THE DEBATE WITH ALL THE ACTORS INVOLVED IN THE LAW OF GIVING IN PAYMENT The bankers' seats stayed empty until the end...

The National Bank of Romania - ABSENT!

The Romanian Banking Association - ABSENT!

The Council of Romanian Banking Professional Associations - ABSENT!

CEC Bank - ABSENT!

BCR - ABSENT!

BRD Groupe Societe Generale - ABSENT!

OTP Bank - ABSENT!

Bancpost - ABSENT!

ING Bank - ABSENT!

Unicredit Bank - ABSENT!

Piraeus Bank - ABSENT!

Garanti Bank - ABSENT!

Credit Europe Bank - ABSENT!

This is what the banks' attendance would have looked yesterday, if the event organized by BURSA and the Juridical Commission of the Chamber of Deputies had been a class roster call.

But this wasn't a class, it was a debate on the hottest topic concerning the banking system - the Law of giving in payment -, held in the session room of the Juridical Commission, an entity which is going to cast its vote on the legislative text.

Banks are saying that this law would "seriously affect the economy"!

In spite of all this, they have preferred to avoid the first and perhaps last debate on this issue which sought to bring to the table all the players involved - from the initiators, to the consumers (both debtors as well as potential debtors), analysts, bankers, former bankers, politicians, foreign specialists, Government.

They all responded PRESENT from the first call, all of them except the banking system, which unashamedly defied the event, as well as the representatives of the Government (the National Consumer Protection Agency and the Ministry of Public Finance).

Not a single representative of the banks came around to support the opinion of the sector, even as about ten days ago, the most important bankers in the market were acknowledging the failure of their communication over the last few years.

"Commercial banks have lost the populist-media battle on the Law of giving in payment", Sergiu Oprescu, the president of the Romanian Banking Association was saying. "We believe that at the present time, the populist media battle has been somewhat lost by the banks. I think that we have not been successful in communicating well on this matter. This is a failure that we take responsibility for. I think that we have been affected by a form of lack of credibility and that is why our message failed to have penetration. (...) What else can we do? Do our duty. To warn about the possible future impact (ed. note: of the Law of giving in payment)".

Yesterday they had this opportunity.

We have invited the CEOs of the banks mentioned above by e-mail and by phone.

After the initial refusals, we have insisted, by telling them that they could delegate another person to represent them.

There was a time when a representative of the RBA confirmed their presence. However, a few hours later they called it off!

The banks' excuses were extremely varied - from blunt refusals, to explanations along the lines of "there is no one within the banks that could come to the event, that the RBA has its own conference (on a different issue), that the debate is meant to be a form of media pressure, or that the bankers' speeches are not up to par with the lawyers' rhetoric or, get this, that there were bank customers in the room!!

Have the banks once again got off on the wrong foot in their communication with consumers?

Yes, banks refused to sit down at the table with their own customers!

Banks did not show up to defend their positions on the Law of giving in payment in the presence of all the parties involved!

There have been 14 empty seats, with the tags bearing the institutions' names sitting on the desks, in hopes that someone would change their mind!

That didn't happen!

Journalists have reported live from the location and they pointed out that the banks were missing from the debate.

The MPs said that they felt disappointed and offended by the attitude of the banking system.

Moderator Mihai Rădulescu, an unbiased journalist from the Public Television - noted several times the fact that there wasn't even one bank present.

The debate with arguments in favor and against the law, sent by the press, lasted four hours.

There was plenty of time for someone in charge of communication representing the banks to arrive.

But that didn't happen, those seats remained empty until the end...