The Paper Trail Is Now Clear: Public Control Without Public Safety Data?

Over the past few weeks, my Freedom of Information work on bus safety transparency has moved into a new phase.

What began as a series of individual requests is now revealing a consistent national pattern across multiple Combined Authorities.

And that pattern raises a serious question:

How can bus services be brought under public control if the public still cannot see basic safety performance information?

The Context: Franchising Is Expanding Rapidly

Across England, bus franchising and Enhanced Partnership (EP) models are being rolled out at pace.

Combined Authorities are gaining new transport powers.

Local Transport Authorities are preparing for franchised networks.

Governance structures are being built.

Operating models are being written.

This is being presented as a once-in-a-generation reform of local bus services.

But one fundamental issue remains unresolved:

Safety transparency.

Unlike rail and aviation, there is still no national requirement for routine publication of bus safety performance.

Greater Manchester: From Commitment to Delay

In late 2024, Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) and Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) gave a clear commitment that Bee Network bus safety performance data would be published.

Since then:

• Publication has been repeatedly delayed

• FOI requests have been redirected between GMCA and TfGM

• Commercial sensitivity exemptions have been invoked

• I have now escalated the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office

GMCA has most recently confirmed that publication is now expected in the second half of 2026 — significantly later than the original commitment.

This is not a dispute about raw incident data.

It is a dispute about governance, accountability and transparency.

EMCCA: “We Are Still Pulling the Team Together”

In the East Midlands, the newly formed East Midlands Combined County Authority (EMCCA) has responded to FOI requests by explaining:

• Transport functions are still transferring from local councils

• Teams and governance structures are still being built

• Policy positions are still being developed

In other words, the new authority responsible for regional transport is still forming its internal structure while major policy decisions are already underway.

This reinforces why transparency must be embedded early — not added later.

Local Councils: Responsibility Moving, History Disappearing?

Responses from councils such as Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire confirm that transport responsibilities are now transferring to EMCCA.

This raises an important accountability question:

Where does the historical record of safety governance now sit?

If responsibilities move between authorities without clear retention of records, the public risk losing visibility of how decisions were made during the transition period.

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough: 

Requests Closed on Technical Grounds

In Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, my request was closed after procedural clarification requests.

This again highlights a wider theme:

Authorities are still developing their franchising programmes — but the governance around safety transparency is often not yet defined.

A National Pattern Is Emerging

Across multiple regions, the same themes are appearing:

• Authorities are building franchising structures

• Governance frameworks are still evolving

• Safety transparency is not yet embedded

• Publication is being deferred into the future

This is not about one authority.

This is about a national gap in accountability.

Why This Matters

Bus franchising is being presented as “public control”.

But public control must include public accountability.

Transport for London has published bus safety statistics since 2014.

It has not harmed operators.

It has not undermined services.

It has strengthened public confidence.

If London can publish safety data, there is no reason the rest of England cannot.

Meetings vs Transparency

Several authorities have now suggested meetings to discuss these issues.

I welcome engagement.

Dialogue is positive.

Collaboration is valuable.

But meetings cannot replace Freedom of Information.

Transparency must remain public, documented and accessible.

The Accountability Gap

We are now in a situation where:

• Bus services are moving into public control

• Governance structures are being built

• Billions of pounds of public funding are involved

Yet there is still no consistent commitment to publish bus safety performance.

This creates a growing accountability gap.

What Happens Next

I will continue to:

• Submit Freedom of Information requests

• Publish responses and comparisons

• Escalate refusals where necessary

• Engage with authorities openly

• Advocate for national safety transparency standards

This is not about opposing franchising.

It is about ensuring that public control includes public accountability.

Closing

Bus franchising will shape local transport for decades.

If safety transparency is not built in now, it will be far harder to introduce later.

The paper trail is now clear.

The question is whether authorities will close the accountability gap — or allow it to grow.

**The spotlight remains firmly on bus safety transparency.**