There have been numerous reports in the press lately suggesting that the delays to the publication of the Prevent Review by Sir William Shawcross hinges on whether groups and individuals should be named who have tried to undermine Prevent, taken monies and then been supportive of extremist groups or who have been quietly obstructive of the counter-extremism community based programme.

Whatever the reasons, the delay to the publication of the report gives the impression to those working in this area and to the wider public that the Government is not wholly focused on this area of work, is willing to play politics with such a key part of our collective safety and also somehow scared of calling out individuals and groups.

We are not interested in the debate about whether groups should be called out or not. If individuals or groups do support extremist groups and have received public monies, it is the job of the Government to seek redress or to seek to recoup the public monies in the public interest. That is the job of Government and one would hope that these actions would have been taken quickly.

What is of concern to us, is that a report is being withheld that has national significance, gives some direction to this programme of work and which also provides the public with a sense that the review has been thoroughly intense and looked at all areas of Prevent.

This is why we firmly believe that the Government must publish the review now. It has been delayed for over 4 months and delays simply make the review redundant over time. The time for politicking is over, publish the review.

Draft extracts of the long-delayed review into the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy have reportedly revealed that taxpayers’ money was handed to organisations that “had promoted extremist narratives”.

According to extracts in The Telegraph, key figures in organisations that receive funds from the Prevent programme are alleged to have supported the Taliban and even defended militant Islamist bodies banned in the UK.

The scheme’s aim is to safeguard vulnerable people from being drawn into terrorism.

The independent review by Sir William Shawcross, a former chairman of the Charity Commission, was delivered to the Home Office in late April but is still undergoing fact and legal checks.

The newspaper claims the review is expected to say that the “unacceptable” cases undermined Prevent’s ability to “effectively undertake counter-radicalisation” work and that “these findings raise serious questions about whether Prevent is knowingly taking this approach and, if not, whether it operates robust due diligence procedures and has an acceptable level of understanding of Islamist extremism”.

In the draft report, Sir William reportedly said he had examined the funding distributed by Prevent, finding that in some cases it went to organisations that had “promoted extremist narratives”.

The report reportedly cites four examples.

It also goes on to criticise the scheme for focusing too much on far-right extremism at the expense of the Islamist threat and for straying from its “core mission” of stopping people from becoming terrorists by putting too much emphasis on treating them as victims.

A Downing Street spokesman said: “The review will be published in due course. It remains right that we take the time to prepare and deliver a considered response.”

The spokesman also insisted Prevent “remains a vital tool for early intervention and safeguarding”.

The Prevent policy came under renewed scrutiny after it was revealed the home-grown terrorist who murdered Sir David Amess had been referred to the programme but continued to plot his attack in secret.

Prevent also featured in other recent cases, including that of Reading terror attacker Khairi Saadallah who murdered three men in a park and Sudesh Amman, responsible for stabbings in Streatham, both in 2020, as well as the 2017 Parsons Green Tube train attacker Iraqi asylum seeker Ahmed Hassan, among others.

The Home Office has been approached for comment.