Facing a storm of criticism early this year over a refusal to allow public consultation on the draft provisions of the national security bill, senior officials promised there would be plenty of room for amendments to be made during the legislative process.
Yesterday's proposed tweaking of the provisions would appear to be what they had in mind. While rather technical in nature, often involving a word crossed out here and a sentence added there, the changes are nonetheless significant. But they are far from amounting to the fundamental changes critics argue are needed to safeguard rights and freedoms.
Most of the amendments - with one notable exception - have been generally welcomed, as they serve to limit the scope of some of these highly sensitive laws.
The narrowing of the offence of sedition is of particular importance. It will now only apply to those who intentionally incite others to commit offences such as treason in a way which is likely to actually achieve that result. This is a response to concerns that the offence was defined too widely and could lead to actions which are not particularly serious being criminalised. Some lawyers are suggesting it will now be quite difficult to successfully prosecute anyone under this law.
Placing the much criticised extension of police powers to search without a warrant in the hands of an officer of at least the rank of assistant commissioner provides a measure of protection, limiting the number of officers who can direct its use to those with a high level of seniority. And writing into the national security laws a clause that they must comply with Basic Law provisions which protect rights, is also a response to criticism and an attempt to provide a little extra reassurance.
The most controversial change concerns giving the secretary for security the power to make special rules governing the conduct of appeals by organisations which are banned on national security grounds.