---

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

That is right, and that is reflected in the law, but the key phrase is ““in good faith””. Where the organisation—the charity or whatever else—is clearly directly associated with a proscribed organisation or where it is well established that the organisation is a front, or even where it is proscribed itself, the responsibility is on individuals to establish, effectively, the bona fides of that organisation. However, if someone gives a contribution in good faith, it is not for the authorities, some 24 iterations or otherwise down the line, if we follow the money, to ensure that the original donor is pursued. That is not the purpose of the law at all. On the general point about the distinction between military and other wings, the order is carefully drawn, in referring to recognised elements of the organisation. That is why the order calls for replacing, for the reasons that I have outlined, the words ““Hizballah External Security Organisation”” with:"““The military wing of Hizballah, including the Jihad Council and all units reporting to it (including the Hizballah External Security Organisation).””" As far as we are aware from the evidence that we have and from the substantive points made by experts, both legal and otherwise, the Hezbollah External Security Organisation, which was proscribed, and the military wing of Hezbollah, including the Jihad Council and all units reporting to it, are recognised elements of the organisation, and it is right and proper to ban them. The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who is no longer in his place, was quite right to ask in terms, as did other hon. Members, not only why we should ban just the military wing and not the whole organisation—that is a perfectly fair point, which I hope I am addressing—but why, given what is happening in the middle east, not least in Lebanon, we are proscribing it at all. Those are both fair points, and I hope that I have addressed them. We recognise that the political wing of Hezbollah and the political organisation provide a social and humanitarian function in Lebanon. To an established extent, they make positive contributions to Lebanon and other places. In keeping with a whole range of United Nations Security Council resolutions, they provide a positive function in Lebanon and other parts of the middle east. It is to be hoped that the strength of those social and political wings would obviate the need for the military wing to do anything in the first place. We cannot reach a position in which the United Kingdom and others call on Hezbollah to disarm and participate in Lebanese politics as a democratic and peaceful political party—in line with UN Security Council resolutions 1559, 1680 and 1701—and then somehow put obstructions in its way to prevent it from doing so. I believe that there is a fine balance between the military and other elements of Hezbollah but, in this instance at least, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon is misguided in seeking to ban the whole organisation. I do not think that it is sufficient to say that anything to do with Hezbollah is terrorist, period. We recognise that there is sharp distinction between the two parts. Colleagues have asked me to go into much more depth about the evidence. I am a fair person—I think—and I have tried to outline as much evidence as I could in my opening speech. Were there substantially more evidence for me to share with the House, I would have done so. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire asked why we were introducing the measure now, when the key piece of information that I was able to relay concerned March 2007. I would simply say that we do not take these decisions lightly, and we have to take careful consideration of all the available evidence. I can assure her, however, that the decision is not related to recent events in Lebanon, and certainly not to the coincidence that happened on 2 July in that regard. There is a wide range of international positions on Hezbollah. As I have said, some countries, including the USA, Canada, and the Netherlands, proscribe the entire organisation. Australia proscribes the External Security Organisation only, while others, such as France, do not proscribe any part of the organisation at all. As I said earlier, I cannot go into any more detail on the evidence. The ability of organisation so proscribed to be de-proscribed involves a clear and fair process, although I will take on board the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East about wider community groups. I repeat, however, that responsible individuals have responsibilities that go beyond simply endorsing the view of an organisation. With that, I happily commend the order to the House. Question put and agreed to. Resolved,"That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 2 July, be approved."