Recently, @Michael_Pooler and I tried to get more clarity on which companies have benefited from over £50bn of state-backed coronavirus loans.

We were stonewalled on the grounds of data protection laws and commercial sensitivities. https://www.ft.com/content/0e30600a-39e4-4dc0-9b54-8f110ffd48ea">https://www.ft.com/content/0...

In the US, the disclosure of borrowers under the PPP scheme sparked a wave of stories like this, casting critical eyes over who received money.

That scrutiny isn& #39;t possible in the UK, where the British Business Bank and the Treasury refuse any disclosure https://www.ft.com/content/061eed61-7815-4e83-8ded-1a2c5f3a0eeb">https://www.ft.com/content/0...

At a time of crisis there is a genuine need for a rushed deployment of funds. But there should be scrutiny of the process, as the eyebrow-raising recipients of PPE contracts have shown.

Stories like this one from Tabby are not yet possible here https://twitter.com/Tabby_Kinder/status/1268560100907724800">https://twitter.com/Tabby_Kin...

The BBB told us many of the borrowers were sole traders, whose business title often matched their personal name, which is classed as personal data.

An FT reader points out that they would be aghast to learn of the existence of Companies House!

I had missed this fantastic Mail on Sunday story over the weekend on the worrying signs of endemic fraud in the Bounce Back Loans scheme. Kudos to @HelCahill

this is exactly why so many people think that transparency is badly needed. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-8653807/Fraudsters-raid-Chancellor-Rishi-Sunaks-loan-fund.html">https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/mar...