Solar farms could cause Red Arrows to crash, Tory MP claims
Dr Caroline Johnson hit out at plans for large solar farms in her rural Lincolnshire constituency, arguing they were inappropriate as they could hinder farmland productivity in the area.
However, Johnson also said solar farms could be problematic for pilots flying from air bases which had played critical roles in the Second World War, and another which is a key training base for aircrew.
READ MORE: Scottish Tory MP Andrew Bowie accused of 'contempt for scientific evidence'
Leading a debate in the House of Commons on the renewable energy source, she said: '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. It is a huge joy for me and many of my constituents to watch the nation's iconic display team practice the loop-the-loop and roll into turns at high speeds.
'But the miles and miles of aligned panels creating glint and glare could lead to disaster.'
Labour MP Sarah Russell intervened and asked Johnson to clarify.
She said: 'Does (she) agree with me that pilots seem to fly throughout our nation and many others already, despite there being widespread solar panels in, for instance, Spain, where there is more sunshine than here. So it seems unlikely that they'll be unlikely to manage in her constituency.'
Johnson replied: 'I wonder if the average jumbo jet flying to Heathrow does a loop-the-loop on the way in?'
Tory MP Caroline JohnsonShe continued to raise concerns, this time about the impact on the home of UK signals unit, the Joint Cyber and Electromagnetic Activities Group, which provides support to the Army, RAF and Royal Navy.
She said: 'RAF Digby is the headquarters of the Joint Cyber and Electromagnetic Activities Group. Any interference with these defence estates could cause significant harm.'
Speaking from the frontbench, Liberal Democrat MP Edward Morello said he could 'write a whole other speech debunking some of the things that were said today', adding: 'Any solar farm development requires a glint and glare report before it gets approved if it's anywhere near an air force base or an airport."
Energy Minister Michael Shanks said: 'These solar panels are designed to absorb light, not reflect it, and … glint and glare is considered within the planning process already. So it is one of the factors that is taken into account.'
READ MORE: 'Massive increase' in UK military equipment sent to Israel under Labour, data shows
Five large solar farms have already been approved for Lincolnshire, with more already in the pipeline.
But there has been criticism that it will vastly reduce the amount of high quality agricultural land.
Johnson said: 'Lincolnshire is the nation's bread basket and produces 30% of the nation's vegetables.
'The land in the county is also more productive than the UK average, with the wheat harvest over a difficult last five years 25% above the UK average and much, much more productive than global averages. So this is land we can least afford to lose.'
RAF Waddington, RAF Cranwell, and the Ministry of Defence have been contacted for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
8 minutes ago
- The Guardian
MPs back bill changes to prevent medics raising assisted dying with under-18s
Medics would not be allowed to raise assisted dying as an option with under-18s, and advertising it would be banned under changes backed by MPs on Friday before a final vote expected next week. The Commons voted on amendments to the assisted dying bill, which would legalise the option for terminally ill adults in England and Wales who have been told they have fewer than six months to live. The final Commons vote is scheduled on 20 June, with support and opposition finely balanced – and growing scrutiny over timelines, loopholes and who would ultimately deliver the system. A majority of MPs approved a clause tabled by Labour MP Meg Hillier, an opponent of the bill, to ensure health professionals cannot raise the topic of assisted dying with under-18s. A separate amendment from Hillier to bar health workers from bringing up assisted dying with adult patients before they have raised it themselves was voted down. There were impassioned interventions from both sides of the debate. Rupa Huq, the Labour MP for Ealing Central, said the cost-of-living crisis would make assisted dying 'quite attractive' to people who were struggling. 'We know that BAME communities have lower disposable household income than standard households, and you can just imagine relatives in a housing crisis wanting to speed up grandad's probate to get a foot on the ladder, or granny or nanny, ma or daddy even convincing themselves that, 'look, they'd be better off out of the way given the cost of care,'' Huq said. Caroline Voaden, the Liberal Democrat MP for South Devon, recalled the death of her husband, who she said had been 'in extreme pain' with terminal oesophageal cancer, and urged her colleagues to 'mind our language' after words like 'murder' were used. 'This is about helping people die in a civilised way and helping their families not go through a horrendous experience of watching a loved one die in agony,' Voaden said. MPs voted in favour of a proposal by Kim Leadbeater, who is sponsoring the bill, to ban advertisements about assisted dying. But they rejected a separate proposal from Labour MP Paul Waugh for tighter regulations which would have limited exceptions on Friday's amendments. Waugh said he hoped that 'enough MPs now realise that it is not fit for purpose'. The bill passed its first stage by a majority of 55 in November. Since then more than a dozen are thought to have switched sides to oppose the bill, though at least three have moved to support it. A number of other amendments were passed on Friday, including a provision for assisted dying deaths to not automatically be referred to a coroner and an attempt to regulate substances for use in assisted dying. Demonstrators for and against a change in the law gathered outside parliament to make their views known. Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion Opening the debate, Leadbeater said it was not about a choice between assisted dying or palliative care. 'Palliative and end-of-life care and assisted dying can and do work side by side to give terminally-ill patients the care and choice they deserve in their final days,' she said. As it stands, the proposed legislation would allow terminally-ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the bill and any amendments, meaning they vote according to their conscience rather than along party lines. The government is neutral on the legislation. Stephen Kinnock, a health minister, said there had been more than 90 hours of parliamentary time spent debating the proposals so far, and more than 500 amendments had been considered at committee stage earlier this year.
New Statesman
12 minutes ago
- New Statesman
AI regulation does not stifle innovation
Photo credit: Claudenakagawa / Shutterstocl Ever since co-founding the All-Party Parliamentary Group on AI nine years ago, still ably administered by the Big Innovation Centre, I've been deeply involved in debating and advising on the implications of artificial intelligence. My optimism about AI's potential remains strong – from helping identify new Parkinson's treatments to DeepMind's protein structure predictions that could transform drug discovery and personalised medicine. Yet this technology is unlike anything we've seen before. It's potentially more autonomous, with greater impact on human creativity and employment, and more opaque in its decision-making processes. The conventional wisdom that regulation stifles innovation needs turning on its head. As AI becomes more powerful and pervasive, appropriate regulation isn't just about restricting harmful practices – it's key to driving widespread adoption and sustainable growth. Many potential AI adopters are hesitating not due to technological limitations but Tim Clement-Jones Liberal Democrat peer and spokesperson for the digital economy uncertainties about liability, ethical boundaries and public acceptance. Clear regulatory frameworks addressing algorithmic bias, data privacy and decision transparency can actually accelerate adoption by providing clarity and confidence. Different jurisdictions are adopting varied approaches. The European Union's AI Act, with its risk-based framework, started coming into effect this year. Singapore has established comprehensive AI governance through its model AI governance framework. Even China regulates public-facing generative AI models with fairly heavy inspection regimes. The UK's approach has been more cautious. The previous government held the AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park and established the AI Safety Institute (now inexplicably renamed the AI Security Institute), but with no regulatory teeth. The current government has committed to binding regulation for companies developing the most powerful AI models, though progress remains slower than hoped. Notably, 60 countries – including Saudi Arabia and the UAE, but not Britain or the US – signed the Paris AI Action Summit declaration in February this year, committing to ensuring AI is 'open, inclusive, transparent, ethical, safe, secure and trustworthy'. Several critical issues demand urgent attention. Intellectual property: the use of copyrighted material for training large language models without licensing has sparked substantial litigation and, in the UK, unprecedented parliamentary debate. Governments need to act decisively to ensure creative works aren't ingested into generative AI models without return to rights-holders, with transparency duties on developers. Digital citizenship: we must equip citizens for the AI age, ensuring they understand how their data is used and AI's ethical implications. Beyond the UAE, Finland and Estonia, few governments are taking this seriously enough. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe International convergence: despite differing regulatory regimes, we need developers to collaborate and commercialise innovations globally while ensuring consumer trust in common international ethical and safety standards. Well-designed regulation can be a catalyst for AI adoption and innovation. Just as environmental regulations spurred cleaner technologies, AI regulations focusing on explainability and fairness could push developers toward more sophisticated, responsible systems. The goal isn't whether to regulate AI, but how to regulate it promoting both innovation and responsibility. We need principles-based rather than overly prescriptive regulation, assessing risk and emphasising transparency and accountability without stifling creativity. Achieving the balance between human potential and machine innovation isn't just possible – it's necessary as we step into an increasingly AI-driven world. That's what we must make a reality. This article first appeared in our Spotlight on Technology supplement, of 13 June 2025. Related
Times
14 minutes ago
- Times
Neil Gray's chauffeured pub trip within the rules, says Swinney
John Swinney has defended his health secretary following accusations that he was chauffeured to a pub before a football match. The first minister said the car used by Neil Gray was 'in accordance with the rules that have been set out within the guidance'. In November last year, Gray apologised after it emerged he had attended four Aberdeen football matches and was driven to the games in a government car. He admitted he had given the impression of 'acting more as a fan and less as a minister' and should have 'attended a wider range of games'. However, he said it was legitimate for ministers to attend sporting events and he would continue to do so. The Scottish Daily Mail reported that before an Aberdeen v Livingston game last year, Gray was driven to the Brig O'Don pub. Neil Gray was driven to the Brig O'Don pub before watching a matching between Aberdeen and Livingston Opponents have heaped pressure on the health secretary over the car journeys, but in January a Conservative motion calling on him to quit failed. Swinney was asked about Gray's car use as he attended the British-Irish Council summit in Northern Ireland. He said: 'The ministerial car was used in accordance with the rules that have been set out within the guidance on this occasion. And those rules that are clearly and publicly advertised have been followed on this occasion.' Pressed again on the issue, he said the regulations had been 'followed appropriately on this occasion'. A Scottish government spokesman told the Scottish Daily Mail that the Brig O'Don trip was not initially revealed due to an 'administrative error', adding: 'Mr Gray travelled from government business to a restaurant for a personal engagement before returning to government business.' The Scottish Labour deputy leader, Dame Jackie Baillie, said a further explanation was needed. She said: 'The decision to take a taxpayer-funded car to the pub is questionable enough — but the fact it was hidden from the public reeks of a cover-up. 'Neil Gray must come clean about exactly what happened here and explain why exactly this trip to the pub was legitimate government business.' Rachael Hamilton, a Scottish Conservative MSP, said the 'inaccuracy was hard to fathom. 'He needs to explain why he and his team originally claimed that his ministerial limo took him to a home address rather than to a restaurant for socialising. Given the scandal the misuse of his government car caused, the health secretary ought to have double checked every journey to make sure that his account was factually correct, so this inaccuracy is hard to fathom'.
