Bus Franchising Is Spreading – So I’ve Submitted FOIs Across England

As bus franchising expands beyond London, more Combined Authorities are moving toward so-called “London-style” bus networks. This is often presented as the solution to reliability, fares, and local democratic control.

But one critical issue is still being left behind:

safety transparency.

From my experience as a bus driver, union representative, and through extensive Freedom of Information (FOI) work, one thing is clear:

If safety governance and public reporting are not embedded from the outset, they become optional, delayed, or quietly hidden behind claims of “commercial sensitivity”.

That is why I have now submitted FOI requests across England to Combined Authorities that are exploring, consulting on, or actively progressing bus franchising.

This is not a collection of isolated requests.

It is a co-ordinated, national piece of scrutiny.

Why This Matters

The Bus Services (No. 2) Act handed local transport authorities unprecedented control over bus networks. What it did not do was require:

mandatory publication of safety data

consistent governance frameworks

or public transparency as a legal baseline

Each Combined Authority now faces a choice:

build safety transparency into franchising by design, or

allow safety oversight to remain opaque, discretionary, and easily delayed

London has published quarterly bus safety data since 2014. Outside London, transparency remains inconsistent — even where public authorities control routes, fares, and contracts.

That gap matters.

Combined Authorities I Have Submitted FOIs To

I have now submitted FOI requests relating to bus franchising, safety governance, and safety-data transparency to the following bodies:

🟦 Midlands & East Midlands

East Midlands Combined County Authority (EMCCA)

Nottingham City Council

Nottinghamshire County Council

Derby City Council

Derbyshire County Council

(reflecting the transition of bus powers into EMCCA from February 2026)

🟩 North West

Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA)

Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM)

🟨 West Midlands

West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA)

Transport for West Midlands (TfWM)

🟪 Yorkshire & the Humber

West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA)

(including its newly branded Weaver Network)

South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SYMCA)

York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority

🟧 North East

North East Mayoral Combined Authority (NEMCA)

Tees Valley Combined Authority

🟦 South West

West of England Combined Authority (WECA)

🟫 East of England

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority

🟥 Liverpool City Region

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (LCRCA)

Each authority is at a different stage — from early feasibility work to live rollout — which makes comparison both possible and essential.

What I Am Asking For

Across these FOIs, I am seeking disclosure of:

whether bus safety data is collected, how it is defined, and how often it is reviewed

governance frameworks for safety reporting and transparency

commitments (or the absence of them) to publish safety data

internal briefings, reports, and advice provided to senior officers and Mayors

engagement with operators, unions, and other Combined Authorities

benchmarking against London or other franchising regions

how Enhanced Partnerships are being monitored, evaluated, and evidenced

whether franchising decisions are being informed by safety performance at all

Crucially, I am not requesting raw operational accident data in many of these cases.

I am requesting the governance, decision-making, and accountability structures that explain how safety is being treated — or deprioritised — behind the scenes.

Early Patterns Emerging

Even at this early stage, some clear differences are already visible.

South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire have acknowledged the importance of safety transparency and are beginning to reference future publication frameworks within their franchising models.

Greater Manchester, by contrast, has made written commitments to publish bus safety data and then retreated behind FOI exemptions such as “commercial sensitivity” — despite London publishing identical data for over a decade without harming operators.

In the East Midlands, EMCCA has confirmed it does not yet hold historic safety governance material, highlighting just how much foundational work remains before full transport powers formally transfer in 2026.

These differences matter.

They will shape whether franchising actually improves safety, or simply centralises control without meaningful scrutiny.

What Happens Next

As responses are received, I will:

publish summaries of disclosures

compare approaches between regions

highlight good practice where it exists

challenge opacity where it persists

feed findings into public debate, union discussions, and policy forums

This work is not about attacking franchising.

It is about ensuring that public control comes with public accountability.

Closing

Bus franchising is being presented as a once-in-a-generation reform of local public transport. If that is true, then safety, transparency, and accountability must be treated as foundational — not optional extras to be decided later.

These Freedom of Information requests

are about ensuring that decisions affecting millions of passengers and tens of thousands of bus workers are made openly, properly evidenced, and subject to public scrutiny.

Where authorities are doing the right thing, that should be recognised.

Where they are not, that needs to be challenged.

I will continue this work across England, publish what is disclosed, and compare how different regions are approaching safety governance under franchising.

The public has a right to know how safe their bus network is — and how seriously those in charge are taking that responsibility.

The spotlight is now on.

Lee Odams

Bus Driver (19 years’ experience)

RMT Branch Secretary – Nottinghamshire & Derbyshire

Secretary, RMT National Industrial Organising Conference of Bus Workers