CRITICS of the controversial decision taken by Bolton Council to grant law firm Asons £300,000 of taxpayers’ money say crucial questions still need to be answered.

Since news of the grant was revealed by The Bolton News last month, there have been calls for more detail about the circumstances surrounding the grant.

An independent audit, called for by the leader of Bolton Council, Cllr Cliff Morris, is now understood to be under way by the local authority’s auditors KMPG.

And while that is being carried out, The Bolton News has asked for answers on key points.

Now, the Conservative opposition party has submitted an official list of questions to the council.

Council accused of running 'dictatorship' after secretly approving £300,000 grant to town centre law firm

They are:

• Why was the grant signed off and agreed in September when the works had been completed in August, if the purpose of the grant was, as we were told, to keep Asons in the town centre?

• What due diligence was done before the grant was awarded, assessing criteria, looking into the financial competence and sustainability of the company; assessing the business plan for economic growth and job creation; and who from the Council undertook this work?

• If due diligence was done, was the fact that Asons in their published accounts lost over £1 million; are in dispute with the inland revenue for £300,000 and claim in the notes to the accounts that their business model was under threat, taken into account?

• Why did Asons receive this grant when previous attempts to help Asons have ended in failure?

• When was the promise of money made to Asons, and when did the money actually change hands; and which specific Asons company account was the grant paid into?

• What checks have been done by Asons that the money has been spent on the refurbishment costs. Did Asons have to produce invoices and have we seen these invoices and did we put a charge on the building in the event of Asons going into administration?

• What personal connections are there between Asons directors and Executive members or councillors? Were any personal connections declared by Labour councillors? Did the ruling Group declare any interest between Asons and the Labour Party?

• Does the council think it is appropriate when money is tight to be handing over £300,000 to company whose director is claiming to have bought six Lamborghini’s in four years?

• Why was the whole grant passed under emergency powers when it clearly was not an emergency? Whose decision was it ultimately to use emergency powers, and why when the original letter was dated September, did the item not come to the October meeting of the Leader’s portfolio, as it should have done, but came six weeks later to the November meeting?

• A further question has arisen since council: Why did Cllr Morris tell the Corporate Scrutiny committee those discussions with Asons started in September and then tell Manchester Radio on December 1 that discussions started in January.

After submitting the questions, Tory leader Cllr David Greenhalgh said: “I do believe the wrong decision was made.

"I believe that when the correct criteria is met, when a business plan is put forward by a company that can show evidence of sound financial stability; of local economic growth and job creation; of a landmark regeneration project; or of help to a headline business in the town undergoing short term financial problems; then I do believe the council can and should provide what proportionate help they see fit, but I see no evidence that justified the award of £300,000 to Asons."

In addition to these questions, The Bolton News has inquired about issues relating to land in Clarence Street.

It was bought from the council by Asons with a view to building a multi-million pound headquarters.

After the Government introduced financial restrictions to the personal injury law industry, Asons were unable to continue with the plans and sold the land back to the council.

Last month, Cllr Morris announced that car sales firm RRG had bought the site, indicating that the group had paid ‘double’ the fee that Asons had in the first place.

We have asked why would RRG pay more for the Clarence Street site? Did they pay over the odds, or did Asons get a cut price deal?

We have also asked for the full details of the transactions between Asons and the council regarding the Clarence Street land.