[A section of the critics of the Bill still persists with dishing out the cock-and-bull story that only the US is bent upon nixing the provision as regards suppliers' liability in the teeth of mounting evidences to the contrary. Suppliers' liability vis-a-vis the operator must be demanded, while ensuring that the victims' interests are not jeopardised, on its own merit regardless of the US. So in case of lifting of the cap on overall liability.]
I/IV. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Industry-upset-with-N-liability-bill-changes/articleshow/6428529.cms <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Industry-upset-with-N-liability-bill-changes/articleshow/6428529.cms> Industry upset with N-liability bill changesTNN, Aug 25, 2010, 03.12am IST NEW DELHI: Amid indications that the government<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/search?q=government> may amend the nuclear liability bill yet again to accommodate the Opposition's protest against dilution of the clause dealing with supplier liability, industry <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/search?q=industry> on Tuesday mounted a campaign warning that the toughening of the very same provisions could scare away suppliers -- both Indian and foreign. Government indicated to leaders of both BJP<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/search?q=BJP> and Left that it was not averse to heeding the demand to do away with the change in Clause 17(b) which says the supplier could be held liable for a nuclear mishap only if he is proven to have intentionally caused it. This was a deviation from what the BJP had agreed to, and was seen as setting the bar of evidence too high for anyone to reach. The sudden change immediately unravelled the understanding the government had reached with the BJP and led the principal Opposition, the Left as well as others to accuse the government of trying to let suppliers off the hook. Anxious to secure passage of the bill which is crucial to operationalisation of the nuclear deal with the US and other countries, government on Tuesday evening conveyed to the Opposition that it was ready to revert to the formulation in the original bill which sought to enable operators to seek damages from suppliers for mishaps caused by "wilful act or gross negligence". The bill features in the business Lok Sabha is scheduled to transact on Wednesday and there are indications that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Manmohan-Singh> may use his prerogative under Rule 12 of executive business to carry out the changes without having to take the bill to the Cabinet. Wary of the experience during the last session when lack of numbers forced it to defer introduction of the bill, Congress<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/search?q=Congress> has issued a whip to its MPs to be present in full strength when the House<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/search?q=House> takes up the legislation for "passing". CPM and CPI <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/search?q=CPI> earlier said the government had offered to consider their view on the bill. After an hour-long meeting with science and technology minister Prithviraj Chavan, CPM politburo member Sitaram Yechury said, "The minister appeared willing to consider our point of view, especially those relating to the suppliers' liability. But we have to see the fine print of the proposed legislation." Meanwhile, indications that the government was readying itself for another flip-flop led industry to up its ante against the move to make the provision dealing with supplier liability more stringent, with both Ficci and CII wading into the dispute. Rajan B Mittal, chief of FICCI, wrote to the PM arguing that "Clause 17(b) will severely impact the participation of global nuclear industry in India's nuclear programme, which will hamper not only country's plans for securing energy supplies but also availability of radioisotopes for nuclear medicine etc". Chandrajit Banerjee, secretary general of CII, took an identical line in the letter he addressed to Chavan. Banerjee stressed that that no insurance coverage was available to suppliers in the nuclear business, saying that this was the reason why international liability regimes "use the channelling principle to make the operator's liability absolute and exclusive, thus ensuring effective and timely settlement of nuclear damage claims". The letters by the two industry associations which had so far watched the action from the sidelines came after the surprise intervention of Sudhinder Thakur, executive director of NPCIL. Thakur said the supplier liability clause had been made tough so as to deter people from engaging in nuclear business in India. The intervention from the executive of a staid PSU puzzled many. II. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Dont-nuke-the-deal/articleshow/6427000.cms <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Dont-nuke-the-deal/articleshow/6427000.cms> *COMMENT [Lead Editorial]* Don't nuke the dealAug 25, 2010, 12.00am IST The BJP, in alliance with the Left, tried its best to scuttle the nuclear deal, which brought to an end India's status as an international nuclear pariah. Now the BJP <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/search?q=BJP> is proposing changes to the civil nuclear liability Bill<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/search?q=nuclear%20liability%20Bill> which, if implemented, could effectively bring to an end India's nuclear industry. Let's start at the beginning. The vision behind the nuclear deal was that India <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/India> an energy-hungry nation that's also a responsible nuclear power should get access to materials as well as the most up-to-date technologies for producing nuclear energy. Nuclear power plants could initially be set up as joint ventures, through which Indian firms could pick up the latest reactor technology<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/search?q=reactor%20technology> with advanced safety features. Later there could be more indigenisation as well as export of reactors by Indian firms, making India an indispensable part of the nuclear energy production cycle. The changes in the liability Bill<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/search?q=Bill> proposed by the BJP will take India in exactly the opposite direction. First of all, leaving private players out makes the public sector NPCIL the only serious player to run power plants, setting up a monopoly which will inhibit production capacity as well as adoption of the latest technologies. But even worse, the move to transfer no-fault liability to suppliers will leave India's legislation out of sync with international norms, making it so draconian that suppliers will shy away. Clearly, there's a confusion in legislators' minds between two sorts of liability. The Bill (in its original form) caps only the operator's no-fault liability, which is the immediate payment made to victims of a nuclear accident regardless of who's responsible for it. That makes comparisons with the Bhopal<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/search?q=Bhopal>gas disaster untenable, because in the case of Bhopal there was no equivalent of no-fault liability. Over and above no-fault liability there can be court cases for compensation from those responsible for a nuclear accident, and the Bill imposes no upper limit on such liability. If no-fault liability is imposed on suppliers, however, even the NPCIL is of the view that no supplier, Indian or foreign, will undertake such liability. Given that a nuclear power plant may have thousands of suppliers, many of them Indian, this would lead to the death of the Indian nuclear industry. The BJP proudly claims to have reinforced India's nuclear power status by conducting nuclear tests in 1998. In that case, why is it now so hell-bent on scuttling India's nuclear industry and undermining its future as a nuclear power, not to mention nuking India's international credibility in the bargain? III. http://www.hindu.com/2010/08/25/stories/2010082563051600.htm <http://www.hindu.com/2010/08/25/stories/2010082563051600.htm> *Centre open to Left parties' suggestions on nuclear liability bill* K.V. Prasad NEW DELHI: The Left parties on Tuesday conveyed their opposition to the provisions of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010 including those relating to supplier liability The government indicated that it had an “open mind” on the amendments that the Left might move. In separate meetings with CPI(M) Parliamentary Party leader Sitaram Yechury and CPI MP D. Raja, Minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office Prithviraj Chavan indicated the government's approach. Earlier, the Left parties had criticised the Bill, as approved by the Union Cabinet, for not only having gone “against the grain of the crucial recommendations of the Standing Committee but also seeking to further dilute the provisions of the original bill to protect the interests of the foreign suppliers of nuclear equipment and domestic private players.” Mr. Yechury told The Hindu that the government said it could not raise the cap from Rs.1,500 crore to Rs.10,000 crore, as the Left suggested, because it would not be possible to get insurance cover; and as for dropping “wilful intent” from Clause 17 (b), it could be considered. Mr. Raja said the government planned to introduce the bill in Parliament on Wednesday and as to the specific objection of the Left to introducing the word “intent” in Clause 17 (b), it had an “open mind” on the amendments the Left moved. As for the Left charge that the government wanted to underwrite the liability of private nuclear installations by proposing an amendment through which it sought to “assume full liability for a nuclear installation not operated by it,” Mr. Chavan said the interpretation was incorrect. Mr. Yechury said the Minister explained that the government wanted to take responsibility for other installations run by the public sector Nuclear Power Corporation of India that were outside the purview of international inspections and if the government did not underwrite the liability, these too would have to be insured entailing inspection. However, Mr. Raja said the Left remained unconvinced about the need for India joining the Convention on Supplementary Compensation. “The bill in the present form is not acceptable, and the Left parties will discuss and take a view after it is introduced in Parliament,” he said. While the four Left parties issued a joint statement on Sunday, CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat on Monday said in Srinagar that the bill was being brought at the behest of the U.S. to safeguard its interests. He said the Manmohan Singh government wanted to enact the legislation before the visit of President Barack Obama in November this year. IV. *Some Excerpts:* *A*. Quote The Russian government source also said that like the US and France, Russia would have to “take another look” at its contract with India if the Bill incorporated foreign supplier liability. “Russia is united with the US and France on this score… India is creating an international precedent… nobody will accept this,” the Russian government source said. He pointed out that India and Russia were, in fact, currently discussing the technical contract for two more nuclear plants, also to be set up at Kudankulam — for which an agreement was signed when Russian president Dmitry Medvedev came to Delhi two years ago — but if India insisted on incorporating supplier liability in the Bill, Russia could find it difficult to proceed with the agreement. “The Indian Bill under discussion in the Indian parliament may become an obstacle in the fulfilment of the Kudankulam contract with Russia,” the Russian source said. Unquote [Source: <http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/russia-s ays-no-to-supplier-liability/405596/>.] *B*. Quote In a letter to prime minister Manmohan Singh, FICCI president Rajan Bharti Mittal said that the controversial Clause 17 of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2010 was "neither implementable nor justified". "Any civil nuclear liability (CNL) claim on suppliers and service providers beyond their terms of supply, ie for 60 years plant life + claim liability period of 20 years will make impossible their participation in future," Mittal said. He contended that passage of the bill in its current form would "adversely impact" the participation if the industry in the nuclear sector not only in the future programme but also prevent from "supporting or servicing the present 17 NPPs as well as other nuclear installations operating within the country". "Attributing any defect liability beyond the internationally accepted period of 12-24 months on the supplier of equipment will make the participation of technology providers both domestic and foreign unviable and lead to the exit of such players from the nuclear business," Mittal said. CII director general Chandrajit Banerjee said the clause 17(b) for civil nuclear liability claim on Suppliers and Service Providers beyond their terms of supply, for 60 years plant life + 20 years of Claim Liability period, is perceived as a major deterrent by the industry. In a letter to minister of state in the PMO Prithviraj Chavan, he said if there is multiple recourse, suppliers will be required to take insurance cover for 60 + 20 years which is not available. "Foreign suppliers will also not be able to participate because of lack of insurance coverage. However, in the event that they do, they will pass?"on the liability to Indian suppliers. This will stall the growth of the nuclear manufacturing industry in India and, will be a setback for the government's plan to indigenise maximum supplies for the foreign technology plants," Banerjee said. Unquote [Source: <http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_industry-voices -concern-on-nuclear-bill-amendments_1428284>.] *C*. Quote In a letter to Science and Technology Minister Prithviraj Chavan, CII's director-general Chandrajeet Banerjee singled out clause 17 (b) of the nuclear bill that relates to suppliers' liability and said it was a major deterrent for suppliers. 'This clause for claim on suppliers and service providers beyond their terms of supply, for 60 years plant life plus 20 years of claim liability period, is perceived as a major deterrent by the industry,' he wrote. The letter pointed out that 300-400 Indian suppliers and service providers are engaged for completing each nuclear power plant (both foreign as well as domestic design). 'It may not be practical for the operator to have multiple recourse against all such suppliers for civil nuclear liability,' the letter said. 'If there is multiple recourse, suppliers will be required to take insurance cover for 60 + 20 years. Globally, there is no insurance coverage available for suppliers in the nuclear business,' it added. The letter pointed out that as insurance cover is available for operators, international liability regimes use the channeling principle to make the operator's liability absolute and exclusive, thus ensuring effective and timely settlement of nuclear damage claims. 'Given this context, Indian suppliers and sub-suppliers (including small and medium enterprises) will be precluded from conducting business in the nuclear power sector. Foreign suppliers will also not be able to participate because of lack of insurance coverage,' it warned. 'However, in the event that they do, they will pass-on the liability to Indian suppliers. This will stall the growth of the nuclear manufacturing industry in India and, will be a setback for the government's plan to indigenize maximum supplies for the foreign technology plants,' said the letter. The industry body's warning comes amid mounting pressure on the government to toughen suppliers' liability a day before the draft bill is likely to be introduced in parliament. Unquote [Source: <http://sify.com/finance/stringent-liability-will-det er-nuclear-suppliers-warns-cii-news-default-kiywubeeaef.html>.] -- 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.
