Thank you Andrew and Richard. If a third of new young members come in with only a year’s under 21 membership, it suggests that perhaps a third of families are taking the ‘family as guest’ route, much more than I’d imagined, and suggesting that there is significant revenue available from stopping it. I think the change Richard describes would only address part of the issue – depending on how long a period of membership is required prior to age 21, it should address part of the ‘child as guest’ issue but won’t affect the ‘spouse as guest’ issue. I expect that has got worse since the spouse category was closed (so that overall revenue may increase if it was reopened). I also think there is merit on a stand-alone basis of reducing the number of times an individual can come as a guest in a year – a guest shouldn’t be able to attend as often as once a fortnight and more than many members.