ENVIRONMENT Agency bosses have announced recently that manned locks (manned by non-residential lock-keepers) had a better “feel” than locks with residential lock-keepers, even though health and safety was better where residential lock-keepers were present.

I am interested to know the exact measures that were used to determine this announcement by the agency.

We know that the agency seems hell bent on doing away with residential lock keepers and this is the third such study that it has commissioned in the last few years.

Their primary objective is to justify the selling off or renting out of lock-keepers’ accommodation, which, in our view, provides the public and the river with the maximum level of protection and quick response intervention.

However, the agency fails to give readers clear and concise empirical evidence to support their premise that manned locks are simply just as good as residential ones.

The study carried out by the agency only looks at a very small sample of locks and fails to appreciate the massive work carried out by residential lock-keepers right along the Thames, during both bad weather and serious flooding earlier this year.

It’s pretty obvious that this just shows more incidents get reported when there is a residential lock keeper on the site. Shouldn’t a study try to show the number of incidents that are prevented by having lock-keepers on site?

The GMB trade union is currently carrying out its own research into the amount of incidents up and down the Thames. It has said it will happily share this with the public when it is completed.

How many boats avoid getting stuck on sand banks because the lock keepers tell them where they are? How many people avoid a bump on the head because there is someone there to help out? How many lives are saved by lock-keepers?

These are the fundamental questions that the Environment Agency needs to answer.

Maybe they should leave the river to be run by people who know what they are doing.

Frank Minal, GMB Union, Queen Mary Avenue, Basingstoke