Mr Speaker, first of all, it is not true that we have had a meeting with NDPC. Whoever is giving out that information -- He said he was informed that we met with NDPC and they addressed it. That is not true.
Secondly, I think he would have to understand the issues that I was raising, to say that they have been addressed properly. In the Report, it follows that, the GSGDA II is supposed to be carved out of the co-ordinated plan. If that is the case, then the numbers in the co-ordinated plan must be the same numbers in the GSGDA Report because you carved it out of it -- you cannot replace --
When you come to the budget, the Report indicated to us that the budget was taken out of GSGDA II. So, when the budget gives you a growth rate of 4.6 per cent and the GSGDA gives you a growth rate of 8 per cent, something is wrong, either somebody missed the number or something happened.
An attempt was made to say that because of the plan guide in the budget, we should take the number of the plan. That is completely illogical. What I was suggesting was that, if you would want us to adopt the Report, there should have been some caveat, that, given that there have been changes, we would be expecting the appropriate amendments to
be made in the future. That means, we have taken cognisance of the fact that, there are issues, but the Report did not say that.
So, all I was asking is that, let us not adopt the Report without making that type of amendment, that in spite of the relations in the empirical data, we are hoping that the NDPC will make the necessary changes in the future. Then, it means that, we know that there are problems and we are asking them to address them.
But if we do not mention it at all, then adopting both is as if we are doing the wrong thing. It is as if we know that there is an error, yet we are closing our eyes -- then we would be protected. That is all I was hoping that --But those reasons that they are giving, do not address it.
12. 35 p.m.