This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/12/uk-terror-funding-report-will-not-be-published-for-national-security-reasons

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Rudd suppresses report on extremist funding 'for security reasons' Rudd's refusal to publish full report into jihadist funding 'unacceptable'
(35 minutes later)
The government has decided to not publish a much-delayed report into the foreign funding and support of jihadist groups for national security reasons, the home secretary, Amber Rudd, has announced. Opposition parties have condemned the government for opting not to publish a much-delayed report into the funding and support of jihadist groups, saying the decision appeared intended to bury any criticism of Saudi Arabia.
Rudd released some basic details of the report, commissioned by David Cameron, in a parliamentary written answer, including that some extreme Islamist groups receive hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in funding, mainly from UK-based individual donors. But the home secretary, Amber Rudd, said the move was based on national security and claimed that the full report contained sensitive and detailed personal information.
However, Rudd said the full document would now not be released. “Having taken advice, I have decided against publishing the classified report produced during the review in full,” she said. Announcing the decision in a written parliamentary statement, Rudd instead published a 430-word summary of the report, including that some extreme Islamist groups receive hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in funding, mainly from UK-based individual donors.
“This is because of the volume of personal information it contains and for national security reasons. We will be inviting privy counsellors from the opposition parties to the Home Office to have access to the classified report on privy council terms.” The summary said the most common source of support for extremist organisations is from small, anonymous public donations, mainly from individuals in the UK.
The main findings include that the most common source of support for extremist organisations in the UK is from small, anonymous public donations, mainly from UK-based individuals, the summary said. It also said overseas backing helped some individuals study at institutions “that teach deeply conservative forms of Islam and provide highly socially conservative literature and preachers to the UK’s Islamic institutions”, adding: “Some of these individuals have since become of extremist concern.”
It said overseas backing helped some individuals study at institutions “that teach deeply conservative forms of Islam and provide highly socially conservative literature and preachers to the UK’s Islamic institutions”. It added: “Some of these individuals have since become of extremist concern.” However, the summary did not name the countries of origin for such funding or mention Saudi Arabia or any other nations.
Rudd’s summary did not name any countries of origin for such funding. Much of the speculation about the report being delayed had focused on the potential political sensitivities if it found Saudi Arabia, a UK ally, had been funding such activities. Rudd said the full report, commissioned by David Cameron, was being withheld “because of the volume of personal information it contains and for national security reasons”. Opposition MPs who were members of the privy council would be able to view the full report at the Home Office if they did not divulge the contents publicly, she added.
The summary released by Rudd, which runs to just over 400 words, does not mention Saudi Arabia or any other individual country. But Diane Abbott, shadow home secretary, said this did not go far enough, and the public “has a right to know if any governments, foreign or domestic organisations or individuals are funding extremism in this country”.
Rudd said in her statement that the final report “gives us the best picture we have ever had of how extremists operating in the UK sustain their activities”. “Of course, security intelligence should not be compromised but this is easily achieved by redaction and other means. The government would never have commissioned this report if it considered this problem insurmountable.
The summary found that while small individual donations were the most common funding source, in some cases extremist organisations received hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. “Instead, there is a strong suspicion this report is being suppressed to protect this government’s trade and diplomatic priorities, including in relation to Saudi Arabia. The only way to allay those suspicions is to publish the report in full.”
The statement added: “This is the main source of their income. Those giving may not know or support the organisations’ full agenda.”
The summary said some extremist Islamist organisations “portray themselves as charities to increase their credibility and to take advantage of Islam’s emphasis on charity”, and are vague about both their activities and their charitable status.
It said better regulation could be effective in improving transparency over this.
The statement added: “For a small number of organisations with which there are extremism concerns, overseas funding is a significant source of income. However, for the vast majority of extremist groups in the UK, overseas funding is not a significant source.”
The inquiry was begun as part of a deal with the Liberal Democrats during the coalition government, in exchange for the party supporting the extension of British airstrikes against Islamic State into Syria in December 2015.
Tom Brake, the Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman, has written to the prime minister asking her to confirm that the investigation will not be shelved.
The Observer reported in January last year that the Home Office’s extremism analysis unit had been directed by Downing Street to investigate overseas funding of extremist groups in the UK, with findings to be shown to Theresa May, who was then home secretary, and Cameron.
But in May the Home Office said the report had not yet been completed, calling the contents “very sensitive”.
Caroline Lucas, the Green co-leader, who has campaigned for the report to be published, said the refusal to do so and the “utterly vague statement” in its place was unacceptable.Caroline Lucas, the Green co-leader, who has campaigned for the report to be published, said the refusal to do so and the “utterly vague statement” in its place was unacceptable.
She said: “The statement gives absolutely no clue as to which countries foreign funding for extremism originates from – leaving the government open to further allegations of refusing to expose the role of Saudi Arabian money in terrorism in the UK. She added: “The statement gives absolutely no clue as to which countries foreign funding for extremism originates from – leaving the government open to further allegations of refusing to expose the role of Saudi Arabian money in terrorism in the UK.”
The Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, said the decision to not publish the report was “utterly shameful”.The Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, said the decision to not publish the report was “utterly shameful”.
He said: “We cannot tackle the root causes of terrorism in the UK without full disclosure of the states and institutions that fund extremism in our country. He said: “Instead of supporting the perpetrators of these vile ideologies, the government should be naming and shaming them – including so-called allies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar if need be.”
“Instead of supporting the perpetrators of these vile ideologies, the government should be naming and shaming them – including so-called allies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar if need be.” Theresa May’s spokesman said the prime minister supported Rudd’s reasons for not publishing the full report. Asked whether this did mention Saudi Arabia, he said: “All the information that has been put in the public domain is there is the written statement, and I’m not in a position where I can add to that.”
The summary found that while small individual donations were the most common funding source, in some cases extremist organisations received hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. It added: “This is the main source of their income. Those giving may not know or support the organisations’ full agenda.”
Some extremist Islamist organisations “portray themselves as charities to increase their credibility and to take advantage of Islam’s emphasis on charity”, and are vague about both their activities and their charitable status, it said.
The statement added: “For a small number of organisations with which there are extremism concerns, overseas funding is a significant source of income. However, for the vast majority of extremist groups in the UK, overseas funding is not a significant source.”
The inquiry was begun as part of a deal with the Liberal Democrats during the coalition government, in exchange for the party supporting the extension of British airstrikes against Islamic State into Syria in December 2015.
The summary said that tackling the problem of extremist funding would need a range of measures, notably connected to domestic sources of support.The summary said that tackling the problem of extremist funding would need a range of measures, notably connected to domestic sources of support.
In response, Rudd’s statement said the government would seek to raise awareness “to encourage people to understand the full aims of the organisations that they give to”, and alert the financial services industry about extremism concerns.In response, Rudd’s statement said the government would seek to raise awareness “to encourage people to understand the full aims of the organisations that they give to”, and alert the financial services industry about extremism concerns.
It said: “These organisations have an interest in ensuring they are not inadvertently supporting extremist individuals or organisations.” It added: “These organisations have an interest in ensuring they are not inadvertently supporting extremist individuals or organisations.” Also, the statement said, the Charity Commission would introduce a requirement on charities to declare overseas funding sources.
Also, the statement said, the Charity Commission would introduce a requirement on charities to declare overseas funding sources.
The government would also be “directly raising issues of concern, supported by evidence, with specific countries as part of our wider international engagement on countering extremism and violent extremism”, it added.The government would also be “directly raising issues of concern, supported by evidence, with specific countries as part of our wider international engagement on countering extremism and violent extremism”, it added.