Bus safety governance exists — but the public can’t see it

A recent Freedom of Information response from West Yorkshire Combined Authority reveals something that should concern anyone with an interest in public transport.

The authority has confirmed that it does hold information relating to bus safety governance. This includes risk frameworks, oversight structures, reporting arrangements and elements of how safety is managed within the emerging franchised network.

But it has refused to release it.

The reason given is that this information is embedded within the commercial architecture of the bus franchising programme, and that disclosure could prejudice procurement and commercial interests.

In simple terms, safety governance exists — but it is being treated as commercially sensitive.

That raises a fundamental question.

If bus services are publicly funded, publicly specified and moving towards public control under franchising, why is the system for governing safety not openly available?

This is not about raw incident data or operational detail. It is not about publishing sensitive information that could compromise security or individual privacy. It is about understanding how safety is structured, monitored and overseen.

It is about governance.

The response makes clear that safety is not being treated as a standalone, transparent system. Instead, it is embedded within programme design, procurement strategy and operator management arrangements. In other words, safety governance is part of the deal — not a separate, publicly visible framework.

That matters.

Because when safety sits inside commercial structures, it becomes harder to scrutinise. It becomes harder to compare. And ultimately, it becomes harder to hold anyone to account.

The Combined Authority acknowledges that there is a legitimate public interest in transparency around safety governance. But it concludes that this is outweighed by the need to protect commercial interests.

That balance deserves to be challenged.

Safety is not a peripheral issue. It is not a competitive advantage. It is not a commercial lever. It is a fundamental public interest.

Passengers, drivers and the wider public do not experience bus services as procurement exercises. They experience them as real-world journeys, where safety is assumed to be robust, consistent and properly governed.

That assumption depends on trust.

And trust depends on transparency.

If the structures for governing safety cannot be seen, cannot be understood and cannot be scrutinised, then that trust becomes harder to sustain.

This is not an isolated issue.

Across different parts of the country, a pattern is emerging. In some areas, safety frameworks are still being developed. In others, data is incomplete or not published. In cases such as this, the system exists — but access to it is restricted.

What this creates is not a single, coherent approach to bus safety governance, but a fragmented one.

A system where the visibility of safety depends on geography, institutional decisions and commercial context, rather than a clear national standard.

The West Yorkshire response is important because it makes that fragmentation visible.

It shows that the issue is not simply whether safety governance exists. It is whether it is treated as a matter of public accountability.

Right now, the evidence suggests that it is not always.

If bus reform is to command public confidence, this is something that needs to be addressed.

Because a safety system that cannot be seen is a system that cannot be fully trusted.