Waking up to 'Europe'

Parliament’s stance against the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights to give prisoners a vote has again inspired UK commentators to take a closer look at ‘Europe’.

The right of prisoners to vote is an ECHR issue – not an EU one (the ECHR is not an EU institution as we're always keen to point out). However, it’s right to consider the influence and mission creep of the ECHR in the same discussion as the influence of the EU itself - for a whole range of reasons. As we’ve argued before, on rights legislation the two are now linked and both suffer from an inherent tendency to expand their own powers into new areas. And in terms of the politics and perception of it all, for most people in Westminster and beyond, there’s little difference between the EU and the ECHR, making it extremely difficult to unbundle the issues in media and political discussions (and given that even senior judges have a difficult time unpicking the patchwork of human rights legislation that exists in Europe today, the blurring of the ECHR and the EU in public perception is more rational than what EU communication-types and others realise).

And there has been no shortage of hard-hitting commentary.

Here’s James Forsyth in the Mail on Sunday:

The Tories try to keep their newly hardened Euroscepticism under wraps when dealing with their Lib Dem colleagues, who remain committed to the European project. But even the Lib Dems have been shocked at how much influence Brussels has on decisions that should be taken at a national level. Nick Clegg was appalled when officials told him that the EU wouldn’t allow VAT to be set at a local level.

And here’s Fraser Nelson in a strong post on the Spectator’s coffee house blog:

Europe was easier to characterise as a fringe issue, not so now….Cameron thought he’d have to play along, even though it made him “physically sick”. But in perhaps the most useful thing the House of Commons has done for two decades, it decided otherwise last week in a free vote. And what are the judges of Strasbourg going to do? Invade?

A healthy precedent was established last week. Britain has rejected that old argument that we have no choice. We do. Parliament is sovereign. We can reject as many Euro laws as we like: from Brussels, Strasbourg or both.

Meanwhile, Tim Montgomerie takes a swipe at Ken Clarke on Conservative Home:

The fact is the Conservative Party is largely united on Europe. The vast majority of Tory MPs and activists, from the Prime Minister down, believe that unelected European judges and bureaucrats have too much power. Given the nature of the Coalition and the economic priorities, significant repatriation of powers may not be possible in this Parliament but we must prepare a manifesto for the next General Election that attempts to address that. So long as Ken Clarke is a significant player in the Conservative Party there is little chance of that happening. I sometimes wonder if he stays in government to prevent the party fulfilling its Eurosceptic instincts

Inevitably, there will be more court rulings from the ECHR and the ECJ (one coming up on pensions for example) - in addition to new Directives and Regulations from the Commission - which will be percieved as interfering in national areas where they don't belong. This isn't the last clash we'll see, but it's a signifcant one.

And hats off to Parliament. This time, MPs did their job.

Is the Miliband amendment a trap?

The EU Bill's referendum lock is today coming before Parliament, with its different parts debated and voted on between today and Wednesday (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here).

At the eleventh hour, Labour leader Ed Miliband has tabled an amendment that would effectively remove the opportunity for a judicial review of any decision taken by Ministers and Parliament, amid concerns that the power of Parliament might in future be weakened at the hands of judges.

We can certainly see the appeal of this amendment from MPs' point of view, as it appears to strengthen Parliament. However, the bigger risk is that it - for all practical purposes - simultaneously waters down the referendum lock. MPs should therefore think twice before supporting this amendment.

For what it's worth, here's our take:

- Ed Miliband’s amendments to the EU Bill centre on the creation of an “EU referendum committee”.

- This Committee of 19 members would be comprised of MPs and Lords (but not Ministers) who would make recommendations on whether to hold all referenda provided for in all the various sections of the Bill.

- The recommendations would be put to both Houses of Parliament for approval of the Committee’s decision on whether to hold a referendum or not.

- While the creation of an ‘independent panel of Parliamentarians’ to decide on referenda may sound appealing, the Committee’s recommendations would override the Bill’s clauses which would automatically provide for referenda on decisions identified in the Bill, which are the key safeguards against power being handed over from Westminster to Brussels. Only “significant transfers” as decided by the committee and voted on in Parliament would qualify.

- Therefore Labour’s amendments could well have the effect of raising the threshold for holding referenda on transferring powers to the EU.

- Should the government of the day hold the balance of power in the proposed “EU Referendum Committee”, there would be nothing stopping a new EU treaty or treaty change being pushed through Parliament by the government. This could see a repeat of what happened to the Lisbon Treaty, which, as we all remember, was pushed through Parliament, without a public vote, despite the three major parties pledging a referendum on the treaty.

Update on the EU Bill - the Government's response to JHA opt ins

Earlier today, the Government released a statement setting out what it intends to do on the Justice and Home Affairs 'opt-ins' and the crucial 2014 choice between more or less EU control (see here, here, here and here for more from us on this).

On the 'opt-ins' the Government seems determined not to include any language in the actual EU Bill that would require it to get Parliamentary approval before it can opt in to a new EU law in crime, policing and immigration. Instead, it says that this should be addressed separately with the details to be decided at a later stage. Crucially, only the proposals generating a "particularly strong" interest could, possibly, be put to Parliament. In the Government's words:

in circumstances where there is particularly strong Parliamentary interest in the Government’s decision on whether or not to opt in to such a measure, the Government expresses its willingness to set aside Government time for a debate in both Houses on the basis of a motion on the Government’s recommended approach on the opt-in.

From the looks of it, this is not a strong enough safeguard. The big question is who decides what counts as "particularly strong" interest. We remain convinced that in order to avoid situations where future EU proposals in Justice and Home Affairs are debated at the convenience of the Government (which is the case at the moment), all opt ins should be subject to Parliamentary approval (there are pragmatic ways to deal with minor proposals, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater).

On the crucial 2014 choice, the Government clearly commits to putting this to a vote in both Houses. This is encouraging, though again, they should put that into writing in the EU Bill, so that it would be beyond doubt. A political agreement/commitment can be altered, which we all know too well when it comes to EU matters. The statement reads:

Parliament should have the right to give its view on a decision of such importance. The Government therefore commits to a vote in both Houses of Parliament before it makes a formal decision on whether it wishes to opt-out. The Government will conduct further consultations on the arrangements for this vote, in particular with the European Scrutiny Committees, and the Commons and Lords Home Affairs and Justice Select Committees and a further announcement will be made in due course.

In other words, there's much to play for here. Are MPs paying attention?

How important is Clause 18?

Is Cameron facing defeat over the EU Bill tomorrow? Some have flagged up that prospect though we suspect the Bill will see it through tomorrow's debate in the Commons unscathed (backbench Tory MPs have differing priorities, Labour MPs are a bit all over the place and Lib Dems are not flip-flopping for a change - you work out the odds).

The so-called ‘sovereignty clause’ within the Government’s EU Bill is currently the subject of some criticism and debate, and this is the part that will come up for discussion in Parliament tomorrow (the rest of the Bill will be left for the following week or later).

Some important questions have been raised about the sovereignty clause but, arguably, they relate more to domestic concerns about the constitutional role of Parliament than the UK's relationship with the EU (though a link clearly exists). Irrespective of the merits of arguments on either side, the sovereignty clause should not be confused with the 'referendum lock' (which the vast majority of the Bill is concerned with) that seeks to identify areas where EU power can be extended and introduce some national controls on them.

These are two discussions that should have always remained separate.

The Government, and William Hague specifically, argues that Clause 18 of the Bill “confirms and affirms the position that EU law in this country is only recognised by virtue of the authority of acts of Parliament.” The Government says that it is attempting to “address concerns that the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty may in the future be eroded by decision of the courts”.

But some backbench Tory MPs have noted that the Government’s assertion, in the explanatory notes, that the Bill reinforces the “common law principle that EU law takes effect in the UK through the will of Parliament and by virtue of an Act of Parliament” contradicts this very aim. As Bernard Jenkin MP argued yesterday, “The common law is judge-made law. The judges are its authors and its guardians. They may change it whenever they see fit.”

The argument goes like this: by legally rooting Parliamentary sovereignty in common law, the Government would in fact be inviting judges to become more involved, leading to the logical extension that, if Parliament is sovereign because of a decision of the courts, the courts can just as easily change their minds. As Jenkin notes, Parliament is sovereign because Parliament is sovereign. This is the principle of the UK’s constitutional settlement.

A valid question is also whether Clause 18 was necessary at all? Did anyone really dispute whether Parliament could choose to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act at any point in time should it want to? (the Commons EU Scrutiny Committee's report and evidence on the topic is pretty interesting if anyone should have the appetite to trawl through it).

It is no accident that it is the EU that has sparked this debate. The lack of a formal written constitution leaves the UK hugely exposed to the EU’s centralising instincts.

But confusing this discussion with the other, in our view, more important aspect of the Bill, the referendum lock (we wouldn't rule out that the Government may have done this intentionally) runs the risk that MPs do not focus enough of their energies on closing the loopholes in the Bill that deal with transfers of power to the EU. We have identified several relating to justice and home affairs but there are also other areas where the Bill needs tightening up, and Tory MPs have done a good job in tabling sensible amendments. These amendments would strengthen Parliament's de facto powers the second the Bill came into force. That would be a step forward for parliamentary democracy, and a very practical one at that.

Constitutional debates about the role of Parliament are of course important but they will also no doubt roll on. However, this may be the only chance to get the practical measures within the Bill right and in our view they should therefore be the primary focus for MPs.

That's an argument in favour, not against Mr. Foreign Secretary

Tuesday night saw the Coalition government's EU Bill sailing through a second reading in Parliament, without a vote. In truth, it wasn't all plain sailing as several MPs - from across the aisle - fired at the Bill with various degrees of ferociousness. "Legislative PR", "flawed", "smoke and mirrors" and "missing the point" were some of the comments.

Valid points were raised - though as we've argued before, the referendum lock is a meaningful measure that will make it more difficult for ministers to transfer power to Brussels in future (true, it doesn't deal with the mission creep of the ECJ, or with cases when EU law is blatantly broken i.e. the eurozone bail-out, or with the existing balance of power between the UK and the EU, which many feel is unacceptable).

The Foreign Secretary did disappoint on one point, however. Conservative MP James Clappison asked whether the Foreign Secretary would give "serious consideration" to the question of requiring a vote in Parliament before the Government opts in to new EU laws in the Justice and Home Affairs area - which Open Europe has argued strongly in favour of, as it would in effect roll back some of the powers given away to EU judges and MEPs under the Lisbon Treaty.

However, the Foreign Secretary answered that the decision to opt-in belongs to a "different category" and argued that

given the strict time limits which apply to the UK's decision to exercise an opt-in - which is within three months of the receipt of a proposal - and the fact that there are 30 to 40 proposals per annum, it is not possible to place a primary legislative lock or parliamentary resolution requirement on the exercise of the opt in.

This isn't a strong justification at all for leaving out such a provision. William Hague seems to argue that ‘there is so much being agreed in the EU and as a government we need time to consider it all’. But this isn't an argument against giving Parliament ex ante control over this area - on the contrary, it's a strong argument in favour of it! Precisely because that is the case, we need more democratic control.

Also, a resolution of approval is not a time-consuming measure in Parliament. Motions can be agreed after a relatively short, single debate. In fact, the Irish Parliament must pass a resolution before its Government can opt in to anything, so it seems strange that this wouldn't be possible in the UK.

What puzzles us is why not more MPs aren't passionately pushing this line?

Commons weighs in on deposit schemes

Hats off to the House of Commons.

Earlier today it grasped the nettle and employed the Lisbon Treaty's 'yellow card' procedure for the first time (if nine national parliaments object to a proposal from the Commission on 'subsidiarity' grounds, within an eight-week window, the Commission is obliged to re-consider - but not scrap - the proposal). The House of Lords was slightly quicker off the blocks, using the procedure last week to object to the EU's proposed directive on seasonal workers from third countries.

The Commons provided a "reasoned opinion" on the proposal to amend the so-called Investor Compensation Schemes Directive, objecting to it on subsidiarity grounds.

As we've argued before, this proposal raises various concerns, as under the proposed rules member states would be required to lend to each other should a bank go bust and deposits needed to be guaranteed. As the Swedish Parliament argued, this presents a 'moral hazard' since some member states might be tempted to under-fund their scheme, knowing that someone else would pick up the final bill.

The House of Commons joined its counterparts in Sweden, Germany and Austria in objecting to the proposal.

Only problem is, the deadline for objecting to the proposal expires today. Eight weeks doesn't exactly give national parliaments plenty of time to mobilise, particularly when, as it did now, it coincides with parliamentary recess in most European countries (almost as if it was planned).

We confess to not being up to speed with how many national parliaments actually managed to formally object to the proposal in the end - but will be back shortly with an update.

Regardless, it's good to see MPs taking responsibility.

Illusionary democracy?

We've looked at this issue before, but the Swedish Parliament, the Riksdag, yesterday supported its finance committee in protesting against the Commission's proposed amendments to the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive, which would oblige member states to transfer money to another member state's deposit scheme, if that scheme had run out of money. The Riksdag said this would create a moral hazard, as some countries could be tempted to under-fund their schemes, knowing that someone else would ultimately pick up the bill. The German Bundesrat has also objected to the proposal and today the lower house in Germany, the Bundestag, will give its opinion on whether it will formally object to the amended Directive.

This is the first time that national parliaments have tried to use their new 'powers' entailed in the Lisbon Treaty. The Treaty gives parliaments the right to oblige the Commission to re-consider - but not scrap - a proposal, if a third of national parliaments object to the proposed legislation on subsidiarity grounds, within an eight week window. As even Andrew Duff - the liberal MEP who has been a staunch defender of the Lisbon Treaty - has admitted, the Lisbon provision on national parliaments was never intended to be used in practice as it's very difficult to get nine parliaments to debate and then object to a piece of legislation within such a narrow time period as eight weeks.

And the task of getting nine parliaments on board looks very tricky indeed. The deadline for national parliaments to object to the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive is 25 October, and according to the "Interparliamentary EU information Exchange" so far only six parliaments have even begun scrutinising the proposal. Typically, the eight week period comes smack in the middle of parliamentary recesses in most countries, making the task even more difficult (although the Commission generously discounted August from the period).

It's hard not to see this provision as mere illusionary democracy, which the EU elite inserted into the Lisbon Treaty to be able to make the case that 'everyone wins'. But still, it's good that national parliaments are giving it a shot.

Surely, the UK Parliament should object too, given that the reservations concern moral hazard, transfer of funds between member states and subsidiarity?

This could be interesting

Do you remember all that talk about how national parliaments would be strenghtened under the Lisbon Treaty (something which the pro-Lisbon camp continuously banged on about, presenting it as a 'fact', when in reality it's anything but)?

We've looked at what post-Lisbon life is like for national parliaments many times before (and it ain't that pretty), but it now appears that national parliaments' "new powers" to challenge proposals from the Commission are being tested for the first time.

The Lisbon Treaty says that, in the event that a third of national parliaments - that's 9 - get together to oppose their governments on a piece of legislation, on the specific grounds of 'subsidiarity', and within an 8-week window, then the legislation would have to be reviewed, following which, it would be open to the institution which originated the proposal to choose whether to maintain, amend or withdraw the proposal.

Hardly practical. But the Swedish Parliament (the Riksdag) is determined to give it a try. The Treasury Committee of the Riksdag has raised objections against the Commission's proposed amendments to the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive. Under the amended Directive, deposit guarantee schemes must offer depositors up to €50,000, if their bank collapses. The schemes are to be 75 percent pre-funded from bank contributions, with the remainder coming from other sources. However, the Riksdag's Treasury Committee is opposed to a provision in the Commission's proposal which could see Sweden (or any other member state) being forced to lend money to other member states' funds, if these funds face a shortfall in cash.

The Riksdag, going against the Swedish government, said that such mandatory lending could lead to some member states under-funding their deposit schemes, knowing that someone else would be lender of last resort. It also argued that the provision represents a violation of the EU's subsidiarity principle. The Riksdag will now seek to spread the word amongst other parliaments in a bid to get the Commission to reconsider the proposal.

One tiny problem: many national parliaments around Europe are on recess at the moment - including the UK's. To muster the support of an additional eight will be a difficult task indeed.

This is one to watch.

Ignorance is not bliss for Chris Bryant

The controversial EU-US anti-terrorism data-sharing deal, named the Swift agreement, came under further attack yesterday as an almighty row broke out in the Commons. Labour’s very own Michael Connarty accused the government of treating Parliament with "disdain and contempt" by choosing to bypass the standard eight-week period given to the European Scrutiny Committee to examine such agreements, with Treasury Minister Sarah McCarthy-Fry asked to justify the Government's decision.

The Swift agreement allows the US authorities to access EU citizens’ bank transactions under the name of anti-terrorism. But whilst the Government claims the agreement will protect us from the threat of terrorist attacks we are left wondering, who is protecting us, the citizens, against attacks on our civil liberties?

The Lisbon Treaty was sold with the promise that it would strengthen national parliaments' ability to scrutinse EU legislation. This is a particular concern for matters concerning justice and home affairs where the UK can decide to 'opt in' to a proposal or not. Let us not forget, the negotiated 'opt in' was used by the Government to justify its decision to abandon the promised referendum on the Treaty.

PA report that Connarty, the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, said he had been assured by ministers, including Prime Minister Gordon Brown, that opt-ins would be subject to proper scrutiny. Connarty said that the SWIFT agreement was the first test of the Lisbon Treaty assurance and this was a "very bad start to the new process.”

But it's getting even worse.

In a public lecture at the LSE yesterday evening we asked Chris Bryant, the UK's Europe Minister, to comment on the day's debate in the Commons. And yet, to our surprise (and his), he wasn't even aware that the Commons debate had happened, remarking:

"What on earth does this have to do with Sarah McCarthy-Fry, I don't think this is right". Then calling to an assistant, he asked "Did Sarah McCarthy-Fry answer a question today?". He continued "I'm really perplexed about it because if anyone would be answering EU [questions] it should be me...I don't know if I can say much more."

With the Government so quick to ignore due Parliamentry process and the Minister for Europe totally unaware of what's going on, it’s sure time to recognise that democracy has not been strengthened by the Lisbon Treaty.

Luckily enough we have the episode on the dictaphone, so click here for a listen. Chris does sound very confused...

Who said giving the EP more powers was a good thing?

A new report from the cross-party House of Lord's EU Scrutiny Committee will make yet more uncomfortable reading for all those Yes campaigners who are still, against all the evidence, operating under the illusion (or lie more like) that the Lisbon Treaty will be good for national parliamentary democracy.

The report looks at the meaning and implications of the so-called 'co-decision' procedure, whereby EU ministers meeting in the European Council have a more or less equal say over decisions as the European Parliament. Those decisions which are not subject to co-decision are usually taken by the Council acting alone.

The Lisbon Treaty proposes to extend the use of the co-decision procedure to 40 more policy areas, so that just about all decisions made by the EU are decided jointly with the European Parliament (as oppposed to about 75% currently).

But the House of Lords report finds significant problems with exercising national parliamentary scrutiny of EU legislation under the co-decision procedure, which could be set to worsen if it is extended under Lisbon.

The report reads, "Should the Lisbon Treaty come into force, these difficulties will be magnified by the expansion of codecision into new areas: notably agriculture, fisheries and justice and home affairs."

The report finds that, under co-decision, more and more legislative proposals are reaching a first-reading agreement in the European Parliament and Council, or an early second-reading agreement (as opposed to going to proper second and third readings). This reduces the amount of time that the legislative process takes, but also consequently reduces the (already meagre) amount of time that national parliaments have to scrutinise proposals and give their feedback to government ministers, in order to inform national positions on amendments and negotiations.

Even pro-Lisbon ex-MEP Richard Corbett (who gave evidence to the Committee) admitted that first reading agreements "limit" the "advantage" national Parliaments have, saying second and third reading agreements make Parliamentary scrutiny potentially easier.

'Informal trilogue'

The report finds that, when first-reading agreements are reached, they are often the result of "informal trilogue" meetings which take place before the official readings, in order to negotiate an acceptable text. These trilogue meetings contain representatives from the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament. The French Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU who gave evidence to the committee said, "the real negotiation takes place in the trilogue" and the Lords committee says the use of these has increased to the point that they are now the primary form of negotiation between the European Parliament and the Council.

The problem is that, as the Lords report found: "informal trilogues, whilst helpful to expeditious agreement of legislation, make effective scrutiny of codecided legislation by national parliaments very difficult."

If national Parliaments receive a Commission proposal, they may be scrutinising it while it is already being negotiated and amended by the Council and the EP. Unless national Parliaments receive up-to-date information about how the proposal is changing, scrutiny becomes even more of a redundant exercise, as it fails to reflect what the final outcome of the negotations will look like.

In that respect, the report is critical of both the Government's track record in keeping Parliament in the loop about the development of EU proposals, and the speed of co-decision negotiations, which make updates difficult.

The Lords EU sub-Committee on environment and agriculture said that "the emerging consensus between the European Parliament and Council can be almost impossible to determine. Updates from the Government are usually too infrequent, and negotiations proceed too rapidly and opaquely for accurate tracking of the inter-institutional negotiations."

The same sub-Committee also found that DEFRA was "sluggish" in providing updates on the progress of inter-institutional negotiations, sometimes giving them only when prompted. Notification on the Common Position (the Council's position on the European Parliament's amendments to a proposal) reached on the Plant Protection Products (Pesticides) Regulation was not received until three months after the vote in the Council. This particular proposal was modified in co-decision and subsequently became more controversial in its implications for the UK.

The report also cites the EU's Climate Change Package as a prominent example of how early agreements are being sought on important, and controversial proposals, in order to push legislation through.

The report concludes that the expansion of the scope of the co-decision procedure and the use of these informal trilogues makes national Parliamentary scrutiny increasingly difficult.

Since this is exactly what Lisbon proposes to do, things can only get worse.

Union Budget 2009-10 focussed on growth

Fringe Benefit Tax abolished | Tax slab raised to Rs 1.6 lakh | Rice, wheat at Rs 3 per kg to poor

New Pension Scheme introduced | No change in Corporate tax | Budget expenditure of 2009-10 at Rs 10,28,032cr

Products that became cheap
Footwear, LCD TVs, Branded Jewellery, Drugs for heart treatment, Textiles, Bulk drugs

Products that became expensive
Set-top boxes, Gold and Silver import, Gold Bars, Mobile phones

• Rural jobs scheme is allocated Rs 39,000 cr
• Small businesses exempt from advance tax
• Surcharge of 10% on personal income tax eliminated
• Commodity transaction tax to be axed
• Commonwealth allocation hiked to Rs 16,300 cr

• 8% excise duty on man-made fibre restored
• Tax holiday extended for textile units
• Custom duty on set top boxes now at 5 per cent
• Poliical funding gets 100% tax reduction
• Tax holiday for exporters has been extended till 2011
• MAT hiked to 15% of book profit
• There is an hike in IT exemption for women to Rs 1,90,000
• IT exemption by Rs 15000 for senior citizens
• GST will be dual in nature
• Introduction of Goods and Services Tax on April 1, 2010
• Federal tax\GDP ratio is 11.5 per cent
• Share of direct taxes increased by 56pc
• New direct tax code in next 45 days
• Direct tax share gone up by 58pc
• Fiscal deficit estimated at 6.8 per cent
• Tax GDP improves to 11.9 pc
• Planned expenditure raised by 34 per cent
• Expenditure has crossed Rs 10 lakh crore mark
• Non planned expenditure estimated at 3.9 lakh
• National Ganga Project hiked to Rs 562 cr
• Allocation of Rs 50 cr to Chandigrah University
• Rashtriya Mahila Kosh corpus to be raised to 500cr
• Rs 350 cr allocated for Below Poverty Line (BPL) families
• Rs 2,000 cr for rural housing fund
• Rural mega clusters in Bengal and Rajasthan
• NREGA outlay increased by 144%
• Subvention of 1% as incentives to farmers
• Indira Awaas Yojna hiked by 63% to Rs 8,883 cr
• Real wage of Rs.100/day provided under NREGA
• Rs. 31,100 crore allocation for NREGA
• Public Sector Unitss remains under Govt control
• Additional 1000 cr for irrigation programmes
• Expert group to look into petroleum product pricing
• Farmer loan waiver period has been extended by six months
• Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojna stepped up by 30%
• Agri credit for at Rs 3.25 lakh crore for 09-10
• Hike in infrastructure to over 9 pc of GDP by 2014
• Fund for urban poor housing at Rs 3,973,000cr
• JNNURM allocation hiked by 87 per cent
• Fiscal stimulus of Rs 1,86,000 cr provided
• 23% hike in fund allocation for highway development
• IIFCL will refinance 60% of commercial bank loans
• Fiscal stimulus steps helped the economy