Panel stalls move to dilute N-bill

NEW DELHI: The government’s plans to delete a sub-clause in the civil liability for nuclear damage bill dealing with culpability of foreign suppliers in the event of a nuclear accident has hit a roadblock with members of the Parliament’s standing committee opposing the move.

In what is seen as part of the efforts to make the bill more appealing for the US, the government had put before the panel an amendment to the legislation that deals with the operator of the nuclear installation having the right to pursue a foreign supplier for damage caused due to negligence.

Members of the parliamentary panel said the section that explains the operator’s “right to recourse” was watered down by deleting the provision that this route would be available only if “the nuclear accident has resulted from the wilful act or gross negligence on part of the supplier of the material, equipment or services, or of his employee.”

As these proposed changes came in the backdrop of the “shameful” Bhopal verdict, MPs across the political aisle said Parliament will not allow any dilution in the liability bill. They grilled secretary, department of atomic energy, Srikumar Banerjee and CMD of nuclear power corporation S K Jain on what the government would do to counter the impression that indemnity of foreign suppliers was being diluted.

They also sought explanation from the government as to why only the government or tax payers would end up paying for compensation and how could the very clauses in the bill pinning down suppliers were being sought to be deleted.
Sources said the complete unanimity in the panel led to the rejection of the amendment.

There was outrage in the panel over the indemnity being offered to foreign suppliers. Government leaders conceded that proposed amendment will have to be dropped when the bill comes up for discussion in Parliament.

The fate of attempts to “strengthen” the language of Section 47 that states no prosecution or legal proceedings may lie against the central government in respect of anything done in “good faith”, too, seems similarly uncertain.