Where the language of a statute is clear, "`there can be no room for interpretation, and effect must be given to its plain meaning.'" ( City and County of San Francisco v. Superior Court (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 481, 485 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 775], quoting Outboard Marine Corp. v. Superior Court (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 30, 40 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 852].) Mullvain does not argue that the statutory language is ambiguous or unclear.
This violates one of the long-established rules of statutory construction: that the testimony of an individual legislator as to his intention, motive or opinion with regard to a particular piece of legislation is inadmissible. ( City and County of San Francisco v. Superior Court (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 481, 485-486 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 775].) Legislative intent must be ascertained from the language of the statute itself; "`if the language is clear there can be no room for interpretation and effect must be given to its plain meaning.'"
The following decisions discuss the absolute privilege: Williamson v. Superior Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 829, 833-834 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 39, 582 P.2d 126]; Shepherd v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 107, 121-122 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 257, 550 P.2d 161]; Watt Industries, Inc. v. Superior Court (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 802 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 503]; Schlumberger Limited v. Superior Court (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 386, 393-394 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 413]; Fellows v. Superior Court, supra, 108 Cal.App.3d at pages 61-70; Popelka, Allard, McCowan Jones v. Superior Court (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 496, 500-503 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 748]; Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 626, 647-648 [ 151 Cal.Rptr. 399]; Lohman v. Superior Court (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 90, 100-102 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 171]; City of Long Beach v. Superior Court (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 65, 80-81 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 468]; American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 579, 593-595 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 561]. See also City and County of San Francisco v. Superior Court (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 481, 486 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 775]; Insurance Co. of North America v. Superior Court (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 758, 771 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 880, 14 A.L.R.4th 581]; Merritt v. Superior Court (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 721, 731 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 337] . Recognizing that the expense of pretrial procedures had driven up the cost of civil litigation, in 1976 the Legislature enacted the Economic Litigation Project (ELP), a pilot program authorizing the Judicial Council to experiment with innovative procedures in certain civil actions. (See ยงยง 1823-1833; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rules 1701-1859.)