Govt willing to enhance N-liability amount to get bill through

NEW DELHI: Keen to push through the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, the government reiterated its offer to make changes in the proposed legislation, including increasing the liability amount.

In what appeared to be a suggestion for a quid pro quo, the government said that changes could be considered by the standing committee. Refuting charges that it was under “foreign pressure” to bring in the legislation, the Centre used the opportunity accorded by Question Hour in the Rajya Sabha to make a case for a legislation that would provide “immediate and prompt” compensation in the event of a nuclear accident.

Minister for state in the PMO Prithviraj Chavan said, “I totally refute the charges of international pressure... It is not true that the bill is being brought to appease any country... The bill has nothing to do with the Indo-US nuclear deal.”

Responding to questions on the Bill, Mr Chavan said that idea of joining an international convention on nuclear liability since 1988 when the government began negotiating with the then USSR to set up a nuclear power plant in Kudankulam. The issue has been under the consideration of successive governments. The minister stressed that contrary to perception, the Indo-US civil nuclear co-operation deal was not the trigger for the proposed legislation.

The government, Mr Chavan said, intends to introduce the bill in Lok Sabha. However, he gave no time line for it. Sources said that the government would consider introducing the bill only after the Finance Bill was passed. It would, for the time being, focus on creating a consensus for the bill.

A senior minister said that the government has cause to be hopeful that the opposition would veer around to allowing the introduction of the limited liability bill as it would assure immediate compensation for victims.
Stressing on the need to have a legal framework to protect victims of nuclear accidents, the government argued that the bill would provide “immediate and prompt compensation. This money will be given immediately”. Victims could seek further compensation under tort law.

Making a case that the bill was necessary to ensure that victims were provided compensation, Mr Chavan said that at present there was no compensation regime for nuclear accidents.

“If an unforeseen thing was to happen today, we are back to a Bhopal-like situation and that is precisely the rationale for enacting a specific civil nuclear liability regime in conformity with the international practice which is either the Vienna Convention or the Paris convention. But what we are trying to do is join the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage. It is not yet enforced today but would soon come into force. It is our intention to do that. For that, we need to have a national legislation which is compatible with international laws.”

The Opposition has questioned the manner in which the law does not fix liability on the supplier, limiting it to the operator. In the Indian context, this would mean the government as under the Atomic Energy Act only the government or a government owned company can operate a nuclear power plant.

Mr Chavan said that as per international practice liability is on the operator. “Right from the 1957 US law, every single country except India and Pakistan, has adhered to a regime where the strict and absolute liability is fixed on the operator.” Mr Chavan clarified that Section 17 of the proposed legislation provides for the “right of recourse” which would allow operators to enter into an agreement with the supplier.

”Section 17 permits the operator, the central government company, to enter into a contract. I think it is not that they are being excluded. The only thing is that there are other thousands of suppliers and if the victim has to sue and go after every supplier, he will never get compensation. We need one-window-compensation system which is being accepted throughout the world and that is what we are trying to do,” the minister said.

Mr Prithviraj Chavan said that the government was willing to refer the measure to a parliamentary standing committee for scrutiny. It would also consider all suggestions as long as these were in keeping with international conventions. It would also be willing to consider a higher liability limit.

“Parliament is the right forum (to discuss the Bill). If the House wants to send the bill to a parliamentary standing committee, we will do (that),” the minister said.