The Postal Services Commission (Postcomm), the national regulatory authority, began to introduce competition to the UK postal services market in 2003, with new licensed operators able to provide 'end-to-end' services and offer 'consolidation services', and Postcomm is to end Royal Mail's monopoly by fully liberalising the market from January 2006. The Committee's report examines the impact of liberalisation of the postal service market on the quality of postal services; the thinking behind Postcomm's decision to open up the UK market before the rest of Europe; how Postcomm's proposals for the future of postage prices in the UK would impact on the ability of Royal Mail to compete in the open market; and the continuance of Royal Mail's universal service obligation.

All public sector organisations rely to varying degrees on postal services, costing nearly £650 million annually of which £250 million is spent by central government departments. The two biggest spenders are the Department for Work and Pensions and HM Revenue and Customs which account for over half this amount, with ten organisations accounting for 95 per cent of the total. Despite the growth in the use of internet and email, at least for the foreseeable future conventional mail will remain essential to the way public bodies communicate with the public. This NAO report examines how public sector organisations can become more effective in their procurement and management of postal services, and identifies six main areas where further improvements can be made in order to realise an estimated £31 million a year in savings by 2008-09. Two accompanying documents are available separately: case studies which examine the use of postal services in five organisations (HCP 946-II, ISBN 0102937354); and a guide which sets out examples of good practice across public and private sectors (HCP 946-III, ISBN 0102937362).

General Theory of Trade... is the first academic or practitioner text book to establish a general theory of trade and competition and attempts to bring these two disciplines back together. Shanker Singham demonstrates that there is indeed a powerful interface between these two areas and that by understanding this interface practitioners, be they in governments, companies or law and economics firms can succeed in trade negotiations as well as build up support for free trade principles in a time when they are being increasingly challenged. By noting that consumer welfare is enhanced where trade liberalization is accompanied by competitive markets and property rights protection, the author articulates an overall vision in which future policymakers can frame a different kind of trade debate.

The book identifies different national characteristics in terms of the motivation to privatise, the scale of privatization and its consequences. In the opening chapters there is a detailed overview of the theoretical economic issues involved in privatisation and an assessment of privatization across the EU. The remaining ten chapters contain national case studies of EU countries which review the history of state ownership and privatization in each of these countries and evaluate the extent of privatisation. The role of European Commission directives in deregulating markets and stimulating privatisation is also examined.

In "Modernise or decline: policies to maintain the universal postal service in the United Kingdom" (Cm. 7529, ISBN 9780101752923) the Hooper review confirmed that Royal Mail Group was the only company capable of delivering the service and proposed a package to deal with the Group's problems. The state should take responsibility for the historic pension deficit; there should be a new regulatory regime, in which mail services would be regulated as part of wider communications services, and, most controversially, there should be a private sector equity partner in Royal Mail. The Government accepted these proposals (Cm. 7560, ISBN 9780101756020) and introduced the Postal Services Bill (HL Bill 24, ISBN 9780108454530). The Committee supports the proposals on the pension fund and the new regulatory regime. But it does not consider that the case has been made that these two reforms can only be made as part of a package which includes the third reform - the involvement of a private sector equity partner in Royal Mail. The provisions contained in the Bill allowing such a partnership are not necessary or desirable as the Government already has powers to sell shares to enable Royal Mail to participate in a joint-venture. There is a lack of clarity over how much investment is needed or where that investment will come from, while the Government appears to have no business plan and has not indicated the use to which any private sector capital would be put. Given this uncertainty the case must rest on its non-financial benefits, and the Committee poses several questions about the proposed partnership which must be addressed.