When the police search a house they no longer look under the bed or behind the fridge, but instead head straight for the computer. The list of recent search entries is often a gold mine. For example, a client of mine was arrested with 15 wraps of cocaine, but police had no further evidence to show he was a dealer, until they read his search enquiry: “How long would I get for dealing cocaine?” That was enough to put him on trial. In these changing times, the old regulation covers the police looking under the bed, but new regulation is needed to cover the new technology.

Theresa May has published the Investigatory Powers Bill to regulate the collection of communications data and the covert recording of phone calls and conversations. The act applies to the police and the security services, as would be expected. However there is a third mysterious category, labelled “Economic Well-Being” which I believe is a euphemism for trade unions.

There is no definition of economic well-being, but economic targets are a concern to the security services. Police pour considerable resources into investigating protesters against Heathrow, but disrupting an airport is a crime already, so why would it need a new separate law? The same applies to a plot to damage a power station. Or bring down the banks. Why have a pointless new category? There is no other explanation for “economic well-being” other than it being a euphemism for trade unions.

If the miners went on strike, would it be appropriate for the security services to break into the home of a trade union leader and record her conversation with her family? Would it be appropriate for all card-carrying members of the NUM to be bugged, because this act would apparently allow it? How about all members of the GMB baggage handling section of Heathrow, or all Unite members in Canary Wharf?

The act does have an apparent safeguard; that a threat to economic well-being must be “relevant” to national security, but everything is “relevant” to national security. Every tube station is a potential target. Every hospital is a vital emergency service. Every energy provider, every bank is relevant, because the word “relevant” it is so vague and intangible. Besides, if it is relevant to national security then surely it would already be covered by the category marked, “national security”. Why would we need a separate category?

I first realised the anxiety of this act at my GMB branch meeting in central London. The unions are hostile to the act in its entirety. It’s safe to assume that the unions have previously been bugged during major disputes and perhaps between them. However, if the “economic well-being” part was removed from this act, then the unions should welcome it, because then the only people who can be bugged would be suspects of crime and terror. The unions would have legal protection from this type of covert intrusion for the first time.

In a comical turn, Theresa May has written into this Bill that bugging an MP can only be allowed with the authorisation of the British Prime Minister. So this would mean that David Cameron would be the authority on whether Tom Watson and Chris Bryant should have their phone calls covertly recorded. Or, thought of another way, Brazil’s president Dilma Rousseff would have been able to reject the request to record the conversation she recently had with Lula, her predecessor. This section should be removed entirely. MPs shouldn’t be so pompous as to think they are different from other citizens. The law should apply equally to them as everyone else.

The British Government should remove all references to “economic well-being” in this Bill and concentrate less on who can authorise what. That includes the bizarre double-lock clause. What we need is a sensible regulation that ensures that intrusive investigations are concentrated on criminals and security threats. We accept that sometimes the innocent will be targeted, in the same way as the innocent are sometimes wrongly arrested, but as long as the law ensures that the mistakes are kept to a minimum, we can content ourselves that this is a good country and one that is safe, because it is a country with good law.