By IANS,
New Delhi : A Left-party MP says that the recommendations of a parliamentary panel that examined the contentious nuclear liability bill are “one step back” from its draft. Another Left MP says the bill’s statement of objects and reasons “is not so convincing”.
“Section 17 was initially modified to strengthen 17 (b). However, the current draft has gone one step back from even the original draft bill in protecting the supplier,” said Communist Party of India-Marxist leader Saman Pathak.
The two-page dissenting note, which had been attached with the 25 page report of the standing committee on science and technology that was tabled amidst an uproar in parliament Wednesday, says the report now suggested that section 17 (a) end with an added “and”, “which makes all subsequent section 17 (b) and (C) defunct if 17 (a), is not met”.
“Section 17 (a) says that the right to recourse for the operator shall exist only if it is expressly provided for in the contract. This means that the exisiting law by which a supplier is responsible to the owner is now to be substituted by a private contract between the owner and the supplier,” he pointed out.
Pathak also said that there should be a separate sub-clause which states that “the right to recourse for the operator or the government should be there in the event of supply of equipment which is defective or due to faulty design”.
“Since these changes have not been accepted, I am constrained to draw the conclusion that the provisions of the bill will unduly favour the foreign suppliers of nuclear equipment. This is being done to make the provisions compatible with the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC). I am not convinced why India should join the CSC,” he said.
He also said that he is of the firm opinion that any legislation on civil nuclear liability “should keep the interests of the Indian people, who may be affected in a nuclear accident, as its core concern”.
“The provisions suggested in the bill and those proposed by the committee fail to ensure that. Hence my dissent on the report,” he concluded.
Forward Bloc MP Barun Mukherji, in his three-page dissenting note, said: “The statement of objects and reasons is not so convincing due to its disproportionate presentation of some issues”.
According to him, the bill had been drafted “to facilitate India’s joining the CSC”, adding that during the discussions of the standing committee, the secretary of the Department of Atomic Energy “had also confirmed such intention of India to join CSC”.
“Such approach on behalf of the government appears to be biased and hence, much of its credibility is lost,” Mukherji maintained.