[The Cabinet has just cleared the revised text of the Bill. The mischievous and mysterious "and" has, reportedly, been dropped. Whether the revised version of the Clause 17 (b) stands or not is not yet clear. The final confirmation is awaited. The revised 17 (b) sans the "and" at the end of 17 (a) would be a substantive improvement over the earlier version as regards supplier's liability.
Russia, US, France are all wary of supplier's liability. For very obvious reasons. Gopalakrishnan's complete silence over Russia (ref. IV below), which is as much keen to get rid of any supplier's liability clause (ref. < http://groups.google.co.in/group/greenyouth/browse_thread/thread/9deab56e3023ea46/e158613c383fd672?lnk=gst&q=Sukla+Sen,+Balachandran#e158613c383fd672>), is pretty much baffling.] I/IV. http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_breaking-news-union-cabinet-clears-nuclear-liability-bill_1425987 <http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/cabinet-clears-nuclear-liability-bill-45785> Breaking news: Cabinet clears Nuclear Liability Bill Published: Friday, Aug 20, 2010, 10:31 IST The government has finally bowed down to the BJP's contention over the use of the word 'and' between Clause 17 (a) and (b) of the Bill. The word has been removed whichmakes the supplier liable to the government. The operator can now seek compensation fromt he supplier. The government was facing tremendous pressure from the Left and BJP parties who gave the government an ultimatum to introduce this amendment. The Bill will now be introduced in the Parliament. II. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/Supplier-liability-to-save-nuke-bill/articleshow/6363362.cms 20 AUG, 2010, 07.39AM IST, AMITA SHAH,ET BUREAU Supplier liability to save nuke bill Bowing to pressure from BJP, the government has indicated that it would not spare foreign suppliers of liability for accident caused by their negligence. Bowing to pressure from BJP, the government has indicated that it would not spare foreign suppliers of liability for accident caused by their negligence. The U-turn was prompted by BJP’s decision to rollback its support for the bill unless the government made suppliers liable for nuclear accident. BJP had earlier alleged that a ‘clumsily’ stapled note was stealthily included in the standing committee’s report to dilute the liability of the supplier. The main opposition , which had offered its support to the government on Tuesday, conveyed to the government on Thursday evening that it cannot bank on its support unless the required changes were made to hold suppliers liable for nuclear damage. The developments forced the Centre to put off a meeting of the Union Cabinet, scheduled for Thursday, to Friday, to approve the bill. However, with the government keen on ensuring passage of the bill in the ongoing session, it may make the required concessions to get BJP on board. At a meeting with S&T minister Prithviraj Chauhan, BJP leader Arun Jaitley had said the report of the Standing Committee on Science and Technology made the supplier liable for damages only if a firm agreed to give it in writing. The note added in the report included a word ‘and’ between clauses 17 (a) and 17 (b) that diluted the suppliers’ liability. “The operator of a nuclear installation shall have a right of recourse where (a) such right is expressly provided for in a contract in writing; and (b) the nuclear accident has resulted as a consequence of latent or patent defect, supply of sub-standard material, defective equipment or services or from the gross negligence on the part of the supplier of the material , equipment or services; and (c) the nuclear accident has resulted from the act of commission or omission of a person done with the intent to cause nuclear damage,” the standing committee report had said. BJP, which was unhappy about the government tampering with the agreed draft, had pointed out that while clause 17 (b) gives protection to operators, the word ‘and’ snatches it away. It said that clause 17 (a) provides for an agreement in writing in order to enable the operator to exercise the right of recourse against a supplier. “Since the nuclear power plants are to be operated only by the government or government companies, it would be to our own advantage to delete the word ‘and’ ,” Mr Jaitley told Mr Chavan. Both BJP and Left are of the view that the government was acting under US pressure. CPM general secretary Prakash Karat appealed to all parties supporting the nuclear liability bill to reconsider their stand in the light of the addition of the ‘notorious’ word ‘and’ in the report. “The real issue is that the bill is being brought as a result of the demand of the US that its suppliers are exempt from liability . India has already given the commitment ,” he said at a press conference along with other Left leaders A B Bardhan , Debabrata Biswas and Abani Roy. Mr Karat said that American industries had objected to clause 17 (b) and now the government has made it contingent on 17 (a). “The original bill was better. I would like to ask parties supporting the bill to look at this. If ‘and’ is deleted, the problem will be solved,” he said. Asked if the Left will support the bill in that case, he said it would depend on the final shape the legislation takes. IT’S CHEATING BJP alleged that a ‘clumsily’ stapled note into the report was stealthily included later to dilute liability of the supplier BJP conveyed to the government that it cannot bank on its support unless the required changes are made to hold suppliers liable for nuclear damage With the govt keen on ensuring passage of the bill in the ongoing session, it is expected to make the required concessions to get BJP on board. CPM general secretary Prakash Karat appealed to all parties supporting the nuclear liability bill to reconsider their stand in the light of the addition of the word ‘and’ in the report BJP has said it wants an India-centric bill. Does it mean foreign suppliers should have no liability? III. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article582670.ece?homepage=true BJP won't back nuclear bill without supplier liabilityNEENA VYAS We'll address BJP, Left concerns: Minister The shortlived agreement on civil nuclear liability between the government and the Bharatiya Janata Party gave way on Thursday to a fresh round of bargaining with the Opposition party telling government managers it was not ready to vote for the proposed bill if it diluted in any way the liability of suppliers for accidents caused by their negligence. As a result, the Cabinet meeting, which was to consider the report of the Standing Committee on Science and Technology and approve the final version of the nuclear bill, had to be postponed to Friday morning. Late in the evening, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met his advisers and colleagues to sort out the fresh tangle. “We will address all the concerns raised by the BJP and the Left,” a Minister told reporters. Earlier this week, BJP leaders Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitley hammered out an agreement with Leader of the House Pranab Mukherjee in which several changes in the proposed law were made. These were duly reflected in the report of the Standing Committee, which was endorsed by all its members, BJP MPs included, except two legislators from the Left. After *The Hindu* on Thursday disclosed the manner in which the report diluted the provision on suppliers' liability, BJP leaders protested their innocence and suggested the government had made some changes that were outside the understanding earlier reached. Clause 17 of the bill deals with the nuclear operator's right of recourse against a supplier. In a note given by BJP leaders to Minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office Prithviraj Chavan, the party insists that clause 17(b) — which allows an operator to recover damages from his supplier in the event that an accident is caused by negligence or defective equipment — must not be made conditional on there being a prior contract with the supplier spelling this out. By inserting the word “and” between 17(a), which speaks of a contract, and 17(b), this was precisely what the government was doing, the BJP said. In short, the “right to recourse” — i.e., the ability of the operator, who must compensate victims for any accident, to make his supplier liable — should not depend on a specific operator-supplier agreement but must be part of the Indian law that would place these conditions on all suppliers. Mr. Jaitley told reporters that at the very least, a contract between the operator and the supplier specifically stating supplier liability was a “must” while Ms. Swaraj said that even if contracts relating to nuclear commerce between other governments have been lax and provided for little or no supplier liability, there was no reason why the Indian law should not be more stringent and specific. Ms. Swaraj added the BJP could consider moving an amendment if the government were to move the bill for discussion and adoption without making the changes on supplier liability. The basic point that BJP leaders made was that all the strengthened conditions spelt out in clause 17(b) that were added during discussions with the government would kick in only if these were specifically spelt out in a contract between the operator and the supplier (private foreign company or a foreign government) as the bill stands at present. “Since nuclear power plants are to be operated only by the government or government-owned companies it would be to our advantage to delete the word ‘and' from the end of clause 17(a),” Mr. Jaitley said. The Business Advisory Committee of the Lok Sabha has allotted four hours' discussion time to the bill next week, making it clear the government plans to pass the legislation this parliamentary session. IV. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article582271.ece ‘Nuclear liability Bill will clip wings of India’s nuclear technology’K. P. M. BASHEER Former chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, A. Gopalakrishnan, has said the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill will lead to clipping the wings of India’s indigenous nuclear technology capabilities. Mr. Gopalakrishnan, a stringent critic of the India-U.S. nuclear deal, told *The Hindu* that the new law would open the doors for the U.S. and French nuclear industry to “extensively sell their very costly and unproven light-water reactors (LWR) to India.” He said that back in 2008, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had, without consulting the Indian Parliament or the public, promised the U.S. administration to purchase 10,000 MWe worth of LWRs from that country. This, Mr. Gopalakrishnan claimed, was under pressure from the U.S. administration for getting the `123’ agreement passed by the U.S. Congress. Mr. Singh had also promised French President Nicholas Sarkozy to purchase French reactors, in return for his help to circumvent the Nuclear Suppliers Group’s conditions. Without a liability law that lets the reactor manufacturers off the hook in case of a nuclear accident, these companies would not dare to do business with India, he said. Mr. Gopalakrishnan pointed out that India is a leading country in thorium breeder reactor technology and is poised to build thorium-based reactors routinely by 2040. The country had abundant resources of thorium raw material in the sands of Kerala’s shores. Moreover, the indigenous nuclear technology capabilities would, in another ten years, enable India to design and build 1000-MWe PHWRs (pressurised heavy water reactors.) “This is a natural progression; we started off with 220 MWe reactors, now we are in the process of building 700 MWe units , and soon we will acquire the capability to build 1000-MWe reactors.” (The largest LWR India now plans to import is a 1650-MWe French reactor.) He contended that the plan to import 40,000 MWe worth reactors during 2015-35 would shelve the thorium-based breeder reactor technology currently under development. “We have two generations of top-class nuclear scientists and engineers who have been painstakingly trained; we have the technological and industrial capability; and we have abundant raw materials,” he said. “All these will go to waste if we predominantly start relying on the import of the highly expensive U.S. and French reactors.” A reactor like the AP-1000 had not yet been built or tested even in the U.S. Because of the lack of demand, the U.S. nuclear industry had been idle for some time and it would take several years for them to get the reactors going in India. Mr. Gopalakrishnan thinks that had Prime Minister Singh’s secret promise (in the form of a letter by India’s Foreign Secretary to the U.S. Under-Secretary of State) on September 10, 2008 been made public at the time, the Opposition parties and the public would not have perhaps let the India-U.S. nuclear deal through. The commitment was made without a proper techno-economic impact assessment, he alleged. That commitment would prove to be fatal for India’s indigenous reactor technology, he said. Mr. Singh had also promised that India would `take all steps necessary’ to adhere to the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) for Nuclear Damage. “The CSC Annex insists that the national law should legally channel the liability for all nuclear accidents in India absolutely to the `operator’ of the nuclear facility,” he pointed out. “This sell-out to the U.S. administration has been kept from all the deliberations on the liability Bill.” At the same time, he alleged, the desirability of joining the CSC is highlighted by the government, using `false and baseless’ arguments. “The unwarranted written assurance given by the Prime Minister to help obtain the NSG clearance and the passage of the `123’ agreement has now come to haunt the government in the context of the liability Bill,” he said. -- 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.
