Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

I am delighted that we agree because I am sure that that will mean that the hon. Lady will join me in the Division Lobby in a wee while. Clearly, conventions have operated in this House, but they have wandered with the age. There was a period when there were frequent motions of no confidence and the Opposition thought that it was a good way in which to transact business. For the past 15 years or so, we have not had motions of no confidence, largely because the Government have enjoyed fairly large majorities. Another reason, I suspect, is that there is nothing worse than losing a motion of no confidence and the Government tend to unite in their confidence in themselves. I will come later to discuss one of the dangers of this nebulous relationship. All too often, as the hon. Member for Stone said, the Prime Minister of the day starts saying, ““I really want to get this piece of legislation through. If we don't get this through, there will be a general election and I will have to resign. Effectively, it's a motion of no confidence.”” All too often, pieces of legislation or votes are carried because of the threat of the no confidence motion. It would be better if one had clarity in statute as to what constituted a motion of no confidence. There is one exception to that: motions of censure. Obviously, such motions can relate to an individual member of the Government, the Speaker or any Member of the House. Motions of censure against members of the Government can be made in relation to specific actions that they have or have not taken. The hon. Member for Stone referred to the motion of censure on Suez, but there have been others. On occasion, such motions have been treated as motions of confidence, but they should always be treated as such when they are against the Prime Minister. One could argue that the two motions in 1924 that constituted motions of no confidence fall into a similar category. On 21 January 1924, after the first general election of that year, the Opposition carried an amendment to the Loyal Address, so that it stated:"““Your Majesty's present advisers have not the confidence of this House.””—[Official Report, 21 January 1924; Vol. 169, c. 685.]" To all intents and purposes—as plain as a pikestaff—that was a motion of no confidence. Stanley Baldwin subsequently resigned as Prime Minister, but there was no general election, and the Labour party took over, assisted by the Liberals, in the first minority Government. One day—who knows?—that may come to pass again. I warn Conservative colleagues that that arrangement did not last very long. On 8 October 1924, the specific censure motion on the Prime Minister's refusal to continue a petition against a journal was not carried, but the appointment of a Select Committee was carried. The Prime Minister determined that that was a matter of confidence and decided to resign, and we all know the result.