SSE energy bills rise only serves to highlight need for transparency SSE's response was nothing if not robust. Its profit margin was less than 5pc and the Government was to blame for rising energy bills, it insisted. Will Morris, the company's managing director of retail, said green levies, which are collected through bills, had increased by 13pc in a year, leaving them with no option but to raise prices for its 10m customers. He said that if the burden was shifted on to the taxpayers then dual fuel bills could be cut by £110 this year alone. There is a great deal of truth to this argument - not least in the assertion that all three political parties have deliberately obscured the extent to which green energy targets force up bills. When even the former head of the Office of Fair Trading, John Fingelton, emerged from the shadows to call for a competition inquiry the "Big Six" companies must have despaired of ever getting their case across. But, equally, there is a counter-argument to be made about transparency. The regulator Ofgem has insisted on a simpler pricing regime, forcing companies to have no more than four tariffs for each type of fuel. The companies claim this will have the unintended consequence of hiking up bills for some customers because they have been forced to scrap some special deals - including those targeted at elderly and vulnerable customers. The regulator says this is disingenuous and being used as a smokescreen for excessive price increases. One thing is certain: trying to decipher an SSE energy bill remains a bewildering task. Gas, general domestic, E7, E10, flexiheat, dual fuel, total control, superdeal - the list of categories is endless, not to mention the breakdown between the standing charge, unrestricted, peak units, off-peak units and heating units. For all the efforts made by the big energy companies to communicate their message clearly, explain to customers what they are paying for and how their bills are calculated, there is still more work to be done. Vodafone boss may be left with a weaker hand A US regulatory filing this week painted a fascinating picture of dealmaking at the very highest level. Verizon's notice of a shareholder meeting to approve its $130bn purchase of Vodafone's stake in Verizon Wireless, the US mobile network, gave us the inside track on two years of meetings held in four cities on both sides of the Atlantic. Lowell McAdam, Verizon's chief executive, repeatedly made public overtures about taking control of Vodafone's stake during the period, but the timeline of events outlined in the filing shows he was even more persistent in private. Like a hapless suitor proposing marriage to a reluctant girlfriend, Mr McAdam tabled offers to Vodafone chief executive, Vittorio Colao, on practically a monthly basis since the start of the year - offers that were repeatedly knocked back. On the other side of the negotiating table, Mr Colao played it cool, insisting that he was relaxed about Vodafone's ownership of the stake and that he would not be pressured into a sale. The final value of the sale justifies that approach, with Vodafone squeezing $35bn extra from Verizon just seven months after Mr McAdam's January bid of $95bn. Mr Colao is rightly seen as a cunning negotiator and deserves the plaudits for his brinkmanship despite the mounting anxiety of shareholders. However, another detail contained in the filing pointed not to the past two years, but possibly to Vodafone's future. While rejecting Verizon's initial offers, Mr Colao repeatedly suggested the two companies commit to a full-blown merger. Verizon was not keen, and a union was never taken beyond the proposal stage, but Mr Colao's apparent receptiveness to the idea may make Vodafone vulnerable to a takeover from another American predator. This week, AT&T chief executive Randall Stephenson gave his biggest clue so far that he is plotting an expansion into Europe, saying that the region is "a huge opportunity for somebody." Vodafone is seen as the most likely target, and influential commentators, including hedge fund mogul David Einhorn - who owns a stake in Vodafone - have talked up a deal. Mr Colao played his first hand superbly, but in leaving himself open to a merger he may have left himself with a weaker set of cards in the next round. Jaeger will benefit from Made in Britain stamp Jaeger has announced that it wants to improve its quality by bringing manufacturing back to Britain. The 129-year-old company is not going quite as far as one might hope - less than 10pc of production will be based here, but, coming 15 years after it abandoned its manufacturing heritage, it is a welcome development. It makes commercial sense, too. Brands such as Burberry and Paul Smith have successfully traded on the quality of British manufacturing, especially in China and Japan where "Made in Britain" is considered a guarantee of quality. Jaeger's vision is to be "the premium British clothing brand adored by stylish men and women globally." Returning to their roots in the UK makes accomplishing that mission a little bit easier.