Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

We all acknowledge, empathise with and support what the union has just told us. We should thank it for its positive and informative actions despite the fact the opposite side decided to ignore it and us. A couple of things worry me. I fully support having no compulsory redundancies because they should not be necessary. If services are going to be carried on in the future, I do not see why staff should not have a safe place to go to carry on with the business they did before.

What does "phased withdrawal" mean? That is a dangerous term because it could mean a piecemeal reduction in staff and services over a period of time, after which there would be few options left for the staff or the bank to function. I draw attention to the pivotal nature of the services provided by Ulster Bank right across the midlands, a significant area with a branch network providing lending services.

Other speakers referred to the non-performing loans. By whose definition are they non-performing? In my experience, the non-performing status was determined by the bank. That allowed banks to put such loans into a package. Some loans were not non-performing at all and were performing quite well but ended up in a package for sale to sweeten the package for somebody else.

Those are the three issues I have concerns about. I hope this move is not Brexit related. I worry there could be some origins there. That might carry on. How quickly can we get an indication from the various banking authorities here about something that might resemble a third banking force where Ulster Bank could create a major player?