FoI 15-25: Information in regards to the Parliament Building roof repairs

Information Standards Freedom of Information Response

28 February 2025

Our Ref: FoI 15-25

Freedom of Information Act 2000

I am writing to confirm that the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission (Assembly Commission) has processed your request dated 29 January 2025 in line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). In your request, you asked that the Assembly Commission provide-

"1. All amounts spent to date on the roof repairs and on what they have been spent.

2. The amount spent to date in legal fees in order to carry out legal action against Hamilton Architects and Tracey Brothers.

3. Please also provide the total amount forecast in legal fees in order to carry out legal action against Hamilton Architects and Tracey Brothers.

4. Please list the ongoing deterioration and associated health and safety concerns referred to in a statement made by Mr. Clarke on 25/06/24.

5. Please provide the rationale and assessment behind the decision to put the legal action against Hamilton Architects and Tracey Brothers above the health and safety of staff.

6. Please provide the staff numbers both permanent and agency who work on the 4th floor at 29/01/2025."

 

Our response

The Assembly Commission holds some information relevant to your request.

 

Question 1

Not all invoices have yet been received and therefore the costs to date on the roof repairs have been estimated as follows:

Scaffolding £141,428

Professional fees £59,030

 

Question 2

As at 15 January 2025, £68,308 had been spent on legal fees. The matter was settled on confidential terms of 28 January 2025. An agreement on costs formed part of the settlement agreement. The agreement has been filed with the High Court. Information on the settlement agreement is exempt from disclosure under section 32(1)(a) of the FOIA.

 

Question 3

The assessment of the likely costs of a full hearing were provided to the Assembly Commission as part of legal advice to the Assembly Commission on the management of litigation. As such they are subject to litigation privilege, a category of legal professional privilege, and exempt from disclosure under section 42(1) of the FOIA.

Section 42(1) is a qualified exemption and the Assembly Commission has considered whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

 

The public interest test

In considering the public interest test, the Assembly Commission has identified the following points in favour of maintaining the exemption:

  • A client's ability to speak freely, frankly and openly about the prudent approach to any litigation contemplated by that client, informed as necessary by expert assessment of the merits and costs, is a fundamental element of the legal system and the administration of justice.
  • As such, there is a strong element of public interest inbuilt into maintaining and safeguarding legal professional privilege itself.
  • The costs estimates were generated for proposed legal proceedings which later settled on confidential terms. For these estimates now to be published would subvert the confidential nature of that settlement and could be prejudicial to the legal position of the Assembly Commission in future proceedings.

 

The Assembly Commission has identified the following points in favour of disclosing the information:

  • Disclosure of information held by public authorities is generally in the public interest in order to promote transparency and accountability.
  • Disclosure of information held by public authorities can aid in understanding the reason why certain decisions were made.

The Assembly Commission has concluded in this case that the public interest in maintaining the section 42 exemption in respect of reports generated for legal proceedings outweighs the general public interest in transparency about the work of public bodies.

 

Question 4

The ongoing deterioration and associated health and safety concerns relate primarily to cracking and spalling of stonework at the rear of the building and in the internal lightwells. Initial mitigation of the health and safety risk was put in place when the issue came to light and included safety cordons and other measures to prevent access to all affected areas. Following that, in the summer of 2024, scaffolding was erected in these areas to facilitate investigatory works and to guard against the potential of falling debris. This also allowed routine building maintenance work to continue.

 

Question 5

This is not a request for information within the meaning of section 84 the FOIA.

 

Question 6

As of 30 January 2025, 119 workers use the 4th floor as their office at work. This is made up of 108 Assembly Commission employees and 11 agency workers. Given flexible working patterns, this does not reflect the actual number of workers on the fourth floor at any one time.

 

Further Information

You have the right to request an internal review of this decision by the Assembly Commission. If you wish to request such a review, please write to me at the above address. If, after that review, you are dissatisfied with the way in which the Assembly Commission has handled your request for information, you may complain to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Your request for information and our response may be published in the disclosure log maintained by the Assembly Commission under a publication scheme agreed with the ICO. The request and our response will be anonymised.

Yours faithfully

INFORMATION STANDARDS