Ealing Green Party councillor Husam Alharahsheh, who represents South Acton, questions Labour-run Ealing Council’s decision to extend its contract with Greener Ealing Limited until 2035, five years before the existing agreement expires.
“On Thursday (22 October 2026), the Overview and Scrutiny Committee will consider the call-in of Cabinet’s decision to extend the Greener Ealing Limited (GEL) contract until 2035.
“I want to be clear from the outset. My concerns are not about the hardworking staff of Greener Ealing. Every day, employees provide services that residents rely on, from waste collection and street cleansing to environmental services across the borough.
“This debate is not about frontline workers. It is about governance, transparency, competition and value for money.
“The Green Party received the second-highest share of votes across Ealing at the last local elections. Thousands of residents placed their trust in the Green Group to scrutinise decisions, challenge assumptions and hold those in power to account. That is exactly what I intend to do.
“Good scrutiny is not obstruction. It is good governance. The issue before us is straightforward. The Labour administration has approved the extension of a contract worth around £150 million until 2035 without reopening the service to wider market competition.
“For me, that raises a fundamental question. How can the Council confidently claim it is securing the best possible deal for residents when alternative providers have not been given the opportunity to compete?
“Competition does not automatically guarantee a better outcome. However, refusing to test the market removes one of the most important tools available to demonstrate value for money. If the current arrangement genuinely offers the best value for residents, it should have nothing to fear from open competition.
“But there is another question that Labour has yet to answer satisfactorily. Why now?
“The current arrangement does not expire until 2030. We are not facing an imminent deadline. We are not dealing with a service that is about to end. There are still years remaining on the existing contract. So why is the Council seeking to make a decision now that could lock Ealing into the same delivery model until 2035?
“Why decide almost a half decade ahead of time?
“Why remove future flexibility when circumstances, technologies, environmental standards and market conditions could change significantly before the current arrangement even expires?
“That is the contradiction at the heart of this decision. Residents are told there is not enough money to maintain schools, children’s services and community provision, yet Labour is unwilling to test whether a £150 million contract could deliver better value through open competition. If we are serious about protecting public services, we should be serious about exploring every opportunity to secure the best deal for taxpayers.
“Many residents increasingly feel they are being asked to accept a managed decline or, in some cases, complete surrender of the public sector role in some of the services and facilities that matter most to communities.
“Yet when it comes to a contract worth approximately £150 million, Labour appears unwilling to expose it to full competition and market testing. That does not sit comfortably with me.
“If opening the service to competition saved even a few million pounds over the next decade, that money could potentially support other priorities across the borough. It could help protect services. It could strengthen community provision. It could deliver better outcomes for residents.
“Equally, competition is not only about reducing costs. It can encourage innovation, improve service standards and deliver better value. When taxpayers’ money is involved, these questions matter.
“The Labour administration argues that extending the arrangement represents good value and relies heavily on an independent value-for-money assessment and shadow bid exercise. However, much of the supporting evidence sits within exempt documentation.
“Residents are effectively being told that an independent assessment supports the extension while being unable to scrutinise much of the evidence themselves. That is not a position I find comfortable in terms of transparency with our own valued residents.
“From a Green perspective, I am also concerned by the lack of clearly defined environmental outcomes attached to an extension running all the way to 2035. The report refers to brief sustainability and environmental benefits. But where are the measurable commitments?
“Where are the emissions reduction targets?
“Where are the recycling improvement targets?
“Where are the milestones that will allow residents to judge whether environmental performance is improving?
“If climate objectives form part of the justification for extending the contract, those benefits should be clearly defined and measurable.
“Too often in local government we become focused on structures, governance arrangements and processes. Residents focus on outcomes.
“Are streets cleaner?
“Are services improving?
“Are environmental outcomes improving?
“Are taxpayers receiving value for money?
“Those are the questions people ask.
“My concern is not that Greener Ealing exists. My concern is that Labour has not yet demonstrated convincingly why Ealing should commit to this arrangement until 2035 without opening it to genuine competition.
“This reflects a wider concern that many residents increasingly raise with me. Too often, major decisions appear to be presented as settled conclusions rather than opportunities for genuine challenge and scrutiny.
“Whether it is housing, school provision, children’s services, green spaces or now a contract worth around £150 million, residents expect decisions to be tested rigorously and transparently.
“The Labour administration may genuinely believe this is the best option. But belief is not enough when taxpayers’ money is involved. This is about the basics of understanding how to manage taxpayers’ money and offer the best value for their money possible
“The responsibility of any administration is not simply to tell residents a decision represents value for money. It is to prove it. As things stand, I remain unconvinced. However, one of the purposes of scrutiny is to hear evidence, test assumptions and allow decision-makers the opportunity to justify their case. I therefore approach the call-in prepared to listen carefully to the arguments being made.
“The administration may ultimately be right. But if it is right, it should have nothing to fear from robust scrutiny, greater transparency and open competition.
“The people of Ealing deserve tangible evidence, not assurances. They deserve transparency, not exemptions. And they deserve confidence that every pound of public money is being spent in the most effective way possible.
“Based on the information currently available, I do not believe that case has yet been made.
“That is why I believe the call-in is justified, and why I look forward to hearing how the Labour administration intends to defend what appears, at first sight, to be an anti-competition approach to a major public contract funded by taxpayers.”
