Left objects to clubbing of two clauses in nuclear liability bill

The Left parties today objected to the clubbing of two clauses in the proposed civil nuclear liability bill, saying this was done to protect the foreign equipment suppliers from any responsibility in case of a nuclear accident.

The parties also opposed the cap of Rs1,500 crore on the liability of a nuclear plant operator, saying it was "hardly significant", pointing out that a nuclear accident would be much more devastating than the Bhopal gas disaster.

Top leaders of the CPI(M), CPI, RSP and Forward Bloc appealed to all political parties to reconsider their position regarding the proposed legislation as the Standing Committee's recommendations "will not substantially improve it".

Demanding the cap should be raised to at least Rs10,000 crore, CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat said "none of the international nuclear liability conventions set any cap on total liability but only set a floor level".

The clubbing of two clauses on the right of recourse of a nuclear plant operator was aimed at protecting the foreign equipment suppliers, he told reporters after a meeting of top Left leaders in New Delhi.

Referring to Clause 17 of the bill, he said the right of the operator to claim damages from the supplier of nuclear equipment and material (right of recourse) has "now been made entirely contingent on whether such right is explicitly provided in the private contract between the operator and supplier".

In the likely scenario of the foreign suppliers not agreeing to provide for right of recourse in the contract, they cannot be held liable for any nuclear damage, even if they have supplied defective equipment, Karat said.

"What is more dubious is that this significant weakening of Clause 17 has been done under the guise of strengthening the right of recourse against the foreign suppliers", he said.

Karat was flanked by Left leaders AB Bardhan, D Raja (both CPI), Debabrate Biswas (Forward Bloc) and Abani Roy (RSP).

He chose not to comment on the alleged trade-off between Congress and BJP over the nuclear bill issue by CBI exonerating Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case.

But his senior party colleague Sitaram Yechury said "the timing of both the things (Narendra Modi and the nuclear liability bill) has naturally generated suspicions of an alleged trade-off.

"The Congress and BJP should explain. Such horse-trading should not take place at the cost of national interest," Yechury said.

Karat said it was noteworthy that none of the international nuclear liability conventions set any cap on total liability, but only set a floor level.

"Countries like South Korea and Sweden have set operator's liability at 300 million special drawing rights (SDR), not total liability. The operator's liability in the US is $11.9 billion.

"Countries like Japan, Russia and Germany do not have any cap on total liability. In contrast, the Indian bill seeks to cap total liability to 300 million special drawing rights, displaying scant regard for the lives and security of Indians," he said.

SDR is an international reserve asset, created by the IMF in 1969, to supplement its member countries' official reserves.

Karat also said the standing committee report has failed to take on board several more objections to the bill, especially regarding the extant provisions protecting the operator and suppliers from facing litigation and the ambiguities regarding nuclear accidents in defence installations, as also the jurisdiction of AERB.

It has also made an objectionable suggestion to create a liability fund to reduce government liability by levying additional charges on electricity, he claimed.

The recommendations of the Standing Committee does not alter the fact that the intent behind the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, as well as its provisions, are meant to facilitate India's joining the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC).

Asked whether the Left was willing to support the bill once the changes are made, Karat said, "as far as the issue of foreign suppliers is concerned, there is no question of us supporting it. If there is any change (brought by government), we will consider then."