Mr. Dermot Woods:

If it is helpful for the Deputy, I will follow up on that. In a way, there is an oddly complex interaction between the two judgments. In the 2014 Digital Rights Ireland judgment, the ECJ set out a number of features of what would constitute a proper data retention regime. According to subsequent analysis and interpretation of it, it set out not quite a checklist of all of the factors that must be satisfied in order for a regime to be complaint, but that there could be a pattern of arrangements, elements of which would, if drawn together, satisfy a threshold set by the court. Many features of the existing Irish regime satisfy those requirements.

The Tele2 and Watson joint case and judgment built on the Digital Rights Ireland judgment but took a significant step further. The court set out a number of features that were required, including a mandatory checklist. That has led us to putting in place legislation that satisfies those ECJ requirements. Given that the requirements of EU law have changed, we must satisfy them. Even though some of the existing features of the Act satisfy requirements of the Tele2 judgment, in overall terms they are not satisfied, so we have to put in place additional measures, for example, independent prior authorisation, judicial authorisation and an explicit requirement for the data to be retained in the EU. Such elements must be put in place, which is why the Act is being revised.