Leaders across the UK nuclear sector have sent a joint response to the Chancellor setting out how they intend to change the working culture behind regulation and project delivery.
The letter, dated 12 November, was sent on behalf of the Nuclear Industry CEO Forum. It brings together organisations involved in civil nuclear power, defence and decommissioning around a shared call for faster, more coordinated ways of working while maintaining safety and environmental standards.
The response is the first collective reply from industry and regulators to the Chancellor’s request for reform. The forum is led by the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) and was already established by September.
In the new letter, the leaders argue that existing approaches to regulation and delivery are too slow and fragmented to meet the demands of an expanding nuclear sector. They warn that, without reform, the UK risks higher costs and problems for energy security and defence capability.
What the leaders say will change
The response describes work already being undertaken across the sector, including a move away from some large periodic reviews towards continuous assurance. The stated aim is to identify issues earlier and make interventions before they become more difficult to resolve.
It also points to digital technology and artificial intelligence as tools for maintenance planning, engineering decisions and the allocation of resources, with human oversight and accountability retained. These are examples of work under way across the sector, not necessarily steps taken by every signatory.
Another area is the preparation of safety cases: the evidence and arguments used to show how risks are understood and controlled. The leaders want to avoid repeatedly recreating common arguments, so that effort can focus on the most significant risks. They also propose removing duplication in engineering, safety and environmental processes and encouraging earlier discussions between industry and regulators.
The forum says it will share case studies of effective cultural change, promote lessons learned and encourage wider use of approaches that have worked. Its members commit to supporting people who challenge established practice and make informed, proportionate decisions.
The letter is a collective statement of intent, not a new law or a permission to build. It does not set out a timetable for the forum’s activities or quantify savings from its commitments.
A wider reform programme
The response follows a 2025 review of nuclear regulation led by economist John Fingleton. His taskforce concluded that oversight was fragmented, that the sector was too risk-averse and that commercial incentives were too weak to challenge expensive approaches. It recommended changes to the regulatory system as well as to the culture of organisations working within it.
By March 2026, the government had accepted the principle of all 47 recommendations and aimed to implement them by the end of 2027, subject to parliamentary timings where legislation is needed. The Chancellor’s March letter asked organisations to explain how they would improve delivery while maintaining safe outcomes, and to identify expected time and cost savings.
ONR chief executive and chief nuclear inspector Michael Finnerty signed the November response on the forum’s behalf. Co-signatories include Great British Energy – Nuclear, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, Sellafield Limited, Sizewell C Limited and Rolls-Royce SMR.
Supporters of reform argue that more proportionate decisions can reduce delay without weakening protection. Safety remains a significant concern for others. In 2025, members of a forum representing around 25 local and national non-government groups warned against a more lenient approach to nuclear safety regulation in response to the taskforce’s interim report. They said the report did not sufficiently substantiate its claims and pointed to other possible causes of delay. Those concerns were about the earlier review, not specifically the new forum letter.
The latest response stresses that faster delivery and high standards need not conflict. Whether the changes achieve that balance will depend on how they are applied in practice. The letter itself does not establish that project delays or costs have already fallen as a result of the forum.
