The pan-democratic camp is expected to announce today whether it will support the controversial covert surveillance bill when it is put to Legco on Wednesday, after a meeting with the secretary for security ended in a stalemate. The verdict is expected to be 'no', but the various parties are still discussing voting strategies. With only 25 votes, their decision is unlikely to upset the government's bid to pass the law before a court-imposed deadline of August 8. The Alliance, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong and the Liberal Party have all pledged their support. Emerging from an hour-long session with Ambrose Lee Siu-kwong, five pan-democratic camp lawmakers expressed disappointment at the government's refusal to include a sunset clause in the controversial law. The clause, which would effectively provide an expiry date for the legislation, is touted as a win-win solution by the lawmakers. 'We are extremely disappointed that he has absolutely rejected what would have been a solution so that law enforcement authorities would not have a legal vacuum on one hand, while on the other hand the public would have a chance to voice their views,' said Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee of the Civic Party. The Frontier's Emily Lau Wai-hing said members would discuss the issues with their respective parties and the pan-democratic camp could make an announcement this afternoon on whether it would vote for the Interception of Communications and Surveillance Bill when the second reading of the bill resumes next week. The Democratic Party, Civic Party and their allies have expressed concerns over the scope and operation of the law, including the lack of checks on the executive's powers in ordering and enforcing covert surveillance and that it would put lawyers' privileged exchanges with their clients under scrutiny. But Howard Young of the Liberal Party said that without passage of the bill, law enforcement authorities would be hamstrung in fighting serious crime. 'We do not agree with a sunset clause. Such clauses are put in when you know that in time your objective will be met and the law will no longer be needed. But we are talking about terrorism, murder, kidnapping, big monetary crimes, large-scale corruption - these will not go away.' The Alliance's Patrick Lau Sau-shing said he would support the bill because of its importance for law enforcement. Mr Lee said after his meeting with the lawmakers that it was unnecessary to introduce a sunset clause given the extensive discussions on the law since a 1996 Law Reform Commission report was published.