THE leader of a council yesterday admitted his plan of giving up direct control of museums would pose "significant and genuine" risks.

But Glasgow's Steven Purcell won backing from his cabinet to go ahead with a business plan to take a closer look at the pros and cons of the proposal, which would result in the authority's culture and leisure services department being spun off into an arms' length charitable trust.

He did so despite intense scrutiny from opposition leaders Christopher Mason of the Liberal Democrats and John Mason of the SNP, who questioned the move's practicality and warned it would erode democratic accountability.

"You are raising a number of significant and genuine points of risk that will have to be addressed in the business plan, " Mr Purcell told Christopher Mason. "You are right to raise them."

The LibDem had told Mr Purcell and his Labour-dominated cabinet that any arms' length body would inevitably fall outwith the control of the council and city voters.

Mr Mason said: "These things take on a life of their own." No current administration, he said, could make promises that would be binding on an ostensibly independent body for years in advance.

Mr Purcell has insisted that any new trust would only manage council assets, not own them. Everything from local community halls to Glasgow's world-class museums and art galleries, the biggest civic collection of art in Europe, would stay in public ownership. Free admission would remain, he said.

Both Mr Purcell and his critics agree on one thing: the proposal is all about money. Mr Purcell believes that the trust would free up more than GBP48m over five years, mostly because it would not have to pay nondomestic rates of GBP6m a year. That money, he said, could be reinvested in "exciting" developments at museums, libraries, leisure centres, and community halls.

His critics, however, fail to see the point of a huge constitutional upheaval simply to rob the Scottish Executive of GBP6m a year. Why not simply ask for the cash, they asked.

Christopher Mason questioned how a body that councillors still controlled would be allowed to keep its charitable status. Any new body would be accountable to the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator.

Its chief executive, Jane Ryder, yesterday said: "This is a very interesting proposal. The law certainly allows such trusts to be set up and indeed this approach has already been taken by some authorities."

But she added: "Once a charity is recognised, any trustees, however appointed, need to bear in mind the legal obligations of charity trustees."