We need answers

THIS weekend there is an understandable wish on the part of friends of Steven Purcell that his decision on Friday to resign his seat as a councillor and withdraw from public life should draw a line under a tumultuous week for Scottish politics and free him from further scrutiny and media attention.

We share their hope that the former leader of Glasgow City Council has a speedy recovery from his current difficulties. He has our best wishes and our sympathy. But we cannot so easily consign this saga to the past and move on. There are legitimate questions to be asked about Mr Purcell's conduct as leader of Scotland's biggest city, and he cannot consider himself to be out of public life, able to move on in relative peace to the next phase of his life, until these questions are answered.

There appears to be a view that if the reasons for his departure appertain to his health then this is no-one's business but Mr Purcell's. Of course, as a general rule a politician's health is a matter for themselves and themselves alone.

Except, that is, when the state of their health may raise questions about their ability to do such a high-profile job as leader of a council employing more than 30,000 people and spending billions of pounds of public money. But Mr Purcell's case is much further complicated by the suggestion that his health problems involved a "chemical dependency". This raises more questions. Could someone with such a dependency experience an impairment of judgment? Could someone's reliance on certain "chemicals" bring them into contact with criminals? Might such a dependency conceivably, if kept a secret, leave a politician vulnerable to attempts to influence his decision-making? These are, of course, hypotheticals, but in the absence of clear-cut information about Mr Purcell's problem, how serious it was, how debilitating it was, how long it had been going on, and who knew about it within the council and within the Labour Party, the speculation is bound to continue, and no wonder.

Add to this the revelation that Mr Purcell had a meeting with detectives from the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency in his office in the City Chambers last May and those questions take on a more serious hue. This was not a social call. So what was the nature of their interest in Mr Purcell? And why did that interest cease?

This being politics, this weekend there have been questions raised by Mr Purcell's political opponents, the SNP, as to whether key decisions taken during his five-year tenure as leader can now be relied upon as sound. Mr Purcell's decision-making ability was also questioned by trade union leaders – perhaps not unconnected to the prospect of council staff redundancies. Let us be clear. It is not in the council's interest – nor in the interest of the citizens of Glasgow – that five years' worth of high-level decision-making is now second-guessed by those who would wish to overturn controversial decisions. It is worth saying that Mr Purcell was an exemplary leader of the council, with a talent for cutting through the bureaucratic stasis that has so often held Glasgow back. He showed imagination and guts. But in the absence of a clear picture of Mr Purcell's circumstances, his record will inevitably come under such scrutiny.

Glasgow needs an effective, functioning system of governance that can move quickly and coherently into its next phase under a new leader. Especially at a time when unprecedentedly difficult decisions need to be taken about cuts in services. This will be extraordinarily difficult in a climate of unchecked rumour and speculation.

It is believed that Mr Purcell is considering a period of time away from Scotland, possibly in Australia, to regain his health. That is probably a wise choice, his health is of paramount importance. But as soon as he is able he should reveal in clear detail the reasons for him departing political life in the way that he has, either in person or through his new team of legal and media advisers.

Mr Purcell can withdraw from public life if he so wishes, that is his right. But as he does so the questions surrounding his departure will not disappear with him. The questions must be answered, otherwise conspiracy theories, allegations, suspicions and half-truths will mire Glasgow to such a point that it produces paralysis, and all Mr Purcell's hard-fought for reforms will disappear, engulfed by the muddy slide.