Three days after we revealed contradictory statements about council debt, Cabinet Member for Finance Angela Ireland admitted at Full Council she doesn’t know the exact internal borrowing figure – estimating “£160 million to my knowledge, but I can check that figure for you.”
The admission came when Conservative councillor Peter Graham pressed Ireland on Wednesdsay evening for the current internal borrowing position.
“The council’s total internal borrowing on the 31st of March was £129 million,” Graham said. “What is it today?”
Ireland’s response – “to my knowledge” and needing to “check that figure” – represents the latest failure of financial transparency in a week that saw the council’s “no debt” claim collapse within 48 hours.
If Ireland’s estimate proves accurate, internal borrowing has increased by £31 million in approximately eight months – money borrowed from the council’s own reserves for purposes the Cabinet Member could not explain on the night.
The pattern continues
Last week, Putney.news revealed how Ireland made contradictory statements about the council’s debt position within minutes at Cabinet on 1 December, saying “the council has no internal debt” before acknowledging “the housing revenue account has some internal borrowing.”
Council papers confirmed £129 million in internal borrowing – the figure Ireland denied existed.
When challenged at Finance Committee on 3 December about plans to borrow £1.1 billion with a lifetime cost potentially reaching £2.5 billion, finance director Fenella Merry admitted she had “intentionally” excluded those “scary” figures from scrutiny papers.
Tuesday’s Full Council exchange (1hr 20 mins in) shows the scrutiny Ireland avoided at Cabinet and Finance Committee has now caught up with her at the most public council forum – but the answers remain incomplete.
What is internal borrowing?
Internal borrowing means the council uses money from its own reserves – funds earmarked for specific purposes like the pension fund – to finance capital projects, rather than borrowing from external lenders.
The practice is legal and common, but it represents debt the council owes to itself. Those reserves eventually need to be repaid, limiting the council’s financial flexibility.
Graham’s question was the second part of Question 14 to Ireland. The first part asked when the full Prudential Indicators – statutory measures showing whether borrowing plans are affordable and sustainable – would be published.
Ireland confirmed they would appear “in the February Treasury policy paper,” having been omitted from the December 1 Treasury Management update despite what Graham described as officers giving “repeated assurances” they would be included.
“We see this time and time again,” Graham said, “asking simple factual questions to which we know the data is there and getting no answer. And I think it is verging on contempt.”
The £31 million question
If Ireland’s estimate of £160 million internal borrowing is accurate, the council has borrowed an additional £31 million from its own reserves since March 2025.
What that money funded remains unclear. The Cabinet Member responsible for the council’s finances could not explain the increase on Tuesday evening.
This internal borrowing sits alongside the council’s plans to take on £1.1 billion in external debt – borrowing from outside lenders like the Public Works Loan Board – at an estimated lifetime repayment cost exceeding £2 billion.
The Conservative opposition has warned repeatedly about the scale of this borrowing programme. Last week’s revelations showed those warnings – dismissed by Cabinet as false just 48 hours before Finance Committee confirmed them – were accurate.
Value for money debate
Tuesday’s Full Council included an extended debate on Motion 18 [pdf]: “Value for Money for Valuable Support for Wandsworth Residents.”
Labour’s motion praised the council’s financial management, citing an independent MUFG report that found Wandsworth’s investment strategy “outperformed all other councils nationwide.”
The Conservative amendment [pdf] challenged this, arguing that strong investment returns don’t offset unsustainable borrowing: “This administration intends to incur debt of over £1,100,000,000 at cost of more than £2 billion. That is not low debt.”
Conservative councillor Matthew Corner (Nine Elms) said Ireland had dismissed concerns about financial management by suggesting residents don’t discuss internal council finances.
“The whole point of what makes those services and those outcomes possible is about the council’s finances and how it deploys its resources,” Corner argued. “So I think it’s very concerning that the cabinet member for finance simply dismissed concerns about the council’s management of public money.”
He warned of an approaching “financial crisis coming to this town hall, caused by the government, their own government” through fair funding reforms that could end Wandsworth’s special protections for maintaining low council tax.
Labour councillors defended their record, highlighting achievements including:
- LIFT tracker auto-enrolling 700 more children onto free school meals
- £21 million lifetime savings for residents through pension credit and attendance allowance
- £15 million cost of living fund (largest in London)
- First council in UK to auto-enrol 1,000+ households to social water tariffs
Councillor Sheila Boswell (Labour, Tooting Bec) praised the MUFG report: “When I spotted an article titled Wandsworth Council’s Investment Strategy has outperformed all other councils nationwide, I felt an enormous sense of pride.”
But she did not address specific questions about debt levels or Ireland’s uncertainty about internal borrowing.
What residents need to know
The financial picture emerging from the past week shows a council whose claims about its debt position have repeatedly proven inaccurate or incomplete:
Monday 1 December: Ireland tells Cabinet “the council has no internal debt” – contradicted by council papers showing £129 million
Tuesday 2 December: Press release boasts “lowest levels of debt in London” – issued 24 hours before confirming £1.1bn borrowing plans
Wednesday 3 December: Finance director admits “intentionally” excluding “scary” lifetime cost figures from scrutiny papers
Tuesday 10 December: Cabinet Member unable to confirm current internal borrowing, estimates £160 million “to my knowledge”
The pattern shows a reluctance to provide complete financial information unless directly challenged – and even then, the answers remain uncertain.
For residents, these financial decisions matter because:
- Internal borrowing depletes reserves available for emergencies
- External debt servicing costs require future council tax increases or service cuts
- The scale of borrowing (£1.1bn becoming £2.5bn over the lifetime) locks in decades of financial commitments
- Geographic distribution of borrowed money affects which areas benefit from investment
And the Council response is…?