London Underground fails in bid to stop mobile mast by citing terrorism concerns

A specialist tribunal judge has said that telecommunications engineers should be given access to the roof of a building used by London Underground despite the transport company saying it had concerns about terrorism and sabotage. Hutchison 3G and EE have been asking a judge to rule that London Underground must give them access to the rooftop so they can make a “multi-skilled visit” to see if it is suitable to site telecommunications equipment. The companies have recently been told to clear a nearby roof that has equipment that provides coverage for 2G, 3G and 4G signals for the EE network, and for 3G and 4G signals for the Hutchison 3G network. According to an Upper Tribunal judgment, the companies say that if this coverage is not replaced then their customers will experience “a significant reduction in service and an increased number of dropped calls”. “Customers will be unable to make use of data services and, they say, there would be an impact on the performance of the emergency services communications network supported by EE,” the judgment says. However, at a hearing last month, lawyers for London Underground made clear their own concerns about allowing access to the site. According to the judgment, representatives of London Underground “referred to briefings which London Underground receives from the security services concerning threats to its network and to instructions from the secretary of state which it is required to implement to protect the security of critical national infrastructure”. “The building contains infrastructure which is critical to the operation of the London Underground network. If that infrastructure was subject to physical attack or sabotage, then the consequences would be extremely serious,” the companies said. They also commented that “London Underground is fearful that someone coming into the building might insert a USB stick into a computer and either download some critical information or upload some virus, or otherwise do some mischief”. London Underground said that there would still be a risk even if the staff from the telecoms companies were security-vetted and escorted by London Underground staff, because “everyone employed by London Underground in the building is already fully employed, and any diversion of their attention to supervising non-critical third-party access to the roof would detract from their primary tasks of looking after the security and functioning of the London Underground network”. In his ruling the tribunal judge, Martin Rodger QC, said that it was his role to balance the benefit to the public of allowing the visit against the “prejudice” it could cause to the building’s owner. He said that, while he took the concerns raised by London Underground’s lawyer “seriously… I nevertheless do not accept that the risks of the sort he describes are incapable of being addressed by appropriate conditions”. The judge added: “I accept that a significant diversion of staff away from their normal duties could potentially create a risk elsewhere, but no significant diversion is being proposed. All that is sought is access to the building for short periods of time on a limited number of occasions on notice, and I do not accept that that is likely to cause a diversion of resources sufficient to create any risk to the security of the building or other parts of the network. “The solution to London Underground’s concerns is prior security vetting and proper supervision of those visiting the building, at the claimants’ expense.” EE Ltd and Hutchison 3G UK Ltd v London Underground Ltd Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (Martin Rodger QC, deputy chamber president) 1 June 2021 Photo © Global Warming Images/REX/Shutterstock