FOI 49-25: Information in regards to a comprehensive breakdown of all costs relating to the Stormont roof repairs

3 October 2025
Our ref: FoI 49-25

I am writing to confirm that the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission (Assembly Commission) has processed your request dated 7 August 2025 in line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The information is correct as at 31 July 2025.

 

Questions 1 and 2: A comprehensive breakdown of all costs incurred to date in relation to the Stormont roof repairs, across seven sub-headings.

 

Amount paid	Costs incurred to date	Amount paid to date	Costs expected to be paid	Paid by
(i) Scaffolding	£185,067	£122,624	£62,443	Assembly Commission
(ii) Construction or remedial works	0	0	Commercially Sensitive (see below)	Assembly Commission
(iii) Professional and consultancy fees	£134,172	£82,110	£52,062	Assembly Commission
(iv) Internal project management or staff costs	£100,602	£100,6021	N/A	Assembly Commission
(v) Temporary mitigation or safety measures	Scaffolding only – see (i) above.	N/A	N/A	Assembly Commission
(vi) Legal and expert witness costs and expenses	£333,067	£333,067	N/A	Assembly Commission2
(vii) Any other relevant costs	0	0	N/A

¹ Costs relate to dedicated Assembly Commission project management staffing. Other staffing support is provided through the normal operational duties of Assembly Commission employees.

² The Assembly Commission cannot disclose the contribution (if any) made by third parties to these costs– see paragraph 1 of question 3.

 

The Assembly Commission considers estimated costs for construction and remedial works to be exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) of the FOIA (commercial interests). Section 43(2) 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.

There is a strong public interest in private companies being able to compete in a commercial market on a level playing field, and disclosure of the withheld information, which would be likely to prejudice that ability to compete, would undermine that public interest.

There is a strong public interest in ensuring that the ability of the Assembly Commission to secure value for public money is not undermined and that the integrity of a future procurement processes is protected.

There is a significant public interest in ensuring proper scrutiny of the Assembly

Commission’s spend of public money and therefore a significant public interest in ensuring that its commercial activities are conducted in an open and transparent way using appropriate procurement processes.

However, the Assembly Commission ensures transparency and accountability in spending public money through proactive publication of tenders and their contract value on our website. This maximizes transparency while minimizing prejudice to the commercial interests of the Assembly Commission and the bidding contractor.

The Assembly Commission has concluded that In this case the public interest in disclosure is out-weighed by the public interest in maintaining the exemption.

 

Question 3: The total amount recovered or reimbursed by any third party, including Hamilton Architects, Tracey Brothers, insurers, or others, whether through legal proceedings, negotiated settlement, or otherwise.

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. No public interest test is applied to information exempt under section 32(1)(a).

Regulatory obligations require some information about the agreement to be disclosed as part of the Assembly Commission’s accounts. This information is exempt from disclosure under section 21 of the FOIA as it is reasonably accessible by other means. It can be accessed at page 111 of the Assembly Commission’s Annual Resources Accounts for the Year Ended 31 March 2025.

 

Question 4: The total cost still outstanding, if any, and the best available estimate of such costs.

The total cost to carry out repairs to the roof is not held. A agreed estimate of these costs is not held. A public procurement process in which tenderers are invited to undertake the first stage of this work is underway.

 

Question 5: The final or estimated net cost to the public purse, taking account of all costs incurred and all amounts recovered from third parties.

This information is not held.

 

Question 6: Any internal records or financial documentation (appropriately redacted where necessary) which record the amounts paid and who bore each cost, including records of any agreement reached with third parties regarding payments.

Some information contained in internal records within the scope of the request is exempt from disclosure under section 41 of the FOIA. These records contain information received by the Assembly Commission from one or more third parties in circumstances where the disclosure of that information would constitute a breach of confidence actionable at the suit of the third party or another person. No public interest test is applied to information exempt under section 41 of the FOIA.

Information contained in internal records to which section 41 of the FOIA does not apply are exempt from disclosure under section 42 of the FOIA (legal professional privilege). This is because it is information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings, since it was generated in the course of legal proceedings.

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.

In considering the public interest, the Assembly Commission has considered the public

interest in maintaining the exemption, noting that a client’s ability to speak freely, frankly and openly with their legal adviser is a fundamental requirement of the legal system and the administration of justice. This extends to a party’s exchanges with experts and expert reports and analysis prepared for the Assembly Commission for the purposes of legal proceedings. The ICO has recognised that there is a strong element of public interest inbuilt into maintaining and safeguarding legal professional privilege itself.

The Assembly Commission has considered the public interest in disclosure, noting the public interest in the promotion of transparency and accountability. Disclosure of information held by public authorities can aid in understanding the reason why certain decisions were made. The Assembly Commission considers that the public interest in these matters can be adequately met by the information contained in this response and published elsewhere without disclosure of legally privileged information.

The Assembly Commission has concluded in this case that the public interest in maintaining the exemption in relation to the information that is subject to legal professional privilege outweighs the general public interest in disclosure.

 

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.