This afternoon Parliament will debate the report of the (powerful) Privileges Committee on Education Minister Jan Tinetti's misleading the House. But it looks like another (former) Minister is in trouble as well: Parliament's Registrar of Pecuniary Interests has reported back on their inquiry into Michael Wood, finding that Wood had not complied with his responsibilities. Along the way, the Registrar also found that Wood had lied to the public about his compliance:
Noting that his pecuniary interests had been the focus of intense media scrutiny and comment, I then showed Mr Wood a video clip of an interview he gave on 8 June 2023, the day the inquiry was announced. Apart from expressing the hope that “clarity and transparency” would emerge from the inquiry, Mr Wood had stated that “I have also followed up and corrected the Register of Pecuniary Interests going back to 2017”. I put it to Mr Wood that that statement was not correct, as there had been no amendments made at all to his previous returns, for the entire period since February 2017. What did he mean by that comment to the media? He replied that he “must have misspoken in the heat of the press scrum”. He thought he might have mixed up the Standing Orders and Cabinet Office requirements.Wood does not look at all good from this. Its one thing to make a careless mistake, front up, and fix it. Its quite another to refuse to fix it, despite constant reminders, for two years, then lie to the public about what you're doing. Voters in his electorate can draw their own conclusions about his honesty and fitness for office.
Wood's case will now be considered by the (powerful) Privileges Committee. Of course, given that Labour has four of the eight places on the committee, and will effectively be judging one of its own, I don't think the public can expect any justice from them. The problem of course is that if Labour gives Wood the proverbial (powerful) slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket, it makes the entire pecuniary interests declaration system pointless, with a consequent impact on Parliament's credibility.
