Claims Red Arrows face solar glare risk rejected
An RAF source has dismissed claims that glare from solar farms could cause the Red Arrows to crash.
In a House of Commons debate, Conservative MP Dr Caroline Johnson said light reflecting from panels could dazzle RAF pilots flying from air bases, including one used for training aircrew.
However, a senior RAF source told the PA news agency this was not the case and "in general terms, solar panels across fields in Lincolnshire are not going to affect our pilots".
The Ministry of Defence and the RAF have been contacted for comment.
Johnson, the MP for Sleaford and North Hykeham, hit out at plans for large solar farms in her rural Lincolnshire constituency during a parliamentary debate on the issue, arguing they were inappropriate as they could hinder farmland productivity.
She told the Commons earlier: "I also ask the minister to give due consideration to the three RAF bases local to my constituency, RAF Waddington, RAF Cranwell and RAF Digby.
"Glint and glare from reflective panels will cause problems for pilots flying over these areas.
"Our newest pilots undergo basic training at Cranwell and RAF Waddington is home to the Red Arrows."
She said while it was "a huge joy" to watch the display team practising at high speeds, clusters of adjoining panels "creating glint and glare could lead to disaster".
Labour MP Sarah Russell intervened to point out the pilots in countries such as Spain, where there are "widespread solar panels", did not have a problem.
Johnson replied: "I wonder if the average jumbo jet flying to Heathrow does a loop-the-loop on the way in?"
A senior RAF source, who had flown fast jets for more than two decades, said: "At no point in my flying career did I ever have any problems with solar panels. Clearly, they weren't as prolific as they are now around the UK, but even so.
"If you were putting something big, shiny and tall on the approach lane to a major airfield like Heathrow or any of our MoD operating bases, then clearly the Ministry of Defence or the Civil Aviation Authority would be interested and put a request in for more information, and if we weren't happy, we would oppose it."
Energy minister Michael Shanks said: "These solar panels are designed to absorb light, not reflect it... glint and glare is considered within the planning process already."
Five large solar farms have already been approved for Lincolnshire, with more already in the pipeline.
Johnson said: "Lincolnshire is the nation's bread basket and produces 30% of the nation's vegetables.
"This is land we can least afford to lose."
Listen to highlights from Lincolnshire on BBC Sounds, watch the latest episode of Look North or tell us about a story you think we should be covering here.
Retired couple 'devastated' by solar farm plans
Concern over impact of large-scale solar farm
Ed Miliband criticises Reform's Net Zero stance
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
35 minutes ago
- Politico
Stefanik returns to influential House intel committee
Elise Stefanik is finally back on the House Intelligence Committee. On Friday morning, Speaker Mike Johnson added the New York Republican back to the influential spy panel, after months haggling over how to return the GOP star to her coveted committee post. Stefanik was added to the committee under unanimous consent, along with Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.). The congressmember was originally set to maintain her seat on the Intelligence Committee this January, but gave up the assignment when she was tapped to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. President Donald Trump pulled his selection back in March due to the GOP's narrow majority in the House. After her ambassador bid flamed out, Johnson said in April he intended to get Stefanik back on the committee. But fulfilling that promise put him in a bind: He could either strip a current Intelligence Committee Republican of a spot, or work with the minority to circumvent committee rules and add another Democrat. Johnson opted for the latter, pairing Stefanik with Cohen and expanding the panel past a limit under committee rules of 25 members. A spokesperson for Johnson declined to comment on any potential deal with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.). A spokesperson for Jeffries didn't immediately reply to a request for comment. Cohen has been in Congress since 2007 but has never served on the Intelligence Committee. Stefanik's allies hold Johnson responsible for her losing out on the ambassador post, which could have given the Republican rising star a prominent voice in Trump's foreign policy. Johnson and Stefanik have been warring behind the scenes for several weeks as they have sought to restore her previous positions in Congress. Tensions spilled into public view in April when the congressmember publicly denied Johnson's claims that the pair had spoken about potentially running for governor of New York. The two sat down together in April in a bid to resolve tensions. Stefanik has sat on the Intelligence Committee since 2017. It was her role on the panel that catapulted her into the national spotlight in 2019 when the committee, then led by Democrats, spearheaded the first impeachment investigation into Trump. Stefanik — once seen as a moderate Republican— emerged as a key defender of Trump in her prosecutorial questioning of witnesses and sharp rebukes of Democrats on the panel. Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gov. Tim Walz calls special session for Monday, Legislature aims to pass 14 bills in one day
The Minnesota State Capitol Wednesday, April 23, 2025. (Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer) Gov. Tim Walz and legislative leaders have a signed agreement for a special legislative session on Monday, with the goal of passing 14 already agreed-upon bills in one day, according to a document obtained by the Reformer. The long-awaited special session comes after weeks of behind-closed-doors meetings between Walz, House Speaker Lisa Demuth, House DFL caucus leader Melissa Hortman and Senate Majority Leader Erin Murphy after the Legislature adjourned on May 19 without passing a biennium budget. The agreement suggests that leaders have whipped enough votes from their caucuses to pass the bills. 'This bipartisan budget agreement makes thoughtful reductions in state spending while keeping us on track to make Minnesota the best state in the country to raise a child,' Walz said in a statement. 'It is the result of hundreds of hours of good-faith, bipartisan debate on the best ways to improve the health, safety and wellbeing of Minnesotans.' Lawmakers must pass a two-year budget by June 30 otherwise Minnesota will go into a partial shutdown. The agreement states that lawmakers will vote on just 14 bills, which are mostly budget bills. However, lawmakers will also pass a standalone bill to strip MinnesotaCare from undocumented adults, as well a bill specifically about financial inducements for the development of data centers, though the agreement doesn't elaborate on the details. The special session agreement was signed by all caucus leaders, including Senate GOP Minority Leader Mark Johnson, who refrained from signing a previously announced budget agreement last month. Johnson said in May that the agreement fell short of what was required for a bipartisan budget. The Senate Republican leader was not part of the latest budget negotiations. 'While Senate Republicans are not party to the overall budget agreement, we are glad to have found agreements to preserve jobs and invest in core infrastructure in our communities,' Johnson said in a statement. Lawmakers during the special session will not be able to make amendments to the 14 bills on the floor, except as previously agreed to. But the agreement suggests legislators may not have time to fully read the bills, some of which will be hundreds of pages long. 'The finalized bills will be conveyed to the House and Senate on Monday, June 9, 2025, and must be voted upon or passed by both bodies before 7:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 10, 2025,' the agreement states. The bills include a tax and local aid bill and a capital investment bill — two pieces of legislation that were on shaky ground throughout the weeks-long budget negotiations. No other bills other than those listed in the agreement will be considered. The one-day mandate is a tall order for lawmakers, many of whom are used to making long floor speeches. Hortman late last month said House Democrats will want to make speeches on the floor about the bill to strip MinnesotaCare from undocumented adults to justify their no votes, though she said she's confident the work can be done in one day.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Who owns the news? It must not be a group of foreign powers
Who owns the news? Much of the Left has been obsessed with the issue for over a century. They have long railed against press barons and their supposed bias. So it is perhaps surprising that this Labour Government is taking such a lackadaisical approach to foreign states having substantial holdings in British newspapers. The last Conservative government back in December 2023 intervened to put on hold and scrutinise the proposed sale of The Telegraph to a company backed by Sheikh Mansour, the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates. Columnists, including Charles Moore, The Telegraph's former editor, rightly argued that even if there was no actual interference in the newspaper's editorial line, there would be the perception that the paper would no longer be independent. This would fatally undermine the newspaper's standing by throwing away its reputation for fearless reporting, whatever the reality of the situation. The then government listened and last year, in the Digital, Media and Competitions Act, introduced a new regulatory regime to restrict foreign state ownership of newspapers and news magazines. But this Act only set out the broad principle, not the details of how it would be implemented. A total ban would come with its own problems. There would be little risk of editorial interference if, say, the sovereign wealth fund of Norway was a passive investor owning 3pc or 4pc in a UK-listed media company. During the consultations, it was proposed that a 5pc limit may be appropriate to allow for such holdings. Last month the new Government announced that the threshold would not be 5pc, but actually 15pc. I and many of my colleagues in the House of Lords have serious misgivings about this much higher limit, but it is one we can live with. However, there is another aspect of the draft regulations which is unacceptable. The 15pc threshold is not cumulative, it applies to each individual holding. This means that there would be nothing to stop multiple states each owning 15pc of a newspaper. It has been reported that after The Telegraph's proposed takeover by RedBird Capital, Sheikh Mansour intends to retain up to a 15pc stake in the newspaper. With the current proposals there would be nothing to stop, say, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Bahrain from each taking 15pc holdings. A cumulative 60pc of a British newspaper owned by foreign states is a very different proposition. The guarantees against foreign control would have evaporated. Has this potential scenario arisen as a result of an oversight by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary? Alongside 50 of my fellow peers, I have written to Ms Nandy asking for clarification. Signatories include former chancellor Lord Lamont, former trade secretary Lord Lilley, long-time chairman of the 1922 committee Lord Brady, ex-director of public prosecutions Lord Macdonald and the current chairman of Ipso, the independent press regulator, Lord Faulks. Our fears could be easily assuaged by simply amending the proposed regulations to ensure that 15pc is a cap on total foreign ownership. If the move is deliberate, it raises serious questions about this Government's commitment to a free press. The statutory instrument implementing the Government's regulations has now been laid and will shortly come before both Houses of Parliament. If the proposals reach the Lords in their current form, I and many of my colleagues will not be able to support the measure. The Telegraph's ownership has been left in limbo for two years so far. It is time for the new regulatory framework to be put in place that will allow its smooth transfer to new owners. But this must be done in a way that entrenches the traditional freedoms of our press. The issues are much wider than the future of just one newspaper. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
