Bee Network Bus Safety Data: A Public Commitment Now Being Withheld

Bus franchising is being presented as a once-in-a-generation reform of local public transport.

Greater Manchester’s Bee Network is at the centre of that national story — held up as a model of “public control,” passenger-first planning, and Vision Zero ambition.

But one critical question remains unanswered:

Where is the promised safety transparency?

Because without openness on safety performance, public control becomes little more than branding.

And the public cannot hold anyone to account.

A Written Commitment Has Been Broken

In December 2023, the Mayor’s Office confirmed in writing that Transport for Greater Manchester intended to publish Bee Network accident and incident data within approximately 12 months.

That was a clear public assurance.

It is now more than 20 months later, and no such data has been published.

Instead, what has followed is a pattern of delay, refusal, redaction, and retreat behind Freedom of Information exemptions — including repeated claims of “commercial sensitivity.”

That is not what passengers and workers were promised when franchising was introduced.

Safety Transparency Is Not Optional

Bus safety performance is not a trade secret.

It is not proprietary.

It is not something that can be hidden because disclosure is politically inconvenient.

Safety data is public-interest information.

Transport for London has published regular bus safety statistics quarterly since 2014 — including collisions, injuries, fatalities, and incident categories — without any evidence of commercial harm.

The idea that Greater Manchester cannot do what London has done for over a decade is simply not credible.

A publicly controlled network without public safety transparency is not a London-style model.

It is branding without accountability.

Vision Zero Cannot Coexist With Secrecy

GMCA has published and circulated internal material referencing Vision Zero, safety outcomes, and Bee Network safety planning.

This raises an unavoidable question:

If GMCA is able to discuss safety performance internally, why is the public being denied access to the governance, reporting, and publication framework?

You cannot claim Vision Zero leadership while refusing to disclose the very information that allows the public to judge whether safety is improving.

This is beginning to look less like administrative delay and more like a deliberate retreat from transparency.

This Is Not About Raw Incident Logs — It Is About Governance

For the avoidance of doubt, my requests are not demands for operator-identifiable incident spreadsheets.

They are requests for governance and assurance material:

Who is responsible for safety oversight and transparency?

What boards and committees receive safety reporting?

What timetable exists for publication?

What decisions have been recorded about releasing this information?

What information flows between TfGM, GMCA, and the Mayor’s Office?

If GMCA does not hold such governance documentation, that itself represents a profound failure of oversight in a publicly controlled transport system.

If GMCA does hold it, then continued refusal to disclose it is indefensible.

Either answer is deeply concerning.

Bus Reform Must Include Workers, Not Just Passengers

Bus franchising is repeatedly described as being “for passengers.”

But a system cannot be passenger-first unless it is also workforce-sustainable.

Across the country, drivers face:

unrealistic running times

fatigue pressures

increasing assaults and abuse

blame cultures around lateness

inconsistent safety reporting

A franchised network that centralises control while leaving drivers under the same pressures is not genuine reform.

Safety governance must include the workforce voice, union involvement, and transparent reporting — not closed-door management structures.

The Matter Is Now With the ICO

Because GMCA and TfGM have failed to provide clarity, and because exemptions have been applied inconsistently, I have now escalated this matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

It should not require ICO intervention for a publicly funded transport authority to honour its own written commitments.

The public should not have to fight through FOI exemptions to access basic safety accountability.

Questions Mayor Burnham Must Answer Publicly

Mayor Andy Burnham must now answer directly:

Does he stand by the December 2023 commitment to publish Bee Network bus safety incident data?

If so, what is the current timetable for publication, and why has it not happened?

Will he instruct GMCA and TfGM to adopt routine, auditable safety transparency — comparable to London — rather than hiding behind discretionary disclosure?

Because the Bee Network cannot credibly claim to be a model of public transport reform while refusing public scrutiny of safety performance.

Conclusion: 

Public Control Must Mean Public Accountability

This issue will not go away.

Bus franchising is being presented as a once-in-a-generation reform.

If that is true, then safety transparency must be foundational — not optional.

A Bee Network that will not publish safety governance and safety performance data is not a fully public network.

It is a closed system.

The question is now simple:

Will Greater Manchester lead the country in safety transparency — or become the first franchising authority forced into disclosure by the Information Commissioner?

The spotlight is now on.

Lee Odams

Bus Driver and Trade Union Representative

RMT Branch Secretary, Nottinghamshire & Derbyshire Bus Branch

(Private individual writing in the public interest)