Mr. Deputy Chairman, we are discussing a very important Bill. When we are discussing this Bill, we should devoite all our attention on the economic effects of this Bill to this country. The original idea of an Industries Development and REgulation Act was all right to a certain extent. But I am afraid the same can not be sid of this amending Bill, which is giving too much power to the Government to interefere in industry. I think that the economic experts know only tow types of economy - either the economic the nationlased industrial economy, or a capitalist economy with big failure of administration. There is no halfway house. I find that this Industries Development and REgulation Act is entereing into a very difficult field. It is almost an uncharted sea and we are undertaking regulation which, instead of benefiting our economy, may rather ruin it., In a capitalist economy, it si the rule of the survivial of the fittest. It is quality and price structure that determines the success of any business. If the management is bad, the business goes down. The shareholders keep a watch on it. On the other hand, in a nationalised industry, in a planeed economy, the Government thinks of the total requirements of the country as to how many industries are spread out properly in the various parts of the country having regard to the raw material easily availabe. But in this Bill we are not following either of the two economics. We are imposing some sort of regulation on the industries as they exist at present. Therefore, i submit that this type of regulation, insted of saving our economy, will surely go against any kind of progress. We generally follow what is done in England, though after an interval of few years. There was a similar Industries Development and REgulation Act in Britain and therefore we must also have s similar law in our country. If we look into their experience of the working of this Act, what do we find? OUt of the four Development Councils set up in Britain, only one was successful.