to me that the natural assumption on reading that passage which appears in "Let us Face the Future" was that, if the House of Lords were to obstruct, the Government would then do something 281 about it. In fact, on the Government's own admission in both Houses, there has been no obstructionism whatsoever. That very fact, to my mind, makes this Bill completely without mandate. In my opinion, the only other way in which the Government could produce this Bill with any justification whatsoever would be after having an all-party consultation on the matter with both Houses, and then, if they decided it was necessary, to introduce a Measure to alter the powers of another place. The mandate as it stands can only come into force when obstructionism has taken place. But obstructionism has not taken place, and, therefore, there is no mandate for this Bill. I believe that if hon. Members opposite honestly face up to the mandate in "Let us Face the Future," in which they take such a pride, they will see that if they had intended in 1945 seriously to deal with the House of Lords and to introduce this Bill -- I am quite certain that no hon. Member opposite could have visualised this Bill at the time of the last Election -- they would have inserted in the mandate such words as, "We intend to prevent the possibility of obstructionism by the Lords arising," or other words to that effect. There seems to me