THE creation of a new company to run all Glasgow's cultural, leisure, sport and community facilities was very far from being concluded by Friday's vote at the council's executive committee. The fight goes on, with a good chance of succeeding.

Ownership is not the issue: ownership of the assets will stay with the council. The real question is whether the citizens of Glasgow really want all these important services, which belong to them, being managed by a small group of Labour councillors and eminent individuals, who will operate independently of the council and not be directly accountable to them. As one citizen said to me on Saturday: "That would be a scandal!"

There is no longer any great financial exigency that makes it essential for the council to complete this transfer before the election. Next Thursday the Labour councillors will approve a freeze on council tax, instead of increasing it by a small amount to keep pace with inflation. That will cost the council roughly the same amount of money it will save if the new company gets charitable status and does not have to pay commercial rates. When this transfer was first mooted, I was told that transferring cultural and leisure services to a charity was "the only alternative" to shutting a couple of museums. That is no longer true. But "There is no alternative" has a familiar ring.

Nor is it true that the council cannot receive funding from the lottery or from charities. The council has received millions from the lottery and the Kelvingrove Refurbishment Appeal showed exactly how council services can benefit from charitable donations.

Whether or not Councillor Steven Purcell succeeds in handing over the management of these public services to an independent company depends entirely on whether the citizens of Glasgow are willing to let him. Under his leadership, the council now refers to the citizens as "customers", and Steven Purcell proclaims that the people who vote for him do not care how decisions are made. Is he right? Are we just "customers" in Tony Blair's bazaar? Do we really no longer care about democratic accountability?

In the council, this transfer is opposed by the LibDem, SNP and SSP councillors. I am confident that we will all fight it every step of the way, and we are all pledged to reverse it if the Labour Party loses its majority in the council on May 3. But the real power lies with the citizens of Glasgow. If a majority of them do not want this transfer to happen, and make their voices heard, they can stop it.

Christopher Mason, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, Glasgow City Council

New board must do its job properly
SADLY but not surprisingly the Labour-dominated council executive committee has approved the ill-conceived plan to transfer control of all Glasgow's cultural and leisure services to an arm's-length charitable company. With six Labour nominees on the 10-man board of the company, "independent" does not seem an appropriate description, and anyway Steven Purcell assures us that all the assets to be managed will remain in the ownership of the city council.

My hope now is that Lord Macfarlane, for whom I have the highest regard, and his three independent fellow-directors will make sure that the affairs of the company will not be subject to political interference, and in particular that common good properties and other assets bequeathed for the benefit of all Glasgow citizens will be fully protected and preserved.

In this respect, the board should make publicly available full details with current valuations of all the land, buildings and other assets which they will now manage on our behalf. This list should distinguish between Common Good Fund assets and other assets owned directly by the city council. Presumably all these will be clearly specified in the documents transferring control, and if the legally-required Common Good Register has been properly kept by the council this will provide much of the information.

I also trust that, when the income of the Common Good Fund is controlled by the new company, not a penny will ever again be used to pay for "Council Buffet and Civic Hospitality". This annual revenue should be retained by the charitable company and spent on maintaining the properties under their management, as should all the extra funds we are told will be derived from lottery funding, tax savings and rates relief. I look forward to seeing such a requirement in the board's formal terms of reference, and a commitment in its mission statement.

Iain A D Mann, 7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow