Royal Mail and the Post Office

I will come in a minute to a court action that was launched yesterday, which the hon. Gentleman may know about. What he says may be true, but I do not know. Many of us felt that the word ““liberalisation”” did not mean what it said and that it would mean destruction or at least dismantling. It is vital that we have the universal service obligation. Even if other competitors come into the market, as has been said, they must contribute to the overall picture under the universal service obligation. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and he might be interested to know that Postcomm has put its foot down at long last and said that we must protect the universal service obligation. Royal Mail has applied to the High Court to have the decision judicially reviewed and reversed. In that respect, I draw everyone's attention to early-day motion 116, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir)—whoever he might be! I urge all hon. Members to consider signing it, because it encapsulates the whole matter. I also congratulate Miss Judy Brown of Hastings, East Sussex, who yesterday secured permission to seek a judicial review of the decisions made by the Government and the Post Office to axe thousands of post offices. She secured permission based on the fact that she is disabled and that such decisions would be discriminatory. I therefore congratulate her and wish her well in her endeavours in the High Court. Finally, the following quotation recently appeared on a website:"““Where there are large numbers of people who rely on the Post Office, or where transport to other offices is difficult, the Post Office need to think carefully about the impact of their plans.””" That was said by the Secretary of State for Wales.