Some lawmakers said a few of the rules were too inflexible and that the government was “tying its own hands”.

They asked whether the cap that only allowed police to extend the normal detention period by up to 14 days could be lifted.

“Given that we have laid out thorough conditions [on prolonging the detention], why should we impose a limit on the period of extension, rather than allow more flexibility?” Kitson Yang Wing-kit said.

“The national security cases will only get more complicated and take more time to investigate.”

Fellow lawmaker Stanley Ng Chau-pei agreed, saying: “There is no hard indicator on how long a detention period would need to be to guarantee the protection of human rights … what happens if you cannot finish within 14 days?”

At least 88 out of 181 – almost half – of the legislation’s clauses have been vetted in four days. The bill, which targets five types of offences, is part of a requirement Hong Kong must fulfil under Article 23 of the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution.

Day 3 of discussion of security law covers state secrets, espionage and sabotage

The proposed offences are treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the central government, and theft of state secrets. The legislation would operate alongside the Beijing-imposed 2020 national security law.

Hong Kong allows police to detain a suspect for 48 hours without charge, with the proposed law granting them an additional 14 days.

Approval by a magistrate would be required for extensions, with the extra time in custody only justified if police were unable to reasonably complete the investigation before the date of the application, and the extra period was necessary to secure or preserve evidence.

But security chief Chris Tang Ping-keung offered reassurances that an additional 14-day detention period would be sufficient time, and highlighted experience gained through use of the 2020 national security law.

Britain allows suspects in national security cases to be held without charge for up to 28 days and the period in Singapore can last up to two years without the need to obtain permission from the courts.

But Tang insisted the government needed to ensure the protection of human rights.

“If necessary, a movement restriction order could be imposed on an arrestee given bail, for example by requiring him or her to live in a specific place … this will serve as a good balance,” he said.

People under investigation could be ordered to live in a specific place and barred from entering an area or from communicating with particular people for a period of time. The order would be valid for three months and extended for a month at a time, subject to a magistrate’s approval.

Tang rejected Yang’s suggestion to instead renew the order in three-month periods to give greater convenience to investigators because of human rights concerns, but added that the order could be extended for an unlimited time.

No early release for those jailed in Hong Kong for endangering national security

Vernon Loh, a senior assistant solicitor general at the Department of Justice, said extensions under the Article 23 law would not result in arbitrary detention because power for extending the time in custody rested with the courts.

“Not a single minute would be used to exploit anyone’s freedom of movement, if not necessary,” justice secretary Paul Lam Ting-kwok added.

The force would also be able to ask the courts to order restrictions on people discharged, who normally can leave Hong Kong freely at present, to tackle potential risks in national security cases.

Lawmakers also appealed to the government to step up surveillance of people granted bail on national security charges because of previous instances where people had fled Hong Kong.

But Tang said the government had to “strike a balance between investigation and human rights protection”.

He highlighted that people on bail could have their travel documents taken, but that authorities had no plans to introduce electronic tagging for surveillance purposes at present.

Under the proposed legislation, the force could also apply for a court warrant restricting a suspect from meeting any legal representative within 48 hours of arrest.

Police officers could also seek judicial approval to restrict people in custody from meeting specific lawyers. The restriction would also apply to other lawyers from the same firm and ones chosen by the banned legal practitioner.

Lam emphasised that the ban only applied to the detention period and would not affect the right of people who had been arrested to consult lawyers at other stages of the legal process.

Chinese vice-premier urges ‘necessary’ swift Article 23 enactment in Hong Kong

He said the 48-hour ban was intended to prevent suspects from meeting their alleged syndicate members, who could be a lawyer as yet unknown to the enforcement agency, to minimise the risk of obstruction of the investigation.

Lam admitted it would be “a severe restriction” but said the government had struck a balance.

“Objectively, it has suspended one’s right under the Basic Law … that’s why we need to set a time limit,” Lam said.

Article 35 of the Basic Law was designed to safeguard people’s access to lawyers for protection.

The justice department said that the administration had referred to Britain’s National Security Act 2023 when it set the duration. It added that the government would stand a higher chance of having to face a judicial review if the time limit was extended.

Lam also made clear that people who had been detained still had the right to remain silent.

Almost all of the lawmakers on the bill committee appealed to the government to review the conditions under which an individual could be specified as an absconder by the security minister.

The bill laid down five conditions, including a period of six months after the issue of the warrant had expired, which lawmakers wanted removed over concerns about delays in taking action, including cutting off funding.

“Why should we wait for six months when many started badmouthing Hong Kong right after they left?” lawmaker Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee said.

Tang said he would review the conditions after the discussion.

Lawmakers also examined the clauses designed to prevent people from helping fugitives to handle their funds, property or set up joint ventures in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong lawmakers raise concerns at scope of Article 23 interference offence

Tommy Cheung Yu-yan asked the government to give the proposed legislation more teeth by allowing the imposition of sanctions on banks that dealt with absconders.

But Lam rejected the proposal and said the city had to be “extremely careful” with such matters.

“What we aim to do is to regulate the acts of financial institutions in Hong Kong,” he said.

“If we are to regulate their acts overseas, in general, it is not in line with the principles of international law.

“I understand that some countries do have long-arm jurisdiction. But that is the very thing that we oppose and that is not in line with international law.”