John Biggs: There is such -
The Mayor: Where do you begin? [Laughter.]
John Biggs: I trust I am going to get a couple of opportunities here. First of all, you said that TfL meets in public, but it clearly does not. The board does, but the subsidiary boards meet in private. We have had to lever information out of them by negotiation with TfL, following the budget this year. It does not meet in public; it makes all its important decisions in private. So that is not true.
Secondly, it is my view - I do not know whether it is the view of my party - that it is a cynical abuse for you to be selectively spinning and quoting from an engineering report, or whatever it is - the one starting with a "B" - yet telling us that you will only release it at 2 o'clock this afternoon, when you have chosen to stand on a platform and issue your soundbites. That is a manipulation, and it is a dishonest manipulation.
Part of the problem with this debate is the selective use of information and its timing. The whole thing is being manipulated, and I think that Londoners are thoroughly pissed off with it. Londoners need to see tangible improvements to the Tube. PPP offers that. You know and I know that, if the Government lose in the court, we will have another year or two of paralysis while we are working out what to do about it. It is not a particularly credible option. The breakdowns will increase because of that paralysis, not because of the flaws in the PPP. [Members: "Question."]
The first question, then, is about rolling stock. There is no evidence whatsoever on this. Indeed, it would be a dereliction of the PPP, if it goes ahead, if it did not lead to replacement of rolling stock - not necessarily all of it, but certainly some - within the first 10 years. It is spinning, and there is no substance in fact behind the suggestion that that will not happen.
As for "tarting up" stations, is it not a fact that Londoners are expected to put up with terrible conditions in our stations, in the hot weather for example, with escalators broken down and circulation areas crowded? They need to have walls knocked down and improvements made. We are aspiring to provide access for people with disabilities and mobility problems, and repairs to stations will take place to provide for that.
Is it not also a fact that, if you are going to replace tracks and lines, you can do so for only six hours a day, whereas you can obviously repair stations 24 hours a day? To compare them, and to say that the scheme will "tart up" stations up front, and only at the end will it lazily get round to fixing the lines, is nonsense. Can you defend that?