Nuclear Power Already Has Tax Payer Funded Limited Liability, Now Fusion is Granted “Absolute Indemnity” like some crazed uninsured joyrider.

The early and we now know ridiculous promises of energy of too cheap has now evolved into energy too expensive to Insure. The reason is the threat to all life on planet earth - worth it????

Photo by Viktor Hesse on Unsplash.

Press Release Below from Nuclear Free Local Authorities

Time to Step Up – Campaigner calls on MP to challenge decision to give fusion indemnity over accident liabilities

Renowned nuclear campaigner, and friend to the Nuclear Free Local Authorities, Dr David Lowry has just written to his local Member of Parliament calling on her to challenge ministers over their pledge to provide an absolute indemnity over costs incurred by a nuclear fusion pilot plant being built in the Midlands should there be ‘incidents involving nuclear matter or emissions of ionising radiation arising from fusion activities relating to the STEP programme.’

In a written statement issued to Parliament just prior to MPs leaving for the summer recess, Minister for Climate – and seemingly defacto Nuclear Minister – Kerry McCarthy – announced that this latest financial ‘get out of jail free’ card for the nuclear industry would be ‘remote and uncapped’. The assumption by the Treasury – and therefore by taxpayers – of any liability is Ms McCarthy insists necessary to ‘address the gap in the insurance market’ which rather suggests that no-one in the commercial insurance market is prepared to take on the risks associated with this nascent technology.

The STEP project will be situated on the bank of the River Trent in a former coal-fired power station at West Burton.[i] According to the statement: ‘The 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 statement fails to say that the Chancellor Rachel Reeves recently awarded the project £2.5 billion for development in the latest government Spending Review.

Dr Lowry, who has a distinguished academic and professional background in nuclear matters, including acting as an advisor to the UK’s Chief Nuclear Inspector and the Energy Minister, wrote to his local MP to draw her attention to this sudden announcement and to protest at the promise of an ‘unlimited amount of money, for an unlimited time’ made ‘to a private company whose insurance risk for its nuclear activities would reside 100% with the future taxpayer’.

Rightly advising that fusion is ‘certainly experimental’..and..’may also be risky’, Dr Lowry is calling for a ‘proper debate in the House’ where the ‘minister responsible (presumably Ms McCarthy) can 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’.

The NFLAs have kind permission from Dr Lowry to reproduce his letter, and we have also reproduced Minister McCarthy’s statement. We invite readers of this media release to use it to contact their own Member of Parliament. However that the clock is ticking and you only have a short time window so please step up and act now.

Ends//…For more information contact NFLA Secretary Richard Outram by email torichard.outram@manchester.gov.uk

The written statement issued to Parliament yesterday by Minister of Climate Kerry McCarthy:

‘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.’[ii]

Dr Lowry’s letter to his local Member of Parliament:

Dear ,

I write as a constituent.

This Contingent Liabilities Notice to Parliament -issued late in Monday afternoon, 21st July – 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

---

[i]

https://step.ukaea.uk/

[ii] https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-07-21/hcws876