Very few of the politicians who headed up the Northern Ireland Office distinguished themselves with honour in terms of outcomes or sustained interest, but several have managed to stand out from the crowd for their capacity to turn disinterest to disaster.

Teresa Villiers excelled in that regard only to be subsequently outdone by the hapless Karen Bradley.

To give credit where due, Chris Heaton-Harris managed to turn ‘disengage, distract and dissemble’ into and art form and up until now could claim to have merited the NIO Ministerial Wooden spoon, but that was before the arrival of the 25th incumbent into the field. Hilary Benn will definitely be hard to surpass.

His announcement of a public inquiry into ‘how and why’ the British State were party to the 1989 murder of solicitor Pat Finucane was wooden, superficial, and dissembling in equal parts.

His main focus was to ensure we all understood that this would be an exception. This enquiry will be end of it all, so to speak.

The basis for the exception was no more than it was a Tory Government promise unfulfilled. There was no mention of why it was ‘promised’ in the first place. That would have exposed the duplicity of his ‘exception’ and laid the ground for further public enquiries.

The reality was that the British Government had already accepted that ‘State actors,’ that is those in the employment of the State, were involved in planning, carrying out the murder and protecting the murderers.

The purpose of the public inquiry was not to enquire into the veracity of allegations of collusion but the nature, level and extent. That is why it has taken every ounce of courage and determination that Geraldine Finucane has steadfastly held on to, as her children became adults and joined her in her campaign for that public enquiry to be held.

The failure to hold an enquiry was not an ‘unfulfilled promise’ – as if it had been overlooked – it was consistently obstructed at every level by the government and those in the employment of the State.

The body of evidence now available in relation to the involvement of state agents, informers, serving soldiers, and police officers in the deaths of a great many people on all sides of the conflict and none provide a compelling case to be answered by the British State, government, intelligence services, law enforcers, military and others acting on its behalf.

There is no valid comparison of this responsibility of the IRA or INLA engaged in non-State armed resistance to the State or in support of it by the UDA, UVF etc. to be made here.

This is not because of any greater moral justification of their actions but simply because these organisation were not the Government. The government had authority, responsibility, and the means to affect justice within the law. It made the laws. It chose, at some point, at some level - political, military and administrative - to facilitate the murder of citizens, outside of its own laws, and emergency laws and derogations from international law, simply because they thought could get away with it.

To protect those engaged in such activity, the State allowed its agents and facilitators a very wide berth from 1971 to this very day. It has taken individual campaigns an average of 30 years to force the government to grant an inquiry: Bloody Sunday; Omagh Bombing; the assassination of Pat Finucane are all key cases in point.

It is a very valid question to ask why these should be ‘exceptions’ and not precedents for further enquires. Why does Sean Browne’s murder not merit the same treatment? People want justice. Why no public enquiry into the Miami Showband case, the Kingsmill Massacre; the Enniskillen bombing?

Given what we now already know about the activities of undercover soldiers, recruited agents, compromised informers, as well as those serving officers in the police and military, would we not need a ‘root and branch’ public enquiry into what exactly the government in Westminster knew about how Law and Order was being maintained in this part of its internal jurisdiction.

If Raymond Smallwoods, Tom (Tit) Graham and Andrew Watson who dislodged my front door and emptied the barrel of a nine millimetre Browning into me, and that of a ‘thirty-five Special' into my husband, had succeeded in killing either or both of us, would anybody have stood trial?

We remain the only two civilians to be flown past four civilian hospitals to the Military Hospital and kept there until Sir Hugh Pike got his story straight.

Was Raymond Smallwoods a State protected person? He entered my house; he held two of my children at gunpoint in their bedroom. The testimony of the children was discounted by the judge who accepted his statement that he did not enter the house.

He therefore avoided all charges in relation to conspiracy to murder Michael and all charges of attempted murder and served less time than his accomplices. What of the person who hired the car for the occasion?

There remain those of us who have no accessible avenue to hold the State to account simply because the operation, whoever organised it, failed. Whether Mr. Smallwoods’s murder some years later potentially facilitated to enable the Peace as it closed in on a very dirty war, is another valid question?

In my view, the correct place for hearing and adjudicating these matters of such enormity is the International Court of Justice at The Hague. If it is found that the government’s crime was negligence in protecting life rather intent to kill, then the powerful individuals who personally sanctioned the policy and practice should be charged within the law of the UK, or within the jurisdiction of the international criminal court, as appropriate.

Whatever grand ideas the former Chief Justice has about his new job or himself, he is no substitution for a court of Law or justice.

The Labour promise to repeal the Legacy Act was a lie.

The Labour promise on Casement Park was a lie.

The Labour promise on City deals was a lie.

Nice start, Mr. Benn.

P.S. Only fools would believe he will fund a proper Programme for Government, when we get one.