§ Mr. Michael Marshall (Arundel)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will not have escaped your notice that we have now had Standing Order No. 9 applications on two days from the Opposition Front Bench. While in no way underestimating the importance of the subjects raised or, indeed, the seriousness of the matters that have been put forward, is not Standing Order No. 9 normally regarded as particularly applicable to Back Benchers? The opportunities for the official Opposition to bring forward their points of view are widespread. Would it not be a bad practice if this became a daily occurrence?
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) rose—
§ Dr. Jeremy Bray (Motherwell and Wishaw) rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) is under a misapprehension. It is quite common for Standing Order No. 9 applications to come from the Front Bench. The House has given me a heavy responsibility which—I can tell the House because I had warning before midday—always causes me a great deal of anxious concern when I am weighing up the merits of the case and the other arguments that I have in mind.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. My decision cannot be raised on a point of order.
§ Mr. SpeakerI hope that we shall not start the game of raising points of order which are not points of order to challenge the decision that I have taken. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.
§ Dr. BrayFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) suggested that this was not a matter of concern to Back Benchers. It is a matter of concern to those on the Opposition Benches. You will be aware that the situation is changing daily. If the Council of Ministers is to meet tomorrow without the benefit of the guidance of the House, it will need the guidance of the House even more tomorrow after it has met.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman is reopening the subject.