E Early provision of information about the likely extent of economic and efficient additional spending by Metronet would have helped the public sector manage the risks better, although this alone would not have been sufficient to ensure value for money. The PPP Arbiter was the external party with greatest access to Metronet's performance data and could therefore have been invited to give early warning on the cost implications of its delivery problems. London Underground, as contract manager, did not have access to the same level of information.
To enable the Arbiter to highlight issues affecting the taxpayer's interests and continue to monitor Tube Lines effectively, any permanent solution should allow effective comparison to be made with Tube Lines and give the Arbiter oversight over the comparator.
Any new oversight arrangements should be clear about roles and responsibilities and should:
i allow DfT, which has the greatest financial risk but is not a party to the contracts, to request investigations where appropriate;
ii require an annual review, including an audit of financial models produced, to improve the transparency of information about delays or cost overruns and make DfT aware of any risk to the taxpayer; and
iii allow an Extraordinary Review or other investigation where it is possible that the public sector may have to provide extra finance, even where it has not been requested by other parties.
It is desirable that new measures adopted to protect the public interest should also apply to the Tube Lines contracts, which would improve DfT's ability to understand and manage risk. Any new arrangements would, however, require the agreement of Tube Lines and London Underground under the remaining PPP contract.