From my review, there are two aspects of the bill that are on reasonable suspicion, right? There's the preservation order, and I think that's largely accepted by most people as an acceptable standard. I think you recommend exigent circumstances. I think that if you're going for a preservation order, that's probably what it is, because you only get it for 21 days, and then if you want to see it you have to get a court order. But I think there's general acceptance of that.
Even Mr. Spratt, you're nodding, so I assume you generally accept that.
The issue we have is with transmission data, and it's the standard “reasonable grounds to suspect” versus “reasonable grounds to believe”.
Mr. Gilhooly or Mr. Butt, why do you think the standard should be the lower threshold?