WRITTEN QUESTION E-3082/02 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Failure in Sweden of EIB preferential loans for small businesses.
Date: 2002-10-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EIB loan, European Investment Bank, administrative formalities, aid system, interest, small business, tariff preference

3.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155 E/89

(2003/C 155 E/100)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3082/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(28 October 2002)

Subject: Failure in Sweden of EIB preferential loans for small businesses

There is much talk from political quarters in the European Union of protecting and promoting small and
medium-sized enterprises. Preferential loans for such businesses is one method of assisting them. Because
of its high standing, the EIB is able to lend money on preferential terms. The overriding objective of the
EIB is to promote development in the EU and integration between the Member States.

In 2001, Föreningssparbanken became the first Swedish bank to conclude an agreement with the EIB to
offer preferential loans to small and medium-sized businesses. Within the framework of a ‘global loan’,
Föreningssparbanken had the facility to lend some SEK 400 million, which was primarily intended to
finance small businesses’ investments in infrastructure and industry.

A year later, however, in May 2002, it was noted that the EIB’s partner had not lent a single krona of the
amount earmarked. The bank had had numerous inquiries but the customers thought that the benefits
were poor in relation to the terms. The bank in Sweden had hoped to be able to deliver something of
benefit to its corporate customers. The idea was that the EIB loan would be cheaper than the commercial
banks’ but in May 2002 it was observed that compared with Föreningssparbanken’s normal business loans,
the difference in interest rates was not even half a percent but rather 10 to 20 percentage points, which
was not particularly advantageous for borrowers.

Another reason for entrepreneurs’ lack of interest was the additional administrative work. The involvement
of the EIB means that yet another party demands scrutiny of the company, which may be reasonable but is
also a source of irritation. As the EIB is a participating party, it must in some way take part in the lending
process but, at the same time, the risk remains with Föreningssparbanken.

In what way will the Council take this experience from Sweden into account when it discusses setting up
preferential loans for small and medium-sized businesses and the terms and conditions for them?

Reply

(20 February 2003)

It is true that in some cases the EIB loans may be less competitive than in others. On the one hand, the EIB
obtains its resources in the market and on the other, interest rates in Sweden are relatively low at this
moment for small and medium-sized businesses. The Council will consider all relevant experiences if and
when considering a possible proposal by the Commission.

In any case it is always the intermediary bank that decides on terms and conditions of its loans to the final
beneficiary since it takes the ultimate risk.

(2003/C 155 E/101)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3091/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 October 2002)

Subject: Implementation of the Structural Funds and the ‘n+2’ rule

in
The current period of economic slowdown and the constraints imposed on public expenditure,
particular public investment, by the Stability Pact are creating problems for the correct and full
implementation of the Structural Funds. The situation is all the more serious for countries such as
Portugal, which need more capital and investment, as the questioner has discovered during various visits
and meetings. Furthermore, the level of co-financing and the existing regulatory procedures, especially after
the changes brought in by Agenda 2000, do not seem to have helped to improve the situation. In this