2.14 The Arbiter's statutory function is to give direction to Metronet, Tube Lines and London Underground, when certain disputes arise between them, in an independent, timely and certain way. He has the power to make London Underground increase payments to Metronet or Tube Lines for extra work he deems economic and efficient.
2.15 The Arbiter has no specific statutory duty to protect the public interest, although part of his statutory duty is to promote economy and efficiency. Furthermore, it is not part of the Arbiter's statutory function to help DfT monitor the PPP's performance. DfT was, nevertheless, informed of developments by the Arbiter through informal briefing and presentations. The Arbiter's ability to produce reliable figures was, however, adversely affected by the decision to waive his 2005 Annual Report of Metronet's performance and to delay going to an Extraordinary Review.
2.16 If the Arbiter had, as expected, been asked to undertake his 2005 review it would have publicly highlighted issues with Metronet's performance and could have led to a better understanding of Metronet's problems and greater efforts to reduce the eventual costs to the taxpayer. At that stage, London Underground decided to focus Metronet's attention on improving its delivery and information, rather than engage in what it considered might become a backward-looking exercise.
2.17 A request from Metronet for an Extraordinary Review would have allowed the Arbiter to determine whether its extra spending was liable to be met by the public sector. By February 2006, Metronet had informed London Underground that its projected extra spending would be £1.2 billion. Metronet delayed asking for an Extraordinary Review, however, in the hope of reaching a settlement with London Underground. In February 2007 the London Mayor said he saw no basis for a settlement and told Metronet to go to Extraordinary Review. Even then, Metronet delayed going to the Arbiter until 28 June 2007, because it could not extract the relevant information from its supply chain.
2.18 London Underground and Metronet also had the option of asking the Arbiter for guidance on whether the extra spending was economic and efficient and therefore had to be met by the public sector. A request for guidance could have allowed the Arbiter to require Metronet to produce substantially the same information required for an Extraordinary Review to a specific timetable, allowing him to come to preliminary conclusions earlier than he was eventually able to in June 2007. The resulting information would have been made available publicly.