Taking on responsibility without a safety framework: what East Midlands Combined County Authority has confirmed

A recent Freedom of Information response from East Midlands Combined County Authority raises a serious and uncomfortable question about the current state of bus reform.

The authority has confirmed that it does not hold any recorded information relating to:

• key performance indicators for bus service contracts
• safety-related performance monitoring
• incident reporting or escalation frameworks
• driver fatigue or operational safety indicators
• benchmarking against other franchised bus systems

This is not a partial response. It is across the board.

The authority also confirms that it has not undertaken any review of existing franchised systems elsewhere in England when considering how it will structure its own approach.

At the same time, East Midlands Combined County Authority formally took on transport responsibilities in February 2026. It is now the body responsible for progressing regional transport policy, including the future of bus services.

The explanation given is that the authority is still in a transition phase, and that this information will develop over time.

That may be true. But it does not answer the more immediate question.

If the authority responsible for bus services does not yet have defined frameworks for safety monitoring, incident reporting or performance oversight, how is safety being governed in the meantime?

This is not about criticising a new authority for being in transition. The issue is timing.

Taking on responsibility for public transport is not simply an administrative change. It carries with it real-world safety implications for passengers, drivers and the public. Systems for monitoring performance, identifying risks and responding to incidents are not optional extras. They are fundamental to how a transport network operates safely.

The absence of defined frameworks does not mean that nothing is happening on the ground. Operators will still be running services, and individual organisations will have their own internal processes. But what this response highlights is the lack of a clear, overarching system for how safety is monitored and assured at the authority level.

It also raises a wider concern.

If no benchmarking has been undertaken, then lessons from established systems – including those already operating under franchising arrangements – are not yet informing the development of the East Midlands approach. That is a missed opportunity at best, and a risk at worst.

This is not an isolated issue.

Across the country, different authorities are at very different stages of development. Some have established systems which are still evolving. Some hold information but do not publish it. Others are still building their frameworks. And in some cases, authorities have confirmed that they do not yet hold the information at all.

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

The East Midlands response is a clear example of that patchwork in practice.

It shows that responsibility can transfer before the systems needed to support it are fully in place. It shows that safety governance is not always being developed at the same pace as structural reform. And it highlights the absence of a consistent national framework for how bus safety should be monitored, reported and assured.

The key point here is simple.

If we are serious about improving bus services, we also need to be serious about how those services are governed safely.

That means ensuring that when responsibilities move, the systems for managing risk, monitoring performance and protecting passengers move with them – or are already in place.

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