Govt beats a retreat on nuclear liability bill in the Lok Sabha

The government beat a hasty retreat in the Lok Sabha today by suddenly deciding not to introduce a bill that seeks to cap liability  in case of nuclear accidents.

The move to defer the bill came in the face of strong opposition from various political parties.

The introduction of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010, listed in the Lok Sabha's business for the day, was deferred in a last-minute turnaround by the government, which said issues raised by the opposition were "being examined".

"I have a request from minister Prithviraj Chavan that government does not intend to introduce the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill today," Lok Sabha speaker Meira Kumar announced in the House.

The announcement had the entire opposition on its feet demanding to know the reason for the measure being deferred.

While the government did not give any reason in the house for its decision to defer introduction of the bill, minister of state for atomic energy Chavan told reporters later that "notices were received in the morning from some members of their intention to oppose this bill. Those issues are being examined."

Chavan said the government would try to meet these objections
formally or informally. "There is no urgency to introduce the bill," he said in reply to questions, indicating that it may not be tabled before the Lok Sabha breaks for a month's recess tomorrow.

The opposition attacked the bill, saying it was intended to bail out US suppliers of nuclear reactors in case of accidents by capping the liability of operators at Rs300 crore. The overall liability is capped at Rs2,200 crore.

The decision to defer tabling of the bill is understood to have been reached at a cabinet meeting this morning. Besides the declaration of opposition by the Left parties and the BJP, the Trinamul Congress, a constituent of the ruling United Progressive Alliance, had also expressed reservations about the bill.

Indicating that the bill would not be introduced in the first half of the budget session which ends tomorrow, Chavan said, "There is no urgency to introduce the bill."

Responding to the left parties' demand that the bill be referred to the parliamentary standing committee on atomic energy, Chavan said it was the right of the House to do so.

He, however, justified the proposed legislation, saying there was no law at present to govern the award of compensation in the event of a nuclear accident.

India could even tap international funds to provide compensation in such an event if it becomes party to the international convention in this regard, he said.

Opposing the bill, the left parties have said that under the proposed legislation, all the liability would fall upon the operator which is the state-owned Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL).

Since the bill fixes Rs300 crore as the liability of the operator and Rs2,200 crore as the overall liability, they said this meant the government would have to foot the bill for the rest of the amount.

Since the NPCIL is a public-sector enterprise, effectively the entire bill is to be footed by the Indian taxpayer, while the US supplier goes scot-free, they charged.

The left parties have dubbed the bill "a harmful piece of legislation meant to serve the interests of the United States and its nuclear industry".

Describing the legislation as "an outcome of the India-US nuclear deal", they said, "The government is seeking to fulfil a hidden commitment to deliver the legislation that safeguards the interests of the United States at the expense of the safety of the Indian people."

The BJP has also said that it has "serious reservations" about the bill as it "caps the liability of American firms".

National security adviser Shivshankar Menon had met BJP politician Arun Jaitley, leader of the opposition in the Rajya Sabha, last week to brief him about the bill, but the main opposition still has concerns.

Samajwadi Party politician Mulayam Singh Yadav said his party, too, is opposed to the bill as it effectively means that the Indian
government would have to pay compensation while the foreign
players would go scot-free.

A Congress source said the opposition of Trinamul Congress
chief Mamata Banerjee to the bill at the last moment was one
of the main reasons why its introduction was deferred.

The Trinamul Congress has "some reservations", the source said, adding that had this reaction from Banerjee been known
earlier, the bill would not have been listed for business today.

Banerjee reportedly had no objection when the bill was cleared at a cabinet meeting about a fortnight ago.

For the record, the Congress downplayed the decision not to introduce the bill, saying the development was not uncommon as
the government has the right to decide the timing of a bill and to hold consultations.

When the speaker announced the government's decision not to table the bill, Sushma Swaraj, leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha, objected, saying, "The house does not run by the intention of the government but by the rules of the house."

She said that since the matter was listed, a motion should be tabled to withdraw the bill from the agenda.

The speaker, however, rejected the demand, saying such a motion could not be moved as the bill had not been introduced.

Enactment of the liability law is one of the three key requirements because of which the Indo-US nuclear deal, concluded in September 2008, has not been made operational so far.

The other two requirements are setting up of a dedicated reprocessing facility under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards and a declaration by India on non-proliferation.

According to the provisions of the draft legislation, the operator would not be liable for any damages if the accident were caused by "grave national disaster of exceptional character", armed conflict or act of terrorism, or suffered by a person on account of his/her own negligence.

The bill also provides for establishment of a nuclear damage claims commission, which will have one or more claims commissioners for a specified area.

The claims commissioners shall have all powers of a civil court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath, enforcing attendance of witnesses, and compelling the discovery and production of documents and other material objects.