1 year ago
633
NFLA Secretary Richard Outram is disappointed that the new Energy Minister has completely missed the point that taxpayers should not be on the hook for unlimited liabilities to the nuclear fusion industry ‘resulting from incidents involving nuclear matter or emissions of ionising radiation arising from fusion activities relating to the STEP programme’.
On July 21, Climate Minister Kerry McCarthy issued a Departmental Minute to Parliament indicating that the Government will assume these liabilities for STEP (the Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production) project, the fusion experimental plant being built on a former power station site in West Burton with taxpayer money.
Richard wrote to his MP, Debbie Abrahams protesting that ‘As a citizen, I do not want my future taxes in hoc to a private company whose insurance risk for its nuclear activities would reside 100% with the future taxpayer. The procedure is certainly experimental; it may also be risky’. He asked that a request be placed with the Minister ‘with a full published risk analysis for STEP’ prior to a Parliamentary debate and vote.
In response, Ms Abrahams advised Richard that she had written to ‘the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to make further enquiries about the STEP programme and make representations about your concerns’.
Ms McCarthy has now written back with a standard response in which she waxes lyrical about the supposed benefits that will be delivered through nuclear fusion, yet this is a technology described in the minister’s response as ‘nascent’, a euphemism for currently non-functioning.
The Minister makes a summary assessment that the risk presented by fusion is low, yet concedes ‘there is no private insurance market to provide cover to UKIFS (UK Industrial Fusion Limited) or their industry partners for liabilities in the unlikely event that radiological material or radiation is released from STEP outside of permit conditions‘.
This could suggest that the private sector might not want to insure any emerging nuclear fusion market because of the risk it presents, and if this is the case His Majesty’s Government might ultimately also have to indemnify nuclear fusion operators other than STEP in the future.
The Ministerial Direction effectively saddles the British taxpayer with responsibility to indemnify UKIFS ‘for an unlimited amount of money, for an unlimited time’.
And there is ambiguity in the timescale as some sources suggest STEP will be operational by 2040, whilst the Minister’s statement of 21 July says ‘by the 2040s’. This could mean 2049.
Finally, Richard was gratified to hear that the Minister’s letter was made in response to ‘a number of constituents’ suggesting some level of public disquiet with the Government’s decision.
Ends//…For more information contact NFLA Secretary Richard Outram by email to richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk
Email sent to Debbie Abrahams by NFLA Secretary Richard Outram 22 July 2025:
Subject: Objection to the Contingent Liabilities Notice to Parliament re the STEP fusion pilot project
Dear Debbie,
I write as a constituent.
Minister for Climate Kerry McCarthy has just issued the following statement – a Contingent Liabilities Notice to Parliament – late in Monday afternoon, 21st July –
‘I have laid before Parliament a Departmental Minute setting out the particulars of a new contingent liability associated with fusion activities relating to the STEP fusion energy programme.
STEP (Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production) is the UK’s flagship fusion programme, which aims to deliver a prototype fusion power plant by the 2040s. STEP will be delivered by UK Industrial Fusion Solutions Ltd (UKIFS), a wholly owned subsidiary of the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), an executive non-departmental public body. The STEP delivery model requires input from industrial partners (private engineering and construction) to leverage their expertise and capacity. A procurement is currently being undertaken to select these partners.
The provision of a new HMG contingent liability would be for liabilities resulting from incidents involving nuclear matter or emissions of ionising radiation arising from fusion activities relating to the STEP programme. Given the nascency of the fusion sector, there is no existing market provision for such liabilities. Therefore, an HMG contingent liability will provide UKAEA, UKIFS and their industrial partners the assurance necessary to undertake work on the programme.
The contingent liability is intended to address the gap in the insurance market and therefore would be constrained in line with insurance that could be expected to be obtained in the private sector to cover liabilities unrelated to nuclear matter or emission of ionising radiation incidents. The contingent liability will be reviewed if there is a material change in government policy on fusion that significantly alters the nature of the contingent liability. This contingent liability will be remote and uncapped.
The Treasury has approved the proposal, and I have been able to provide the usual notice of 14 parliamentary sitting days before the contingent liability begins to be incurred.’ https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-07-21/hcws876
It says MPs have 14 sitting days to object, if they wish to do so.
I find it suspicious this is presented as a written statement late in the day of the penultimate working day before recess, when it could have been issued any number of days earlier.
The minister is asking Parliament to indemnify the company operating this experimental fusion reactor, STEP, for an unlimited amount of money, for an unlimited time.
As a citizen, I do not want my future taxes in hoc to a private company whose insurance risk for its nuclear activities would reside 100% with the future taxpayer. The procedure is certainly experimental; it may also be risky.
I cannot see how current day MPs can sign this request off without at least a proper debate on the floor of the House, or else they will be establishing an extreme inter-generational inequity, whereby this generation hands in the hazard & liability costs to future generations.
In light of this, to protect myself, yourself, and other future taxpayers, could you formally register an objection to this request to grant STEP contingent liability cover; and request the minister responsible to present Parliament with a full published risk analysis for STEP, so an educated judgment can be made over whether it is appropriate for Parliament to sign this off.
Thank you for considering this objection.
Regards, Richard Outram, Address in Shaw, Oldham
Response received from the Climate Minister Kerry McCarthy MP 26 August 2025:
