 The first item of business this afternoon is an urgent question, I call Pauline McNeill. To ask the Scottish Government what action it took when Glasgow City Council informed it that 57 privately owned buildings have combustible cladding in their construction. All 32 local authorities were asked on 20 June 2017 to provide information on the use of ACM cladding on private high-rise domestic buildings. By 9 August 30 out of the 32 local authorities reported that no ACM had been identified on private high-rise domestic buildings in their areas. Edinburgh and Glasgow councils, due to their size, needed more time to complete this intensive work. The Scottish Government offered support to assist in this exercise, and Edinburgh Council accepted that offer. At a meeting of the ministerial working group on 8 September, the group was updated that Edinburgh Council reported that no private high-rise domestic buildings had been identified with ACM cladding. We also heard at that meeting that Glasgow City Council notified Scottish Government standards officials late on 5 September that 56 privately owned buildings may have some form of ACM cladding. The ministerial working group was not assured of the quality of information provided in the return from Glasgow Council and agreed to seek further clarification and specifics on the matter. This is especially important, as it is dependent on the type of ACM cladding, the extent of its use and how it has been installed as part of a cladding system. There may be no cause for concern. The Scottish Government therefore wrote to Glasgow Council on Tuesday 4 September to establish further details of the extent and type of ACM that may be present and offered support and assistance in gathering that work. We clarified that request yesterday and again offered support to obtain the information. As the member will know, that offer has now been accepted and we will now work with Glasgow Council to fully investigate and scrutinise the information that it has collected so that it can provide reassurance to the occupants of private high-rise buildings that their buildings are safe and any further actions identified will be taken forward. The council is aiming to provide that information by the end of next week. Pauli McNeill First, I thank you for selecting this emergency question. People across the United Kingdom, including in Scotland, watched the horror of the grain fell unfold. The tower's combustible cladding was a major factor in bullies spreading. Now it has come to light that 57 private buildings in Glasgow containing numerous households have been constructed using the same combustible cladding. Shockingly, it was known by Glasgow City Council officials who told ministers, but residents were not informed. If it were not for this Parliament's local government committee scrutiny, we would be none the wiser and credit is due to them for that. I ask the cabinet secretary today why her housing minister did not tell Glasgow City Council to inform residents immediately of the information in the interests of transparency. Does the minister agree that failure to notify and reassure residents before this was made public, which it now is, and reassure their safety, was a monumental error and illustrates an unacceptable level of complacency? Has the minister now fully briefed the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, which was also kept in the dark, and given that ministers knew on 8 September, can she demonstrate to Parliament that they have acted on this important matter with a sense of urgency? I am grateful to Ms McNeill for her scrutiny and for the information that she has indeed requested. Given that this Government moved quickly to establish a ministerial working group to ensure that we could provide as much reassurance to the public as possible about the safety of buildings in Scotland following the tragic events at Grenfell, it speaks volumes. On the detailed questions about what we knew when, it is important to clarify that although Ms McNeill, in her question to me, has assumed households, the information that the ministerial working group was given spoke of properties. Some of the gaps and incompleteness in information was indeed around that factor. It is all very well to talk about 56 properties, but a crucial question is indeed how many of those properties are domestic. It is also important to recognise that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service sits on the ministerial working group and is, like the Scottish Government, like ministers, aware of the information and the incompleteness of information that Glasgow had supplied. Let me give her the assurance that I expect my officials to work very closely. I know that they do work very closely with all local government officials, including Glasgow. To be clear, on the follow-up information that we requested on 14 September, before and after that, the housing minister is actively engaged with officials in seeking and pressing for relevant information. However, it is important to recognise the responsibilities of Glasgow City Council. Glasgow City Council, in a letter from Susan Aitken today, has made clear that the information that was presented to the Government was not a complete picture, and therefore that is the reason that Glasgow City Council did not make that information public. I am pleased to say that Glasgow City Council has now accepted the offer of the Scottish Government to help them in what is indeed a detailed and onerous task. It is seeking to provide the clarity that we require by the end of next week. I am also pleased that the leader of Glasgow City Council has said that she has instructed her officers to lazy immediately with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. I hope that I have covered all of McNeill's questions. If there is anything that I have admitted, I will, of course, duly follow-up with. Pauli McNeill I asked the cabinet secretary, given that she has told Parliament at now, that the information provided by Glasgow City Council was incomplete. Surely Glasgow City Council could not be under any illusion of the urgency of that, so what was done by ministers from that point when it was clear that information should have been available to Scottish ministers? How can she possibly have faith in Glasgow City Council to take that forward? Of course, I am sure that she will agree with this, that public reassurance is paramount going forward. Can the cabinet secretary demonstrate today that the Government is in command of the situation and that it will do everything to restore faith to those residents? Can the cabinet secretary say clearly that residents have now been contacted because I believe that there are some residents affected by this? Can you now guarantee that those buildings are safe? If not, why not? When will you be meeting with the fire and rescue service to ensure that all of those buildings are checked as soon as possible? Let me in the spirit of Ms McNeill's question say that we don't, for one minute, abdicate our responsibilities as a Government. We recognise that if we ask for information, we have a duty to scrutinise that information so that we have confidence in that information so that that information can be used appropriately, either to identify action or to reassure residents or tenants. I am clear that information is power, that any knowledge that we have as a Government places a responsibility on us, but that does not, for one minute, abdicate any local authority, including Glasgow, from their responsibilities. The leader of Glasgow City Council has said today that once it has provided the information that the Government requires in terms of that public reassurance, it is important to recognise that the gaps in the information so far do not enable a complete picture to be presented to either the owners of those buildings, who will have responsibilities, or the residents who reside in those buildings. It is important to recognise that we take our responsibilities seriously. When the chief building standards officer said that he was not satisfied with the overall detail of information from Glasgow City Council, we followed up on that after our discussion at the ministerial working group in correspondence to Glasgow City Council on 14 November. As I said, the housing minister meets regularly with officials, because officials need to be working with officials in local government. If I can give a brief example of some of the gaps in the information that was presented to us, because until those gaps in the information are filled, we will not have the best information to rightly inform those residents. Some of the gaps in those information, as I indicated earlier, were not clear about the number of households. Information about some of the buildings was not clear whether it was aluminium composite material or not. It was not clear about where it was. It was not clear whether it was used extensively, and it was not clear whether plans had been retrieved to find that. All of that information is important to be able to reassure the public. I am clear that, as a Government, we have responsibilities, but Glasgow City Council has responsibilities, too. In terms of building standards, it has a lead responsibility as per legislation and the enforcement duties. I am pleased at the correspondence that the leader of Glasgow City Council has sent to the local government committee to outline the action that it will now take to work with the Government and to inform residents as soon as the information is available. We have to be given accurate information to residents that is based on an accurate assessment of the situation. Thank you. A number of members want to ask supplementary questions, so we will give them a second. We will try to get through them. Bob Doris, first. Cabinet Secretary, everyone is residing in impacted properties of a right to know, as soon as possible, tenants, not just owners. I would hope that the cabinet secretary agrees with that fact and that there should be an absolute duty on local authorities to inform residents and to fire service. However, does the cabinet secretary also agree that the fragmented nature of records across local government, particularly in Glasgow, is as unacceptable and antiquated? Will she agree that there is an overwhelming and essential need for a reliable and robust national database so that, if there is a future need to interrogate higher-high safety ever again, we will never find ourselves in this sorry mess? Cabinet Secretary, let me be clear to Mr Doris and to Ms McNeill. Residents do indeed have the right to know, but they have the right to know accurate information that accurately portrays if there is a problem and how it is going to be redressed. That information needs to be made available to residents and building owners as soon as possible and as is practically possible in the council of giving commitments around that. I think that the point that Mr Doris raised about the fragmented nature of records is a very interesting one. We recognise that, for the cities, Glasgow and Edinburgh, in terms of having to work through records to establish and to answer questions whether there is aluminium composite material in domestic private high rises, has indeed been a known as task. Hence, as a Government, we have been offering proactively to help with that. I think that the issue about a national database is certainly an interesting one and one that the ministerial working group will look at further. The local government committee yesterday heard with disbelief that the news that 57 properties in Glasgow have ACM cladding. We also heard with disbelief that residents in Glasgow in those properties affected have not been told. For once, I am not laying the blame at Kevin Stewart's door. I think that this is the responsibility of Glasgow City Council. It has a responsibility to the citizens of Glasgow if they have information. They should be sharing that straight away. Repeated offers of help in emails from the ministerial working group to the council refused. Would the cabinet secretary agree with me that that is, frankly, unacceptable and that Glasgow City Council should immediately be informing the residents in those blocks affected, immediately and immediately contacting the fire and rescue service? I think that what he reflects is that the ministerial working group is certainly left with more questions than answers and a similar fashion to what the local government committee experienced yesterday. I point him to the fact that, while there are aspects of this experience that are, indeed, less than desirable, the Government recognised the onerous task that we were placing upon local government following the very tragic events at Grenfell that we were rightly asking for assurances in detailed information. We recognised that that was an onerous task and that we were proactively offering to help. It took on the third offer before the City Council has accepted that health. I am pleased that it was, I suppose, the political intervention from the leader of the council that has said that, yes, it will accept the help from the Scottish Government to assist them in their responsibilities. She has also, in her letter today to Bob Dorris, convener of the local government committee, said that she has instructed her officers to engage immediately with the local Scottish fire and rescue service. I think that there will, indeed, be valuable lessons in all of this. What I have to repeat, Presiding Officer, is that, yes, residents do, indeed, have the right to know, but we have to have the right information to give to residents, or we may be given false information or, indeed, cause an undue alarm where it is not required, but we must have clarity for residents as soon as possible. I very much agree with the sense of urgency in Pauline McNeill's question. I would like to know what process is going to be used to ensure that all residents, including private rented sector tenants, are given the information that they need at a time when there has been very high turnover, for example, of new student tenancies in Glasgow. Can the minister clarify whether a private landlord would be acting within the law or not by letting out a property that was in a building that proved to be unsafe on the basis of its cladding? Mr Harvie certainly points to the fact that private landlords and property owners have responsibilities under building safety and fire regulations. The point that he makes about being reassured is that residents receive the information that they are entitled to receive and the fashion in which that information is shared once it is available. That will be something that Mr Stewart and I will discuss directly with Glasgow City Council. Perhaps we may even need to rely on a door-to-door exercise, as opposed to some desktop exercise or by correspondence, but we will take that very much on board, because when that information becomes available, we want to reassure tenants or advise of what action, if any, is required, and we want to ensure that every resident who is entitled to that information receives it. The cabinet secretary will know, given the access issues that the burden of carrying out remedial work on high-rise properties can be significant. Should significant work be required, what assistance will the Scottish Government and Glasgow City Council be able to provide to residents in terms of finance and the co-ordination of the necessary remedial work? I think that that is a fair point and an important point, but we need to find out the facts and what the issues are, if any, and then we need to establish what action has to be taken and then we will need to establish how and who pays for that. That is an issue that I am very alive to. I will clarify the process here. The cabinet secretary said that he became aware of inadequate information on the 5th, but he did not write to the council till the 14th. Given the urgency of the matter, it might not have been more appropriate to pick up the phone. Can you explain, or are you suggesting, that the council leader did not know until yesterday when the local government committee addressed that question that there was a problem, given that she is now reassuring that she will take action? Further, I wonder if the cabinet secretary is aware that Glasgow City Council is only now reconstituting its scrutiny committees, and would the cabinet secretary agree that, in the interests of transparency and giving confidence to the people of Glasgow on those matters, that delay was unacceptable? Would she urge Glasgow City Council's leadership to co-operate with a more open and transparent approach to the council's business so that the issue that appears to come as a surprise to the council leader yesterday would not happen again, given the gravity of the safety issues that are concerned? Scrutiny and transparency are always a good thing. The Government has led by example in terms of our workings around the ministerial working group on fire safety and building standards. I am sure that all of our colleagues in Glasgow City Council will have heard the remarks made by Ms Lamont and others, but those are mainly issues for Glasgow City Council. In terms of the Government's response, as I did confirm, we received information from Glasgow City Council late on the 5th. We discussed that information in great detail at the ministerial working group on the 8th, which met on Friday afternoon. Correspondence was sent to Glasgow City Council on the 14th. She will appreciate that there is an importance of putting some of those matters for clarity in writing so that there is indeed a record. However, let me reassure her that my officials and indeed the chief building standards officer are never ever afraid or shy of picking up the phone to any local authority officer, including in Glasgow. The handling of the issue by both the Scottish Government and Glasgow City Council has been far from satisfactory, and it leaves both parties standing accused of a cover-up. In the interests of transparency, will the cabinet secretary commit to publishing full details of all discussions at all Government forums and between all Government officials in relation to the matter? I reject that analysis from Mr Kelly. In terms of the workings in and around the ministerial working group, there is a webpage that we published minutes. Indeed, yesterday Mr Stewart wrote to the local government committee and included correspondence that we had sent to Glasgow City Council. I reject his claims. Members are free to ask questions and make requests of the Government, and we are willing to be open in that. However, I stress that we have to get the right information to residents as soon as possible, and we have a responsibility to get the right and accurate information. We publish information, Mr Kelly. You should have a wee look at it. I urge you to do so. I thank members and ministers for their time. I am conscious that there is a lot of interest in the subject, not least from Mr Doris, the convener of the local government committee. The matter will come before the local government committee, I believe, and I urge members perhaps to take their interests there. We have given it some time this afternoon.