Minister of state for science and technology and earth sciences Prithviraj Chavan is a picture of satisfaction after the successful passage of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Bill, 2010, in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday.
Chavan worked on the drafting of the bill, coordinating within the government and with the opposition, and piloted it in the Lok Sabha.
In an interview with DNA at his residence in New Delhi on Saturday, Chavan tried to clear the air and clarify issues with regard to the controversial legislation. Excerpts:
Why did the liability bill generate so much heat?
There was a lot of bitterness while passing the India-US civil nuclear deal. The Left Front had walked out of the government. In contrast, in the case of the nuclear liability bill, there was morecooperation.
Eighteen amendments to the bill. Was it a badly drafted bill which needed a lot of tinkering?
All the amendments were based on suggestions made during the consultation process by experts, by NGOs, as well as by the parliamentary standing committee. The government had consulted even international NGOs like Greenpeace.
All the amendments except one were moved by the government. The amendment to raise the compensation amount to Rs1,500 crore was mooted by the BJP. The figure mentioned by the government in the bill was Rs500 crore. The standing committee recommended Rs1,000 crore, and the Left Front had suggested Rs10,000 crore.
The other amendment was to do with removing the word ‘intent’ with regard to suppliers’ liability. It was done by the government at the suggestion of interlocutors.
The decision to make suppliers liable was at the behest of the opposition parties?
No. It was there in the bill as drafted by the government. It was decided to include the suppliers in the wake of the Union Carbide experience. We were aware that this was going further than the existing laws in 28 of the countries which operate civil nuclear reactors.
The international suppliers are apprehensive, but we have made it clear to them that in the light of the Carbide episode, we cannot keep the suppliers’ liability out of the bill. After the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the US and others will modify their laws. In that sense, the Indian liability law will be leading the way.
There is a strong suspicion that this legislation has been rushed through Parliament in time for US president Barack Obama’s visit to India in November. What is your response?
It is an unfair allegation. There are four countries which make large nuclear reactors and are interested in the expansion of the civil nuclear sector in India — France, Russia, Japan and the US. Two of the four suppliers of large reactors are in Japan, Hitachi and Westinghouse. Americans are part-owners in Hitachi. Westinghouse, an American company, is owned by the Japanese.
The leaders of these countries have been pleading the case of their respective manufacturers and suppliers. It was a big part of the agenda of France's President Nicolas Sarkozy and Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev during their state visits to India.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is visiting Japan and the issue will figure in the talks with Japanese leaders. During President Obama’s visit, the issue will come up as well. India is a big market and it is natural that these countries and their leaders would want to push the case of their companies.
But why was the bill pushed through now and not later?
The bill is late by five years. The India-US civil nuclear agreement took three years, from 2005 through 2008, to get ratified in the two countries. Then came the elections. And work started again when the new government took over.
In fact, work on the liability law began under the NDA [BJP-led National Democratic Alliance] government in 2000. The ministry of external affairs had prepared an experts’ report and the draft legislation was ready. The NDA could not bring it to Parliament because the elections came and it was voted out of office.
Was this legislation a prerequisite for the expansion of the civil nuclear power sector?
Absolutely. International suppliers were not willing to sell reactors without a liability law. They, too, are afraid of being dragged into litigation in Indian courts. The liability provisions in the law make them partially responsible for the payment of damages.
Are existing laws adequate to take care of the commercial contract between international vendors and Indian operators?
There are three kinds of liability — civil, criminal and product-related. The civil liability is focused on prompt payment of compensation. The suppliers face prosecution under the IPC [Indian Penal Code], and also under product liability provisions even after fulfilling civil liability obligations.
Comments