The inquiry currently underway by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) into the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) scheme has received extensive coverage in the media recently, not least with regard to the evidence sessions that have been held on the matter since 28th September.

With each passing week, more information is coming to light about the scheme and what went on behind the scenes. This weekend Northern Ireland is still processing Stephen Nolan’s explosive interviews with Jonathan Bell and Arlene Foster, which brought arguably the most shocking revelations so far.

Given the seriousness of the issue, it was no surprise to have heard calls in recent days for Arlene Foster to give evidence as part of PAC’s inquiry. What will, perhaps, be surprising for some is that the committee on 15th December agreed to call not only the First Minister, but three other serving elected representatives before it: Jonathan Bell (former Minister for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment), Sammy Wilson (former Finance Minister) and Patsy McGlone (former Chair of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment). Aside from the seriousness of the matter being dealt with, why is it so noteworthy that PAC has decided to do this?

PACs globally tend to refrain from calling politicians to give evidence as a matter of convention. This exists because the remit of such committees is to act as a scrutiny body mainly dealing with ‘value for money’ inquiries rather than matters of policy. Primarily, this convention is an attempt to mitigate the potential for partisanship emerging, which could potentially undermine the investigative integrity of the committee. PAC members are expected to adopt a neutral position in their committee work, setting aside party politics to work as a collective body with the common aim of ensuring the effective use of public funds.

This objectivity would be harder to maintain should it be expected that committee members would have to publicly scrutinise their party colleagues. Overall, it would make it very difficult for the committee to avoid straying into discussions on policy and politics. Further, this could, theoretically, manifest in party colleagues choosing ‘easier’ questions to ask, or intended lines of questioning being leaked to witnesses in advance of meetings. It might even leave a door open for the development of party strategies aimed at influencing the outcome of an inquiry.

Of course, there are checks against this in the case of the Northern Ireland Assembly. No one party holds a majority of the seats on PAC, and all decisions on the content of the final reports produced and the recommendations contained therein must be agreed by a majority of members present. PAC also has a good track record in Northern Ireland of being able to complete politically sensitive inquiries. The Report on PSNI: Use of Agency Staff published in 2014 is one example of this, the experience of which for the few members that remain on the committee from that time will undoubtedly be valuable in the current situation.

However, RHI is presenting political upheaval incomparable with any other that has been seen do date in Northern Ireland. So, to what extent can these checks truly be relied upon when these politicians take their seat before the members? This will ultimately depend on the committee itself.

Effectively, there were two issues that PAC needed to consider on some level when it met this week. Firstly, is it necessary to break convention to call serving elected representatives to give evidence given the seriousness of the issue and the public demand for accountability? And secondly, can the committee confidently determine that it can adequately navigate partisanship should it arise as an issue, in order to maintain objectivity and, ultimately, the integrity of the inquiry process?

Following a closed session of a specially convened meeting, it was publicly announced on Thursday that the decision had been taken to call these four individuals to give evidence as part of the RHI inquiry. This indicates that on some level, PAC is confident that it can successfully overcome the difficulties such a move could present to the committee and the inquiry. However, the ensuing heated exchange between DUP’s Trevor Clarke and SDLP’s Daniel McCrossan gives an indication of just how difficult it might be for party politics to be left to one side with this issue.

How the committee manages this phase of the inquiry will certainly be interesting to follow over the weeks and months to come.