Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)

The requirement of the attendance of a superintendent is commendable but, in many cases, he or she may not be available and have to delegate to an inspector, for instance. This provision is better suited to regulations rather than legislation. It is far better to have such minute details and requirements in regard to attendance dealt with in such a manner.

It is also important that, where a superintendent or an inspector attends, the local sergeant and gardaí would also be in attendance, if possible. It is worthwhile. Is so far as meetings in public and private are concerned, it is again a matter for regulations.

Oireachtas Members enjoy absolute privilege, which is extremely useful. Many Members have brought forward issues in regard to crime in their areas and the only place in which they could name names with total privilege is in Leinster House. The danger is that if a meeting is held in public and an elected representative makes comments about people distributing drugs in estates in Dublin or anywhere else, if a person, family, group or gang, such as the Westies, is identified no such privilege would apply.

This is a very big step, with which I accept the Minister will have great difficulty. There is a certain limited privilege for councillors, very few of whom have been sued. It should be borne in mind that there is an advantage in meetings being held in private because the question would then be whether people could be slandered in private or others sued for naming names. It would be innovative if the Minister could consider the constitutional requirement in regard to privilege. It would be a risky business to extend full privilege to those meetings because people could be named, shamed and abused and it could represent a very dangerous situation. Will the Minister examine the possibilities in this regard? I call for the safeguard of limited privilege for elected representatives who are carrying out their duties in a conscientious manner.