The taxpayer faces a £4bn bill if a "big six" energy company goes under

5 questions answered.

Under newly proposed plans by Ed Davey the tax payer could foot the bill if one of the big six energy companies goes bust. We answer five questions on the proposed contingency plans.

What is Ed Davey proposing?

Energy Secretary Ed Davey is proposing to intervene quickly should one of the big six companies - EDF of France, E.ON and npower of Germany and Scottish Power, owned by Iberdrola of Spain, Centrica and Scottish & Southern Electric – go bust.

The "worst case scenario" plans, outlined in an Energy Department consultation paper open for comments until March 15, could result in household bills rising by between £7 and £32 a year on average over the period, equivalent to a maximum contribution of £4bn on the basis of 25.5m households in the UK, according to The Telegraph.

The provisions would enable the Government to intervene and continue to fund any company about to go bust and control the cost passed onto the consumer and maintain market sustainability. The rest of the industry would be expected to maintain supplies should this happen.

What is the likely-hood one of the big six companies could going bust?

It is not thought to be very likely that one of these companies would go bust any time soon and their commitment to the UK is not being questioned. It is thought the government is brining in these extra precautions because it does not want to have a repeat of the banking fiasco in the energy sector.

Does the government not already have provisions in place?

It does in the form of the 2011 2011 Energy Act which has already introduced a special administration regime to provide protection for the National Grid and the electricity and gas distribution networks it operates, as well as for the rail and water industries. However, Davey feels these provisions are not robust enough to cope with the mayhem that would ensue in the market if one of the big energy providers went bust.

What has the Department of Energy said?

An Energy Department official told The Telegraph: “It is extremely unlikely that any of the large energy suppliers in the UK would become insolvent. None the less, the Government believes that it is prudent to have in place a framework that will ensure the continued operation of a major supplier until its customers can be transferred to other partners.”

What do the energy companies think about these new provisions?

EDF has said it is broadly supportive of the proposals, while others are yet to comment

Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for Nridigital.com

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Why are boundary changes bad for Labour?

New boundaries, a smaller House of Commons and the shift to individual electoral registration all tilt the electoral battlefield further towards the Conservatives. Why?

The government has confirmed it will push ahead with plans to reduce the House of Commons to 600 seats from 650.  Why is that such bad news for the Labour Party? 

The damage is twofold. The switch to individual electoral registration will hurt Labour more than its rivals. . Constituency boundaries in Britain are drawn on registered electors, not by population - the average seat has around 70,000 voters but a population of 90,000, although there are significant variations within that. On the whole, at present, Labour MPs tend to have seats with fewer voters than their Conservative counterparts. These changes were halted by the Liberal Democrats in the coalition years but are now back on course.

The new, 600-member constituencies will all but eliminate those variations on mainland Britain, although the Isle of Wight, and the Scottish island constituencies will remain special cases. The net effect will be to reduce the number of Labour seats - and to make the remaining seats more marginal. (Of the 50 seats that would have been eradicated had the 2013 review taken place, 35 were held by Labour, including deputy leader Tom Watson's seat of West Bromwich East.)

Why will Labour seats become more marginal? For the most part, as seats expand, they will take on increasing numbers of suburban and rural voters, who tend to vote Conservative. The city of Leicester is a good example: currently the city sends three Labour MPs to Westminster, each with large majorities. Under boundary changes, all three could become more marginal as they take on more wards from the surrounding county. Liz Kendall's Leicester West seat is likely to have a particularly large influx of Tory voters, turning the seat - a Labour stronghold since 1945 - into a marginal. 

The pattern is fairly consistent throughout the United Kingdom - Labour safe seats either vanishing or becoming marginal or even Tory seats. On Merseyside, three seats - Frank Field's Birkenhead, a Labour seat since 1950, and two marginal Labour held seats, Wirral South and Wirral West - will become two: a safe Labour seat, and a safe Conservative seat on the Wirral. Lillian Greenwood, the Shadow Transport Secretary, would see her Nottingham seat take more of the Nottinghamshire countryside, becoming a Conservative-held marginal. 

The traffic - at least in the 2013 review - was not entirely one-way. Jane Ellison, the Tory MP for Battersea, would find herself fighting a seat with a notional Labour majority of just under 3,000, as opposed to her current majority of close to 8,000. 

But the net effect of the boundary review and the shrinking of the size of the House of Commons would be to the advantage of the Conservatives. If the 2015 election had been held using the 2013 boundaries, the Tories would have a majority of 22 – and Labour would have just 216 seats against 232 now.

It may be, however, that Labour dodges a bullet – because while the boundary changes would have given the Conservatives a bigger majority, they would have significantly fewer MPs – down to 311 from 330, a loss of 19 members of Parliament. Although the whips are attempting to steady the nerves of backbenchers about the potential loss of their seats, that the number of Conservative MPs who face involuntary retirement due to boundary changes is bigger than the party’s parliamentary majority may force a U-Turn.

That said, Labour’s relatively weak electoral showing may calm jittery Tory MPs. Two months into Ed Miliband’s leadership, Labour averaged 39 per cent in the polls. They got 31 per cent of the vote in 2015. Two months into Tony Blair’s leadership, Labour were on 53 per cent of the vote. They got 43 per cent of the vote. A month and a half into Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, Labour is on 31 per cent of the vote.  A Blair-style drop of ten points would see the Tories net 388 seats under the new boundaries, with Labour on 131. A smaller Miliband-style drop would give the Conservatives 364, and leave Labour with 153 MPs.  

On Labour’s current trajectory, Tory MPs who lose out due to boundary changes may feel comfortable in their chances of picking up a seat elsewhere. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.