Many peers are in receipt of some payment or pension. Gone are the days when companies liked a lord on the board: peers who are directors of a company are expected to contribute to the activity of the company-their role is implemental, not ornamental. If we moved to become a salaried House, as some would wish, we would soon become a community of professional politicians, just as the Commons has become. So we are stuck with a system of allowances and we are prepared to be quite open about them. All the details of payments made to peers over the last year were published in January, something the House of Commons has not yet done-indeed it even tried most shamefully to exempt such information from the Freedom of Information Act. While major reform is on the backburner, some of us do think it would be sensible and prudent to limit the size of the House of Lords. When most of the hereditary peers left, the number fell to 600. But it has now risen to 743, and about 12 never turn up. An Upper Chamber of 400 members would be quite adequate.

How can it be reduced? Some favour dropping the election of a new hereditary peer every time one dies, but it would take decades for their numbers to fall significantly. The number of life peers is growing: in less than two years, Gordon Brown alone has appointed eight new life peers as ministers. Injecting specialist experience is useful and any prime minister would want to retain this power. It is the steady flow of new crossbench life peers from the Stevenson Committee that ensures that the number of new members exceeds the number who die each year.

One way to limit the number of life peers would be to appoint them only for 15 years and to offer all existing life peers either a further 15 years or compensation to withdraw. That would reduce the size of the House significantly, but still retain its unique character.