its-heels-wants-govt-clarification-on-nbill/217883.html> BJP digs its heels; wants govt clarification on N-billPTI New Delhi, Aug 9 (PTI) As a Parliamentary panel races to submit its report on the nuclear liability bill, BJP appears to have dug its heels asking the government to clarify whether the draft legislation was India-specific or being enacted to fulfil requirements of international treaties. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology was expected to finalise its report on the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2010 at its meeting today but unanimously decided to have another sitting tomorrow. The Committee is now expected to finalise its report tomorrow and adopt the re-drafted Bill the day after. The report of the committee is likely to be submitted to Parliament on August 12 or 13. The Committee was granted an extension for the second time on July 27 for a period of 15 days till August 11. "There could be another minor extension," a member of the Committee said adding that the report would be submitted this week itself. Minister of State in the PMO Prithviraj Chavan had recently said that the government was keen to make the legislation "more robust" and was open to changes. Chavan had said that once the Committee submits its report, the government would refer it to the Department of Atomic Energy for its views and then move the changes that are acceptable to the Union Cabinet for its approval. BJP is understood to have been insisting that the government clarify whether the Bill was "India-specific" or "international treaty-specific." There is a feeling in the BJP that the UPA government wants to pass this Bill as it had pledged to do so in the Indo-US civil nuclear deal. It is mulling moving a dissent note before the Standing Committee if it finds that the government is not adhering to to the party's suggestions. The Left parties have already indicated that they may move a dissent note. The right-wing party's main argument is that if government or the public sector is the only operator then there is no need for the Bill as the liability of the government is unlimited in case of a mishap. BJP apprehends that the government is keen to enact the legislation to keep a public company as a front and allow private players in the nuclear sector at a later date. Sources said the Committee is expected to recommend that the cap for compensation in the case of a nuclear accident should be enhanced to Rs 1000 crore from Rs 500 crore, which was proposed in the bill. The Committee, headed by Congress MP T Subbirami Reddy, is also expected to recommend that there should be adequate provision for the liability of the supplier of material to the atomic plants in India, they said. It is also likely to suggest extending the period of victims claiming damages from the current upto 10 years from the time of a nuclear incident to more than 15 years. II. http://www.mumbaimirror.com/article/3/2010081020100810020005169ee3f267f/Nuclear-liability-bill-may-not-meet-Aug-12-deadline.html <http://www.mumbaimirror.com/article/3/2010081020100810020005169ee3f267f/Nuclear-liability-bill-may-not-meet-Aug-12-deadline.html> Nuclear liability bill may not meet Aug 12 deadline Lakshmi Iyer Posted On Tuesday, August 10, 2010 at 02:00:05 AM *In New Delhi *The Government sees little possibility of tabling the Civil Nuclear Liability Bill in the ongoing Monsoon Session as there are clear indications that the BJP is determined to protract finalising the draft bill. Official sources said the BJP was doing it simply to put the PM in an awkward situation. The Government was keen to have the Bill in place ahead of President Barack Obama's visit in November. Union Minister of Science & Technology Prithiviraj Chavan said, “Unlike the Left Parties who are putting a dissent note to the Bill, because of their visceral hatred for anything American, the main opposition party is not ideologically opposed to the US. The BJP is opposed to certain clauses of the Bill like Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) for Nuclear Damage.” He said it would be in India <http://cms.mumbaimirror.com/ads.aspx?adid=4>'s interest to sign the CSC that limits the liability on the promoter of the nuclear power plant. Leader of the Opposition Sushma Swaraj disclosed that both Chavan and NSA Shiv Shankar Menon met her regarding the Bill. She said, “When we ask the Government whether they are going to have private operators/players, they say no. If there are going to be only PSU operating Nuclear plants, we feel there is no need for this Bill. Then the Government says they are even willing to put the clause in the Bill saying there will be no private players.” She said, “We simply find there is no need for India<http://cms.mumbaimirror.com/ads.aspx?adid=4> to sign the CSC if PSUs are involved. Again the convention has not been ratified by more than four countries, why is this Government in a hurry?” Parliamentary Standing Committee for Science and Technology headed by T S Subbirama Reddy began considering the Bill clause by clause to meet its August 12 deadline. III. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/Oppn-has-dissent-notes-on-N-bill/articleshow/6285230.cms *Oppn has dissent notes on N-bill* 10 Aug 2010, 0626 hrs IST,ET Bureau NEW DELHI: In a move that does not augur well for the government's plans of getting the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Bill, 2010, BJP, and the other Opposition parties, have decided to present their notes of dissent for being incorporated in the report of the Standing Committee on Science and Technology. One big relief for the government was RJD’s willingness to bail it out in the standing committee after the ruling side offered to enhance the liability ceiling from Rs 500 crore to Rs 1000 crore and bring the suppliers within the ambit of the law. BJP, which has been questioning the very rationale behind the formulation of the bill, held a meeting of its top leaders here on Sunday to finalise its stand. ``Our basic opposition remains the same — there is no need for the government to bring this bill forward, unless it wants to pave the way for the entry of foreign players through the back-door in the future,’’ Mr Rajiv Pratap Rudy, who’s a member of the parliamentary panel, said. Under the existing arrangement, nuclear plants in India could be set up and operated either by the government or by a PSU. In the eventuality of a mishap, it was, the party maintains, either the government which had to bear the liability of a certain amount, or the PSU as there was little difference between the ownership of the two entities. ``The deep and pervasive control in the administration and finances of such companies renders the operator, ie, a government company as an instrument of the state. Thus, if part of the liability is to be borne by an operator, ie, a government company, substantial liability by the government and a further liability by an international institution to which the government is a premium-paying party would not make a very substantial difference,’’ a senior leader pointed out. ``However, if an accident or leakage is caused by an operator which is a private party, the difference will become relevant,’’ he added. And it is this which is fuelling suspicion within the party that the government wants the bill to facilitate the entry of foreign players in running nuclear plants on a joint-venture basis. The situation, in this case, would be entirely different since the government would be undertaking to assume the liability of a private player. Again, under the existing legal provisions in India, it is the polluter who must pay. If the civil nuclear liability bill was passed, the BJP fears that the government will end up paying for the pollution caused by someone else. In the end, it’d be the Indian tax-payer who would be paying the damages. The party has also relied upon judgements by the apex court to assert the principle of strict liability of the operator who uses the land for storing hazardous or dangerous material. ``There is thus no rationale or cause for the government to conceive of a legislation wherein a distinction is made between a strict liability and payment of claims through a Claims Commissioner or a negligence-based liability where citizens are expected to move to a civil court,’’ the BJP leader said. The party feels that if at all a law had to be drafted, it had to contain two specific provisions. One, to create a Claims Commissioner for an expeditious hearing of the case, and, two, a legislative provision enabling the government to buy a stake in the international insurance structure. -- 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.
