I am glad that Baroness Murphy has taken on the issue of reducing the numbers sitting in the Lords. I have already made a submission to the committee reviewing this, and, like her, have great respect for Lord Hunt. He has worked in my own field, regulation of lawyers, and produced a very sensible report on how best to regulate solicitors, whose profession encompasses a wide range, from one-person practices to global city firms (The Hunt Review of the Regulation of Legal Services, http://www.legalregulationreview.com/files/Legal%20Regulation%20Report%20FINAL.pdf.) There are too many Lords, and the problem has been exacerbated by the tendency of all Prime Ministers to use their power to place in the Lords allies whom they wish to see as Ministers, but who are not MPs. Moreover a very large number of new peers were created by the dissolution honours and we hear there are more to come; and no doubt the House of Lords Appointments Commission has their own list of candidates. So on the one hand there are calls to abolish or reduce the Lords, on the other everybody is trying to get in there through one method or another before it is too late! Some of the peers who are well past any normal retirement age are full of energy and wisdom and it would be a loss if they were to be excluded. I would like to see (and have proposed) a scheme that still utilises them, even if they are no longer technically “members”. Or one could have a rota, with peers serving for say, the life of one Parliament, and then taking a break before returning. One could exclude those who have not attended at all for a certain length of time but, as Baroness Murphy pointed out, they do not cost anything. A self denying ordinance on the part of government in relation to appointments would help; and so does the death rate.