Whether further reform comes about or not the current situation is that there are 92 spaces specifically set aside for hereditary peers. The members sitting are elected (not by members of the public of course)only from a list of other hereditary peers. 92 hereditary members means that they are still in the here and now massively over-represented in the House. All I was pointing out is that there are other hereditary peers who have recently been given life peerages so that they can enter the house as a life peer rather than being chosen from the list of hereditary peers. This further boosts the numbers of a group who are already massively over-represented. This is no comment on the individual members rather a comment on the principle. Whether you agree or not I think it is a fair question to ask if this is fair and proper practise!