Councils face questions over asylum toolkit links after GB News report sparks heated row

A GB News investigation has triggered a fierce debate after three public authorities were found to be linking to an online guide produced by the migrant-support charity Right to Remain. Critics say the organisations are helping people ‘game’ Britain’s asylum system, but the available evidence shows the toolkit mainly explains legal procedures, including the statutory right to challenge some Home Office decisions.

GB News interrupted its scheduled programme for an update. Presenter Martin Daubney questioned why the Greater London Authority, Ealing Council and Hertfordshire County Council were directing visitors towards the Right to Remain Toolkit.

The free online resource contains explanations of the UK asylum and immigration system. It covers subjects such as asylum interviews, evidence, Home Office decisions, legal representation and appeals. Some of its material is available in multiple languages.

Daubney presented the links as evidence that public bodies were recommending a campaigning organisation whose wider political position is strongly critical of Britain’s border and immigration policies. He suggested the guidance could be used by people whose asylum applications were refused to try to stay in the country.

The report prompted angry reactions online, with some viewers demanding investigations into charities and public authorities that provide such information. However, the controversy raises two separate questions which should not be confused: whether councils are sufficiently transparent about the organisations they recommend, and whether explaining an existing legal process amounts to facilitating unlawful immigration.

What the council websites actually contain

Ealing Council lists the Right to Remain Toolkit on a page offering information to refugees and people seeking asylum. It describes the resource as a free, step-by-step guide intended to help users understand the legal process.

Hertfordshire County Council also includes a link to the toolkit on a much broader migration information page. That page contains resources for refugees, asylum seekers, people on recognised visa schemes and those with insecure immigration status or no recourse to public funds.

The Greater London Authority’s guidance for organisations working with asylum seekers similarly refers readers to Right to Remain. It does so alongside official government information and material from other support organisations.

The presence of these links confirms the central factual element of the GB News report.

What the links do not establish, by themselves, is that those authorities are helping people enter Britain illegally or instructing them to submit dishonest claims. No evidence presented in the original report demonstrated that the councils were organising unlawful journeys, supplying false documents or encouraging applicants to mislead the Home Office.

A link to legal information is not automatically an endorsement of every political opinion held by the organisation producing it. Nevertheless, councils have a duty to make that distinction clear, particularly when the external organisation is also involved in political campaigning.

A legal guide or a route around the rules?

Right to Remain describes its toolkit as a public legal education resource for people navigating the asylum and immigration system, including those who do not have a solicitor. It explains what happens at different stages of a case and what options may be available.

The charity says its material is informed by lawyers, community groups and people with direct experience of the immigration system. It also makes clear that it does not provide individual immigration advice through the website.

Critics may reasonably examine whether every page is accurate, balanced and up to date. Immigration law changes frequently, and even well-intentioned information can cause harm if it oversimplifies a complicated rule or fails to reflect recent legislation.

That scrutiny is different from alleging criminal assistance. Helping somebody understand a deadline, prepare genuine evidence or identify a legal right of appeal is not the same as coaching them to lie. If any organisation were encouraging the fabrication of evidence or deliberate deception, that would be a serious matter requiring evidence and investigation. No such evidence was identified in the material examined for this article.

Why information about appeals caused particular anger

One of the videos highlighted by GB News explains that many people whose asylum claims are rejected may have a right to appeal. It says an applicant can argue before a tribunal that the Home Office was wrong to refuse protection.

Presented without legal context, those words can sound like instructions for resisting removal after a final decision. In reality, an initial Home Office refusal is not always the final stage of a case.

Official government guidance confirms that certain refusals of protection, asylum or human-rights claims can be appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. The tribunal is independent of the Government, and a judge considers arguments and evidence from both sides.

Not every rejected applicant has an automatic right of appeal. The Home Office decision letter should state whether an appeal is available, and strict deadlines apply. Some people may instead be limited to an administrative review or another form of legal challenge.

An appeal is therefore part of the legal process, not an informal loophole. It is part of the legal framework created by Parliament and administered by the courts. A person who exercises that right is using the system, not automatically abusing it.

Equally, an appeal should not become a method of indefinite delay. Cases must be examined promptly, weak claims should be resolved efficiently and people with no legal basis to remain should receive a clear final decision. Fairness requires access to justice, but public confidence also requires finality.

Political campaigning complicates the picture

Right to Remain is not a politically neutral organisation. Alongside its legal education work, it openly campaigns for substantial changes to the immigration system.

Its associated grassroots network, These Walls Must Fall, opposes immigration detention and enforcement policies and describes the Government’s “hostile environment” in explicitly political terms. Right to Remain says it wants a society in which migrants and refugees can establish their rights with dignity, while its campaigns challenge measures it regards as unjust or discriminatory.

This creates a legitimate transparency issue for public bodies.

A council may conclude that a charity’s procedural guide is useful without agreeing with its wider ideology. If so, it should explain that clearly. Residents should not be left wondering whether a practical link also represents official endorsement of a campaign calling for radical changes to border enforcement.

The solution is not necessarily to remove every resource produced by an advocacy group. Citizens Advice, trade unions, business organisations, environmental charities and civil-liberties groups all combine specialist information with campaigning. Public authorities regularly refer residents to such organisations.

The correct test should be whether the information is lawful, accurate, relevant and responsibly presented. Councils should also disclose why a resource has been selected, how often it is reviewed and whether official alternatives are available.

What does the figure of 320,000 users mean?

The GB News report referred to the toolkit being used by approximately 320,000 people. Charity Commission records show that Right to Remain reported 321,997 online users during the 2022–23 financial year.

That is a substantial audience, but the figure requires careful interpretation. It represents online users. It does not mean 321,997 people entered Britain irregularly, submitted asylum applications or won appeals.

Visitors may include lawyers, volunteers, social workers, students, journalists, council employees and family members supporting somebody through a case. One person may consult multiple pages or return to the resource over time. That depends on how the website’s analytics are calculated.

Using the figure as evidence of the toolkit’s reach is reasonable. Presenting it as the number of people helped to evade immigration control would require evidence that has not been provided.

The same caution applies to translated material. Offering information in several languages makes the resource more accessible, but translation alone is not proof of wrongdoing. It can reduce missed deadlines, misunderstandings and avoidable administrative errors.

Public anxiety should not be dismissed

The intensity of the online reaction cannot simply be written off as hostility towards migrants. Many people are deeply concerned about the pressure that an inefficient asylum system can place on housing, public services and national finances. They want to know that borders are controlled and that decisions are enforced.

When residents discover that their local authority links to a charity campaigning against important parts of government immigration policy, they may reasonably feel that something has not been properly explained.

That concern deserves a factual answer rather than a slogan. Councils should state whether they have financially supported the organisation and whether they have assessed the toolkit’s legal accuracy. They should also say whether linking to it implies any endorsement of its campaigns.

At the same time, public frustration should not lead to all asylum seekers being described as criminals. “Asylum seeker”, “refugee”, “undocumented migrant” and “person arriving through an irregular route” are not interchangeable legal categories.

Behind each claim is an individual case. Some applicants will not meet the requirements for protection and will ultimately be required to leave. Others may be fleeing persecution, conflict or serious harm and will be recognised as refugees after their evidence has been considered.

Reducing every case to a hostile label may generate attention, but it does not help Britain operate a credible immigration system.

The human cost of a failing process

For residents, the asylum debate is often experienced through council budgets, hotel accommodation and housing pressures. They worry about whether the rules are being respected.

For an applicant, the same system may mean months of uncertainty and separation from family. It can also mean the fear of being returned to a place where they believe they face danger. Some will be navigating formal interviews, legal documents and strict deadlines in a language they do not fully understand.

Both experiences matter.

Compassion without effective administration can leave cases unresolved for years. That increases costs and weakens confidence. Enforcement without due process risks serious errors. It can return vulnerable people to danger. A functioning system must be capable of making quick, accurate decisions while preserving the right to correct mistakes.

The strain on the courts illustrates the scale of the challenge. During the 2025–26 financial year, the First-tier Tribunal’s Immigration and Asylum Chamber received about 118,000 cases. Its open caseload rose to approximately 152,000. Those figures cover the chamber’s wider immigration and asylum work, but they reveal a system under considerable pressure.

Long delays hurt almost everyone. Applicants remain in uncertainty, taxpayers continue to fund accommodation and support, and enforcement becomes more difficult when final decisions take years.

Better initial Home Office decisions, earlier access to reliable information and sufficient tribunal capacity could reduce unnecessary disputes. In that sense, accurate legal education may help the system operate more efficiently. Poor or ideologically distorted guidance could have the opposite effect.

What public authorities should do next

The controversy gives the Greater London Authority, Ealing Council and Hertfordshire County Council an opportunity to explain their policies openly.

They should publish clear answers to several questions:

Why was the Right to Remain Toolkit selected?

Was its legal content independently reviewed?

How frequently are external links checked for accuracy?

Do the authorities provide any funding to the charity?

Does the link indicate endorsement of the toolkit’s information, the charity’s political campaigns, or neither?

Are official Home Office and tribunal resources displayed with equal prominence?

A short disclaimer could make the position much clearer. It could explain that the external website provides general information and that the council does not endorse every view expressed by the organisation. It should say that people needing advice about an individual case should consult an authorised immigration adviser or solicitor.

Right to Remain also has a responsibility. Because its material may influence decisions with life-changing consequences, it should clearly date legal updates, distinguish general information from regulated advice and explain when a person should seek professional assistance.

A debate requiring more light and less heat

GB News was entitled to question why public authorities link to a campaigning charity and whether appropriate checks were conducted. Those are legitimate matters of accountability.

However, the claim that the toolkit provides a “route into the country” goes further than the evidence presented. The pages examined primarily explain a legal system that people are already navigating. Information about a statutory appeal cannot automatically be treated as assistance with unlawful entry.

The strongest criticism is therefore not that councils have been proven to facilitate illegal immigration. It is that they may not have done enough to explain the nature of the organisation, the limits of its guidance and the difference between public legal education and political advocacy.

Britain needs secure borders, prompt decisions and the removal of people who have exhausted every lawful route and have no right to remain. It also needs a process capable of recognising genuine refugees, correcting incorrect decisions and treating people with basic dignity while their cases are considered.

Those goals are not mutually exclusive.

The anger surrounding this toolkit reflects a country whose confidence in the asylum system has been badly damaged. Restoring that confidence will require more than dramatic television language or defensive statements from councils. It will require transparency, competent administration and an honest distinction between enforcing the law and explaining it.

For families worried about pressure on their community, and for people waiting anxiously for a decision that may determine the course of their lives, the issue is too important to be reduced to outrage alone.