Leaked EU FTT will likely hit the City too, whether we want it or not

If you can't beat them, maybe you should think about joining them?

The Financial Times' Alex Barker has seen a draft version of the financial transaction tax which is to be implemented by 11 euro area nations, and writes that it:

casts a wider net than expected by adding anti-avoidance measures to the original plan for an EU-wide levy, so that financial business does not decamp to safe havens.

The plan will levy a 0.1 per cent tax on stock and bond trades, and a 0.01 per cent tax on derivatives. It is imposed on any transaction involving a financial institution with its headquarters in the area, or on any transaction on behalf of a client based in the tax area.

It will also apply to transactions based on where the financial product was issued.

The news makes Britain's decision to opt-out from the tax look increasingly questionable. We already have a transaction tax of 0.5 per cent on any trades involving British stock — called stamp duty — which hasn't impacted on Britain becoming a centre of European finance. And the anti-avoidance measures included in the proposed draft will hit a relatively hefty proportion of trades involving the City.

Overall, around €30bn-€35bn is expected to be raised by the FTT, while similar measures implemented in the UK could raise around £8bn for the exchequer, according to the Robin Hood Tax Campaign, who say:

When our European neighbours are making their City firms pay for the damage they've caused it is shocking that our Government is refusing to get our banks to do the same.

With the UK facing welfare cuts and increased austerity, it is incomprehensible that the Chancellor should turn down the opportunity.

While the move looks likely to be effective on a revenue-raising front, it is less so when it comes to altering behaviour — the other key motivation for financial transaction taxes. The EU has less high-frequency trading (HFT) than the US, and the EU-wide FTT doesn't include a measure proposed by the Hollande government in France which would impose a minuscule tax on requests for quotes. That tax was aimed at stopping a type of HFT — quote spamming — which involves very few actual stock purchases; its absence leaves that abuse open.

Similarly, the value of the tax is low enough that it's unlikely that it will promote the "buy and hold" mentality that many were hoping for. Markets will still be volatile, and speculators will still rule. But hopefully the revenue will help.

Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty
Show Hide image

How tribunal fees silenced low-paid workers: “it was more than I earned in a month”

The government was forced to scrap them after losing a Supreme Court case.

How much of a barrier were employment tribunal fees to low-paid workers? Ask Elaine Janes. “Bringing up six children, I didn’t have £20 spare. Every penny was spent on my children – £250 to me would have been a lot of money. My priorities would have been keeping a roof over my head.”

That fee – £250 – is what the government has been charging a woman who wants to challenge their employer, as Janes did, to pay them the same as men of a similar skills category. As for the £950 to pay for the actual hearing? “That’s probably more than I earned a month.”

Janes did go to a tribunal, but only because she was supported by Unison, her trade union. She has won her claim, although the final compensation is still being worked out. But it’s not just about the money. “It’s about justice, really,” she says. “I think everybody should be paid equally. I don’t see why a man who is doing the equivalent job to what I was doing should earn two to three times more than I was.” She believes that by setting a fee of £950, the government “wouldn’t have even begun to understand” how much it disempowered low-paid workers.

She has a point. The Taylor Review on working practices noted the sharp decline in tribunal cases after fees were introduced in 2013, and that the claimant could pay £1,200 upfront in fees, only to have their case dismissed on a technical point of their employment status. “We believe that this is unfair,” the report said. It added: "There can be no doubt that the introduction of fees has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases brought."

Now, the government has been forced to concede. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Unison’s argument that the government acted unlawfully in introducing the fees. The judges said fees were set so high, they had “a deterrent effect upon discrimination claims” and put off more genuine cases than the flimsy claims the government was trying to deter.

Shortly after the judgement, the Ministry of Justice said it would stop charging employment tribunal fees immediately and refund those who had paid. This bill could amount to £27m, according to Unison estimates. 

As for Janes, she hopes low-paid workers will feel more confident to challenge unfair work practices. “For people in the future it is good news,” she says. “It gives everybody the chance to make that claim.” 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.