GLASGOW Lord Provost Pat Lally went into the witness box yesterday to deny that he was acting to protect his #18,000-a-year allowance and the trappings of power when he blocked a moved that could have led to him being removed from office.

Mr Lally's insistence that he had acted both properly and legally was backed by veteran Tory Councillor John Young, as well as SNP leader Councillor Kenneth Gibson.

The Lord Provost was appearing at the Court of Session, where he is asking Lord Eassie to rule that, in deciding to amend standing orders at the meeting of March 3, Glasgow City Council was acting beyond its powers.

The amendment would allow Mr Lally and his deputy to be removed from office with immediate effect by a simple majority vote of councillors.

The Labour Whip carried out an investigation into what had happened and concluded that Mr Lally had been guilty of breaching the standing orders of the Labour group.

He recommended that Mr Lally be removed from office and a new Lord Provost elected, but Mr Lally went to the Court of Session the day before the council meeting, and was granted an interim interdict by Lord Johnston, effectively barring him from being ousted.

Questioned by his counsel, Mr Robert McCreadie, Mr Lally said that one of the roles of Lord Provost was as ''custodian of the constitution'' of the council.

He told the court that, after he made the ruling to end the council meeting, it became noisy and rather chaotic.

However, the reason he had left the meeting was not because of the disturbance but because the meeting could not proceed because of the unsatisfactory nature of the standing orders. His ruling on the competence of amending the standing orders had concluded the proceedings.

Questioned by Mr Neil Davidson, QC, for the council, Mr Lally accepted that his personal standing was enhanced by holding the office of Lord Provost.

Mr Davidson suggested that if Mr Lally were removed early from his three-year term as Lord Provost he would lose his #18,000-a-year allowance, as well as the status and trappings of office.

The average man or woman in the street might well think Mr Lally had a clear personal interest in the issue of how a Lord Provost could be removed.

Mr Lally replied: ''Some might, some might not. I try to operate on the basis of doing what is right, not always necessarily what is popular.''

Veteran Tory John Young, 67, said he thought Mr Lally would have felt that his character was being impugned when a large section of the Labour Party wanted to remove him from office.

Questioned by Mr Davidson about losing the Lord Provost's allowance, Mr Young replied: ''Having known Pat Lally for 33 years, I would not get the impression that his allowance was the sort of thing that he would fight to retain. I think his character is much more important to him than the allowance.''

The hearing continues at a later date.