A Publicly Controlled Bus Network Without Public Safety Transparency Is Not Reform

Why Greater Manchester’s refusal to publish bus safety data now requires ICO intervention

A Publicly Controlled Bus Network Without Public Safety Transparency Is Not Reform

Greater Manchester’s Bee Network has been promoted as one of the most significant transport reforms in a generation.

A franchised bus system.

Services brought under public control.

A network supposedly run for passengers, not profit.

But public control must mean public accountability.

And accountability begins with one basic principle:

Bus safety performance must be transparent.

At present, it is not.

Instead, Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) is delaying, deflecting, and restricting disclosure of the very safety reporting information that should sit at the heart of any publicly governed transport system.

The Central Issue: Where Is the Bee Network Bus Safety Data?

Unlike rail or aviation, the bus industry across most of England has no consistent requirement to publish safety performance data.

That includes:

collisions

passenger injuries

near misses

assaults and violence

safety-critical incidents

driver welfare and fatigue risk

Yet Transport for London has published routine bus safety statistics since 2014.

Greater Manchester has repeatedly implied it intends to match that standard.

So why, after years of Bee Network development, is this information still not publicly available?

The December 2023 Commitment:

 “Within 12 Months”

In December 2023, Greater Manchester gave assurances that Bee Network bus safety data would likely become publicly available within around 12 months.

That was presented as a reasonable timeframe.

Twelve months has now become:

eighteen months

then two years

now approaching three years

And still the public cannot access basic safety performance transparency.

Ed Smith’s Letter: Publication Delayed Until the Second Half of 2026

Today, I received a written response from Ed Smith, Central Correspondence Team, GMCA.

He states:

“Our intention is to publish this during the second half of 2026, once 12 months have passed since the operation of a fully franchised bus network.”

This is extraordinary.

The commitment has moved again.

The public is now being told:

Safety transparency must wait until after franchising is complete.

But this raises a serious question:

How can a publicly governed system be credible if safety reporting is postponed until it is convenient?

Safety is not optional.

Transparency is not a future aspiration.

It is a requirement of public trust.

Section 43 Applied: “Commercial Sensitivity” Used to Withhold Safety Governance Documents

Even more troubling, GMCA confirmed that Section 43 (commercial interests) has been applied to specific documents connected with safety reporting.

Let us be clear:

Safety governance frameworks are not trade secrets.

Transport for London publishes safety data openly without undermining procurement or commercial operations.

So why is Greater Manchester applying commercial sensitivity exemptions to safety transparency documentation?

This creates the impression that Section 43 is being used not to protect genuine commercial interests — but to avoid scrutiny.

That is precisely why Freedom of Information law exists.

Deflection Between GMCA and TfGM: Fragmentation Blocking FOI Rights

GMCA has also claimed:

“The GMCA does not hold this information… you will need to contact TfGM.”

This is unacceptable governance.

The Bee Network is overseen by GMCA.

My request is not simply about raw datasets.

It concerns:

governance frameworks

oversight structures

reporting arrangements

publication plans

correspondence with DfT

explanations for missed commitments

A Combined Authority cannot credibly oversee franchising while claiming it holds no safety governance documentation.

The repeated deflection between GMCA and TfGM risks obstructing FOI rights through institutional fragmentation.

Escalation: Complaint Submitted to the Information Commissioner

Given the delay, exemptions applied, and unclear information-holding position, I have now escalated this matter formally to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

I have requested that the ICO:

investigate the application of Section 43

confirm whether GMCA has complied with its duties under Section 1 FOIA

require disclosure of non-exempt governance material

issue a Decision Notice if refusal continues

This is now a matter of public interest enforcement.

FOI Submitted Directly to TfGM

In parallel, I have now submitted a fresh FOI request directly to Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) to prevent further deflection and establish clearly:

what safety data exists

what reporting structures are in place

what plans exist for publication

what barriers are being cited

what documents are being withheld

The public deserves clarity.

Open Letter to Mayor Andy Burnham

I have also written openly to Mayor Andy Burnham, asking direct questions that require answers on the record:

Will Bee Network safety data be published quarterly, as in London?

Why has the 12-month commitment not been met?

Why has Section 43 been applied?

Who is accountable within GMCA for safety transparency?

Will Greater Manchester guarantee that safety reporting cannot be hidden behind “commercial sensitivity”?

These are not academic questions.

They go to the heart of whether this reform is real.

Why This Matters: Passengers and Workers Deserve Better

Bus workers operate on the frontline of public transport safety every day.

Passengers trust the system with their lives.

A publicly controlled bus network must be built on:

openness

learning

accountability

transparency

respect for workforce safety

Without safety transparency, franchising risks becoming branding rather than reform.

Conclusion: Public Control Must Mean Public Accountability

Greater Manchester cannot claim to lead nationally while resisting the most basic safety transparency expectations.

The Bee Network should be a model.

But a model cannot be built on withheld data, delayed commitments, and commercial exemptions.

Safety reporting is not optional.

The public deserves better.

Bus workers deserve better.

And I will continue pursuing this until Greater Manchester meets the standard it claims to represent.

Lee Odams

RMT Branch Secretary – Nottinghamshire & Derbyshire Bus Branch

Bus Driver and Trade Union Representative

Next Steps

ICO investigation underway

TfGM FOI request submitted

Mayor Burnham asked for public response

Further updates will be published as the case progresses