After an inexplicable delay of five years, the public apology recommended in the final report of the Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry will finally be made by the Northern Ireland Assembly (on 11 March). The announcement of the apology has been received with little enthusiasm by some of the abuse victims who say that they will not attend the event because it is “insincere and futile”. Understandably, some Kincora victims believe that the announced apology and the decision to demolish the Kincora Home will now be used by the authorities in a futile attempt to draw a line under the abuse allegations that linked British Intelligence with what happened at that establishment. The victims also feel that the apology will be totally meaningless, if the role of senior Government officials and Intelligence officers in deliberately inhibiting the setting up of a much preferred judicial tribunal, as allowed by the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, into such abuse is not now admitted by the relevant Government departments as part of the apology. So far, there is no indication that any such admission will be forthcoming. It is also believed that there will be no apology made on behalf of MI5 and other Intelligence agencies for misleading the British Parliament about abuse issues and for obstructing past investigations. The concerns of the victims are understandable given the abysmal record of dishonesty by past Inquiries. Bearing in mind the threat to democracy posed by unelected officials unduly influencing elected politicians, it is important to examine how past Inquiries were manipulated for the benefit of the Intelligence Services and at the expense of the victims. The concerns of the victims are understandable given the abysmal record of dishonesty by past Inquiries. Bearing in mind the threat to democracy posed by unelected officials unduly influencing elected politicians, it is important to examine how past Inquiries were manipulated for the benefit of the Intelligence Services and at the expense of the victims. When the HIA Inquiry was set up Prime Minister David Cameron and Home Secretary Theresa May assured Parliament that “no stone would be left unturned” in establishing the truth about the abuses. In a letter to one Member of Parliament, Theresa May stated: “I want to take this opportunity to make it absolutely clear that all officials, Government departments and agencies will give their fullest possible cooperation to his Inquiry. This includes the Security Service and the Ministry of Defence, if it transpires they have any relevant information to share”. Theresa May’s letter was triggered by a report in the Belfast Telegraph on 1 August 2014, which said: “Retired judge Sir Anthony Hart, who is leading the Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry (HIA), has said the inquiry “does not have sufficient powers” in its present form to investigate issues relating to the Army or MI5“. Sadly, despite Sir Anthony Hart’s publicly admitted concerns, Theresa May gave him no added powers and his Inquiry was doomed to failure. In the light of the failures of the earlier Terry and Hughes Inquiries, Sir Anthony Hart must have known that he had been given a ‘poisoned chalice’. For example, despite what Theresa May said, a telex message from MI5 staff at the Northern Ireland Office on 5 August 1982 to MI5’s Legal Adviser, Bernard Sheldon, in London, restating a general directive by the Director General of MI5, made it clear that: “no serving or former member of the Security Service should be interviewed by the police”. Sir Anthony Hart must have been aware that the Terry Inquiry, which was established by James Prior in 1982 and led by Sir George Terry of the Sussex Police, misled Parliament by failing to disclose that a senior MI5 officer at Army HQ NI, Ian Cameron, had ordered an Army Intelligence Officer, Captain Brian Gemmell, to stop investigating allegations of sexual abuse by William McGrath at Kincora. Moreover, contrary to what James Prior told Parliament, Sir George was not a truly ‘independent’ chief constable. Records now show that he was actually “the preferred choice of Sir John Herman”, Chief Constable of the RUC, whose officers had been accused of covering up the Kincora abuse! Had Parliament been told the full truth about these matters, a public inquiry would, almost certainly, have been inevitable. It is also likely that Sir Anthony Hart would have known that, during the Terry Inquiry, senior officials at the Northern Ireland Office had stated in one report that the Director and Coordinator of Intelligence at Stormont (Hal Doyne Ditmas MI5): “..was worried about the likely intrusion of the inquiry into Intelligence matters if the terms of reference were as wide as those we had in mind. He went on to say that “at least two possible witnesses who could come forward (i.e. Fred Holroyd and Colin Wallace) with evidence which (unless restrictions were imposed on what could be said) might touch directly on the extent to which the Intelligence services were or were not aware of homosexuality in this area, and might reveal (perhaps gratuitously) information about the structure and range of activities of these services at the time in question. Names might be mentioned“. According to official records, the DCI: “.. was also concerned about what would be said about the secret work very close to extreme Protestant organizations, and close therefore to some politicians. If these activities were to be revealed – through a leak if not through a public session of the inquiry – there could be a brisk reaction”. To cater for the DCI’s concerns, the NIO officials believed the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland “might want to suggest” to the Home Secretary and the Attorney General that “an inquiry limited to the child care aspects (presumable therefore under the NI Powers, not the 1921 Act), or a 1921 inquiry with limited terms of reference“. That proposal by a senior official is appalling given the assurances that Theresa May and David Cameron had given Parliament. It is very clear that MI5 was not only