In the last ten years, in this Parliament and in the country there has been a national debate as to what exactly happens to concentration of economic power, because in the last 30 years, we certainly created new forces of industrial strength and agricultural progress but we found - it is an admitted thing - that the whole thing went somewhat in a wrong way. 

The concentration took place in a certain few hands through monopolistic houses and this has to be corrected. This was the dialogue and debate that was going on for years in this country and in this Parliament and it was being corrected. Suddenly we find some new distortions being introduced. We would like to have a categorical statement from Government, Of course we have had a statement from the Industries Minister and I am glad that we have it, but I would like to have some assurance about it from the Finance Minister because individual Ministers make statement but, ultimately, what they can do or should do depends upon the purse and the purse is held by the Finance Minister here. He must tell us exactly where we stand as far as the industrial policy Resolution is concerned, because this is a basic thing for this country.

That is the point I wanted to make. Individual statements are very good and there were certainly some issues and policies which were outside party considerations like those in respect of foreign affairs or defence : I think we had no objections in regard to them. There was certainly a good debate and a fine discussion : very acceptable and very respectable statements were made and I think they wee welcomed not only by the Members of this House but by the country as a whole. Fortunately, the Steel Minister is here and he also made very practical statements and gave us a feeling of assurance that at least there are some people who are prepared to look forward with somewhat progressive ideas : I hope he keeps it up. Nonetheless, there are some basic issues about which we have certain nagging doubts. The Budget proposals and the Finance Bill, have it appears undergone now so many modifications. That only shows that the manufacturing hand behind the budget was that of the officials and not of somebody who know the problems of the people. That is all that it comes to and it is very unfortunate. The Minister has mauled his own budget so much and this is proof of how the process of budget making operates. I think it is necessary to have another look at the process of budget making. I have myself gone through the process and, therefore, I am making this suggestion.

I have made my point about mixed economy, and another thing I would like to mention and which we have all been talking about is the re-ordering of priorities in the economic and social fields. The main impression the Government have tried to give is that rural areas have got a priority. Well, we welcome this in the sense that this has been our own policy for the last several years. Agricultural and rural sectors have always been core sectors in our planning. In fact, they are not only the core but the base of the core. Naturally, in terms of percentages, you have provided more : it is a good thing and I compliment you on it. I am prepared to concede that this must have been done because, naturally, as time goes by, one has to look at the growth and you must have done it. But I would like to say that some serious discussion must take place in this House when the Government comes up with its proposals, if you really want to give priority to the problems of the rural areas, as to what should be done and what needs to be done.