In the Assembly chamber on 24th January 2017, the then Finance Minister Máirtín Ó Muilleoir announced a public inquiry into the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI). In Parliament Buildings early that morning, Ó Muilleoir sought meetings to consult all Stormont parties on the terms of reference for this inquiry.

As a senior party advisor and officer at the time, I was one of the people in the room for that consultation, and gave input into the inquiry’s terms of reference. Since that moment, I have felt a sense of personal investment in the inquiry and its success.

It should be said from the outset that legally, Máirtín Ó Muilleoir, did not need to consult the other parties. Part of the reason he did consult widely, I suspect, was because he realised that for an inquiry to be effective, but more importantly legitimate, it needed widespread buy-in from all parts of society, and therefore cross-party buy-in was imperative. 

Given the importance of the inquiry’s legitimacy, the comments made under Parliamentary privilege last Wednesday by Ian Paisley Jr, which questioned evidence that has been presented to the inquiry, are deeply concerning.

The North Antrim MP used parliamentary privilege to demand an apology from the Inquiry’s Judge (Sir Patrick Coghlin) for “putting words into the mouths of witnesses”. The House of Commons is not the place to raise those issues. The Senate Chamber, under oath and available for questioning and cross examination- in front of Sir Patrick Coghlin- is.

It is imperative that the RHI Inquiry garners support from all sections of society to enable lessons to be learned from the RHI scheme, and to ensure any recommendations resulting from it are adopted and similar mistakes avoided going forward. Yet, there is a risk that the actions we saw on Wednesday could undermine that support. Perhaps not amongst the majority of the electorate and society, but amongst just enough for serious damage to be done to the legitimacy of the inquiry.

If Wednesday’s events were to be repeated by other MPs (or if the Assembly returns, MLAs enjoying a similar sort of privilege) who may potentially, in time, face criticism from the inquiry, certain cohorts of the electorate may lose faith in the legitimacy of the whole exercise, making it very difficult for the outputs of the inquiry to be enacted. The whole debacle runs the risk of recommendations becoming more of the sort of entrenched political battle lines that we have seen marriage equality and an Irish Language Act become.

It would be a tremendous shame to see this happen. Lessons need to be learned from RHI, and if Northern Ireland wants credible long-term devolution, we need to show that we can govern ourselves more effectively than the RHI debacle would suggest.

Ironically, the convention that Parliament does not comment on ongoing legal cases is the counterbalance to the courts granting protection for Parliamentarians to speak freely in discharging their duties (i.e. Parliamentary privilege). Together these two conventions make up the concept of judicial independence in the UK. 

Wednesday’s actions becoming more routine would blur the lines between Parliament and the judicial system, potentially undermining judicial independence, and in a worst-case scenario, leading to some sort of constitutional crisis.

That is why I think MPs should think carefully about what happened on Wednesday and the precedent that Mr Paisley’s words could set, and perhaps remind themselves that with great Parliamentary privilege comes great responsibility.