Public Control Without Public Safety Data? The Growing Accountability Gap in Bus Franchising

Bus franchising is spreading fast across England.

Combined Authorities are adopting “London-style” language — promising networks run not for profit, but for passengers.

But one fundamental question is being left behind:

Where is the safety transparency?

Over the past year, I have submitted a growing number of Freedom of Information requests across England to understand one specific issue:

If buses are being brought under public control, who is accountable for safety performance — and where is the public reporting?

The paper trail is now clear.

And it reveals a serious national gap.

The Core Problem: Public Control Without Public Scrutiny

Unlike rail or aviation, the bus industry has no consistent national framework requiring authorities to publish safety performance information.

That means:

collisions

injuries

passenger falls

assaults and violence

near misses

safety-critical incidents

can remain invisible unless an authority chooses to disclose them.

Bus reform is accelerating.

But safety transparency remains optional.

Greater Manchester: Written Commitments, Then FOI Refusals

In Greater Manchester, the Mayor’s Office and TfGM gave written assurances that Bee Network safety incident data would be published.

That commitment was made in December 2023, with an expected 12-month timeframe.

Yet now, more than 20 months later:

publication has still not occurred

FOI disclosures have been delayed

exemptions such as Section 43 (“commercial sensitivity”) have been applied

responsibility has been repeatedly deflected between GMCA and TfGM

GMCA has now stated that publication may not occur until the second half of 2026.

This raises an unavoidable question:

How can a publicly controlled network justify withholding safety transparency from the public?

London has published equivalent bus safety statistics since 2014 without harming operators.

So why is Greater Manchester different?

East Midlands: A New Authority With No Historical Safety Governance Yet

In the East Midlands, the situation is different — but equally revealing.

EMCCA has confirmed in FOI correspondence that it does not currently hold historic information on:

bus safety governance

safety performance oversight

internal briefings or committee papers

transparency arrangements

because it only becomes the practical Transport Authority from 1 February 2026.

In other words:

A major new transport authority is being created, but safety governance systems are still “to be developed.”

That should concern everyone.

Franchising powers are arriving.

But the structures for safety accountability are not yet visible.

The National Gap: The Law Does Not Require Publication

The wider issue is this:

The Bus Services reforms do not mandate safety data publication.

Combined Authorities can decide:

publish routinely

or

delay indefinitely

or

refuse disclosure under FOI exemptions

That is not a London-style model.

That is discretion without accountability.

The Fragmentation Problem: GMCA vs TfGM, Authority vs Operator

One of the clearest patterns emerging from FOI work is institutional fragmentation.

Authorities respond by saying:

“TfGM holds it, not GMCA”

“The operator holds it, not us”

“We don’t yet have powers”

“It’s under development”

“Commercial sensitivity applies”

The public is left with no clear answer to the most basic question:

Who is responsible for bus safety transparency?

Public control cannot mean public confusion.

Safety Governance Must Be Built In — Not Added Later

If franchising is truly a once-in-a-generation reform, then safety transparency must be foundational.

That means:

routine quarterly publication of safety performance data

consistent definitions across regions

union involvement in safety governance

independent confidential reporting for drivers

clear accountability between authorities and operators

safety treated as public-interest information, not commercial material

Without these, franchising risks becoming a branding change rather than a safety transformation.

Next Steps: FOIs, Comparisons, and ICO Escalation

This work is continuing.

I have now submitted FOI requests across multiple Combined Authorities to compare:

governance models

safety transparency commitments

franchising frameworks

Enhanced Partnership monitoring

workforce involvement

Where disclosure is resisted, I will escalate through:

internal review

Information Commissioner intervention

public accountability channels

Because this is not a technical issue.

It is a public safety issue.

Conclusion: The Accountability Gap Is Now Visible

The paper trail is now clear.

Bus franchising is spreading.

Public control is expanding.

But safety transparency remains inconsistent, discretionary, and too often hidden behind institutional barriers.

A publicly controlled bus network without public safety reporting is not genuine reform.

It is an accountability gap.

And the spotlight is now on.

Lee Odams

Bus Driver and Trade Union Representative

RMT Nottinghamshire & Derbyshire Bus Branch

Secretary, RMT National Industrial Organising Conference of Bus Workers