By virtue of Sections 36 and 38 of the Act, some of the debts of the BTC, including the funds invested in the failed 1955 Modernisation Plan, were written off or transferred to the Treasury.

The change of policy was brought about by the Select committee of the House of Commons on Nationalised Industries, which concluded that the BTC should make its decisions exclusively on considerations of "direct profitability".

The boards needed the consent of the minister to borrow and for approval for projects involving large sums of money (sections 19 and 27).

The committees were to make recommendations relating to the services provided by the four boards, although their remit did not include the charges and fares.

Based on the report, the minister could subject his consent to closure to certain conditions, such as the provision of alternative transport services.

The main effect of this change was that the boards were no longer "absolutely liable" for their operations, i.e. bearing responsibility for loss even in the absence of negligence or fault on their part.

This provision featured in Boddington v British Transport Police (1998) where the House of Lords recognised the principle that a defendant in criminal proceedings, in this case fined £10 for smoking on a train in violation of a railway byelaw, could challenge the validity of the rule before a court, save where Parliament has indicated that such a challenge is not possible.