Who Approved These Bus Cuts — And On What Basis?

As more information emerges about recent bus service reductions in Thurrock, a further and important question now arises:

Who actually made the decision?

In response to concerns about cuts to early morning and evening services on routes 22 and 73, Thurrock Council has stated that the use of bus funding was approved at a Cabinet meeting in March.

However, a review of the published draft minutes from that meeting tells a more nuanced story.

While Cabinet did approve the overall transport funding programme, it also agreed to delegate authority to the Chief Operations Lead to make amendments within that programme.

That distinction matters.

It means that while elected members approved the funding framework, the detailed decisions about how that funding was applied — including which services were supported and where reductions would fall — appear to have been taken under delegated authority.

In other words, decisions affecting local bus services may not have been directly approved by Cabinet in the way that has been implied.

On its own, that might be seen as part of normal administrative process. Delegated authority is a common feature of local government.

But when viewed alongside the findings from a recent Freedom of Information request, the picture becomes more concerning.

The Council has confirmed that:

• No Equality Impact Assessment was carried out
• No accessibility or impact assessment was undertaken
• No passenger usage data was held for the journeys that were reduced
• No value for money or performance assessment was undertaken

At the same time, public funding has been used to support the network, including increasing daytime service frequency, while early morning and evening services have still been reduced.

This raises a fundamental question.

If decisions of this nature are being taken under delegated authority, what evidence is being used to inform them?

And how are the impacts on passengers being assessed?

Evening bus services are not marginal. They are relied upon by shift workers, lower income communities, and those without alternative transport. The consequences of reducing these services are real and immediate.

Internal correspondence disclosed through the FOI process also indicates that there was an awareness of the social importance of these journeys.

So the importance was understood.

But it was not formally assessed.

That combination — delegated decision-making, absence of supporting evidence, and acknowledged social impact — raises important questions about transparency and accountability.

It is not enough for decisions to be made.

They must also be:

• Evidence-based
• Properly assessed
• Clearly accountable

Public funding for bus services comes with an expectation that it will be used to improve accessibility and support those who rely on public transport the most.

Where services are reduced, particularly at times of highest social need, it is reasonable to expect that those decisions are supported by clear evidence and robust process.

This case now raises a wider issue.

Not just about what decisions are made — but about how they are made, and who is accountable for them.

Because if decisions that affect working people’s ability to get to and from work are being taken without proper assessment, and without clear democratic oversight, then that is a matter that goes beyond one route or one timetable.

It goes to the heart of public accountability.

The question now is a simple one.

Who approved these decisions — and on what basis?