CJRS publication - transparency or "name & shame"

[CatOnMat]

Just got this from gov.uk, I'm sure others might have done too...

Publishing information about your CJRS claims
We are now publishing a monthly list of employers who claimed under the CJRS for periods from December onwards on GOV.UK, as part of HMRC’s commitment to transparency and to deter fraudulent claims.

This will include (from 25 February) employer names, Company Registration Numbers (for those who have one) and banded amounts of how much the claim was for.

What happens if I pay back my grants?
If you choose to pay back the money you have received, your details will be removed from the list of claims when it is next published (usually in the following month).

I wonder how this published information is likely to be used by other organisations; also where the balance is between transparency to avoid fraud vs. "name & shame" in an effort to get companies who don't actually need the cash or who are not within the spirit of the scheme (e.g. furloughing people who would be made redundant anyway, or over Xmas when the company would have shut down anyway but had to pay its employees anyway).

Further commentary at HMRC to list furlough claimants in anti-fraud move | AccountingWEB

Any thoughts on here?

[SueEllen]

Journalists field day....

[jayn200]

I don't know. I am conflicted. I do think the public should have a right to know because it is taxpayer money and do agree with transparency.

Buuuuuuut, transparency is obviously not the agenda, it's to guilt them into paying back the money which the media has been assisting them with by naming and shaming companies already even prior to this being published.

So I guess my problem is less with the government and more with the media for running with these stories and putting pressure on businesses not to accept assistance they qualify for.

[CatOnMat]

Yeah I personally think they might be trying to reduce the takeup - or even get people to repay it as that would be easier than trying to find the cash elsewhere. I also agree with the viewpoint in the article that:

“Employers may prefer not to submit claims under the extended CJRS, even where they are technically eligible to do so, to avoid this publicity, especially where the employer’s business is profitable,” said Hannah Ford of the law firm Stevens & Bolton.

[Scoobos]

My view is that given that as this went in with no planning, they probably don't have any real recorded way of tracking who claimed legitimately and who didn't - so they will be looking for disgruntled employees to shop their ex employers.

[vetran]

Journalists field day....

should be fun!

[AtW]

Public is (will be) paying for it, so info should be public - should have been from start, not just Dec 2020.

Fraud in furlough must be sky high.

[AtW]

My view is that given that as this went in with no planning, they probably don't have any real recorded way of tracking who claimed legitimately and who didn't - so they will be looking for disgruntled employees to shop their ex employers.

HMRC knows who claimed, how much and for which specific employees - they really should write to all of them and randomly contact very large sample to verify details: we are talking about HS2 level money here over a period of 1 year!