Sir Alec Shelbrooke writes why he believes Labour is wrong to place migrants in his constituency at RAF Linton-on-Ouse

Ministers are right to want to end the costly reliance on hotels for asylum seekers.

But replacing one flawed approach with another is not a solution, especially since Keir Starmer’s first act as Prime Minister was to cancel the Rwanda plan; the only deterrent to stop migrants entering the UK illegally.

Labour’s new proposal to house 1,250 asylum seekers at former RAF Linton-on-Ouse would be the wrong decision – for local residents, for taxpayers and, ultimately, for this flagging Government.

As the base sits beside a small rural village, the first question any responsible Government should ask is whether the infrastructure can cope.

There are serious unanswered questions about electricity supply, sewerage capacity, highways, healthcare provision and site security.

Previous assessments raised concerns about the electricity network's ability to support large-scale modular accommodation, while increased demand on the sewerage system could require expensive upgrades or daily tanker movements through narrow rural roads.

Local NHS services were already warning about limited capacity.

Now we hear ministers talk of a two-tier NHS system, with migrants getting their own health services on site while local residents must continue with the 8am call queue for a GP appointment.


If ministers proceed regardless, the inevitable question becomes: 'At what cost?'

Home Office ministers argue these sites represent value for money.

But if substantial investment is needed in utilities, road infrastructure and public services, that claim begins to look increasingly difficult to sustain.

Nor has there been sufficient clarity about who exactly would be housed there.

If the intention is to accommodate families, local schools simply do not have capacity to absorb a sudden increase in pupil numbers.

If the proposal is for single adult males, ministers should recognise genuine concerns about placing such a large population in an isolated rural setting with few local amenities and directly address the increasing number of sexual attacks linked to those who have entered the UK illegally.

These concerns deserve honest answers rather than dismissal.

There is also an important constitutional point. Planning laws exist for a reason.

Local authorities should have the opportunity to scrutinise major developments through the normal planning process.

If the Government believes this proposal is justified, it should make its case openly before North Yorkshire Council rather than seeking to bypass local democracy through emergency planning powers designed for genuine national emergencies.

Even Labour, when in opposition, argued that those emergency powers were inappropriate where asylum seekers were already being accommodated elsewhere.

That argument remains just as valid today. Above all, the Government must learn from experience.

Officials previously examined Linton-on-Ouse as a temporary processing facility to aid the last Government’s Rwanda relocation plan.

Many of the same practical obstacles identified at Linton-on-Ouse four years ago remain unresolved today.

Reopening the proposal without demonstrating how those problems have been overcome – and without a next-step relocation plan like Rwanda – risks repeating the same mistakes while prolonging uncertainty for local residents.

The Government should recognise that reality now, abandon this proposal and focus its efforts on reinstating a deterrent policy to stem the flow of those entering the UK illegally.