Yes, absolutely.
I presume that in the British system there are times when the prime minister has to miss prime minister's questions. Perhaps they postpone them, or perhaps there's another minister who stands in and answers those questions for him. I think I have seen instances where there was a minister taking all the questions in a similar fashion to the way the prime minister normally does, so perhaps that does indicate that there are times when the prime minister cannot be present. Of course, that's part of the reality of the job in the U.K., here, and certainly anywhere else, but we have these conventions about who answers questions and how those questions are answered, and it might be that over time this prime minister will answer all of the questions most Wednesdays, and then we evolve the convention to the point where perhaps there is an expectation in subsequent governments that the convention continue, and after it's been done by a number of successive governments, then it gets to the point where, after a while, we forget whether or not it's actually prescribed in the rules or by convention. We just accept that is part of the environment in which we find ourselves.
It is not the kind of thing that would strike me as normal for the Standing Orders to rule on. Nonetheless, it seems that the Prime Minister, recognizing the reality I just described, has embarked upon the creation of a convention in a legitimate way by choosing to stand up after every question the opposition poses on Wednesdays. The one exception was, the first time he intended to do this, there was a question to a vice-chair of a committee, which was responded to by an NDP member—