This week marks the ninth anniversary of the Grenfell fire. Our thoughts are of those who lost their lives in that tragedy and with those who survived it.

The Humanity for Grenfell group is still campaigning for people who live in cladded flats, and it is right to do so. Nearly a decade on from Grenfell, too many people are lying awake at night, wondering whether their home might be at risk.

Across Scotland, almost 1,000 buildings are suspected of having dangerous cladding, yet new figures that came out this week revealed that the First Minister’s Government has got round to investigating only 149 of them. Why is that the case, and why is cladding removal under way in—staggeringly—only three buildings in this country?

One of the issues that we have had to wrestle with has been not having an effective legislative framework in place to enable us to deal with a number of issues, not least of which is multiple ownership in individual buildings. That legislation has now been put in place by the Government and, as a result of having it in place, we are able to proceed with the important work that is necessary to investigate properties and to identify the remedial action that is required and the steps that have to be taken as a consequence.

I understand the importance of our doing so with urgency, but the Government must have a legal framework within which to act. We secured that during the previous parliamentary session, and we are now taking steps to ensure that actions can be taken to provide that reassurance to members of the public.

We are nearly 10 years on from Grenfell, and the response that we have heard from the First Minister will come as no comfort whatsoever to the people who cannot insure or sell their homes or to the people who fear for their lives and want to know that their homes are safe.

The United Kingdom Government gave Scottish ministers £100 million to conduct the cladding assessments. Therefore, money is not the problem; the lack of urgency is. It appears that not a single building has been checked during the past six months.

More than two years ago, the Parliament passed the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Act 2024. Ironically, ministers said that that would speed up the process. Will the First Minister get a grip on this? Will he guarantee that, by the time we reach the 10th anniversary of Grenfell, next year, every single one of those vital checks will have taken place?

Let me reassure Mr Cole-Hamilton that a variety of interventions are taking place, some of which involve building assessments and some of which require mitigation measures in buildings. That work is under way, but it will not show up in the statistics that Mr Cole-Hamilton has put to me today.

What I am saying, essentially, is that Mr Cole-Hamilton does not present a complete picture of the activity that is under way. However, I assure him that our legislative framework, the steps that have been taken in the Government’s programme and the availability of the resources in our budget—which the Liberal Democrats supported, for which I am very grateful—will ensure that we can take the necessary action to address the issue and reassure members of the public who are affected by it. I am very happy for ministers to provide update reports to Parliament in the next 12 months, to make sure that the public’s concerns, as expressed by Mr Cole-Hamilton, can be properly and fully addressed.

That concludes First Minister’s Question Time. I advise members that, next week, I plan to reverse the order of leaders’ questions. We will start with two questions from Alex Cole-Hamilton, followed by two from the Conservatives, three from the Greens, three from Labour and three from Reform.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Pursuant to rule 13.1 of standing orders, and in the light of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body’s media access policy and rules, I ask whether any member has sought to make a personal statement to Parliament to address the questioning by media within the parliamentary estate. I ask that because—

That is not a point of order; it is a matter for the corporate body.

Perhaps, Presiding Officer, you could hear the point of order in full to determine whether it is a point of order.

I think that I have heard what you want to say, and it is a matter not for the chair but for the corporate body.

Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer. Given the urgency of the issue, may I ask how we would raise it in Parliament—

Thank you, Mr Hoy.