EA Reduces number of Lock keepers

[Alan de Enfield]

The number of seasonal lock keepers on the River Thames has been slashed by over half.

The Environment Agency (EA) are bringing in ten extra members of staff to man the locks in Oxfordshire and Berkshire, compared the previous 24.

 

One company that offers river cruising and boat hire on the Thames said the change was a "backwards step".

But the EA said it did not have specific funding for the roles, and it was not part of its statutory duties.

Jonathan Hobbs is the managing director of Hobbs of Henley, which offers river cruising and boat hire on the Thames.

He said: "Filling a lock efficiently and quickly is important for the customers enjoyment of pleasure boating, and for health and safety as well."

"If a lock keeper has a holiday, sometimes those locks can go unmanned and then people have paid money to rent a boat, and they've spent a lot of their time queueing to go through it, and then queueing to come back through it to get back to Henley - so it negates their positive experience of the Thames, and they're more likely not to come back."

He added: "We've been investing heavily in new boats. That results in increased licence fees for the Environment Agency, so increased revenue, but we're feeling a little betrayed by the lack of service given back."

 

In the past, the EA has used 24 temporary lock keepers between May and October to deal with the increased traffic on the waterways during summer.

They work alongside a team of volunteer assistants to make sure the traffic can flow smoothly.

Eight of the ten temporary lock keepers will work in Oxfordshire, with the other two in Berkshire.

In a statement, the EA said: "Over the years we've employed around 24 seasonal lock keepers during the annual boating season on temporary contracts through an employment agency. We have never had specific funding for these posts and providing these additional personnel for assisted passage at locks is not part of the Environment Agency's statutory duties."

It added: "We have conducted a review of where our funds will be best spent, which we will share with our stakeholders shortly. We have worked with our lock keepers throughout this process and we will continue to work with them and support them whilst implementing these changes."

[booke23]

.

Edited May 3 by booke23

[blackrose]

This has been happening for many years so isn't really new news. Wages are one of the biggest costs of any organisation so it's no surprise they cut staff when they're under funding pressure.

Edited May 4 by blackrose

[Tonka]

1 hour ago, blackrose said:

This has been happening for many years so isn't really new news. Wages are one of the biggest costs of any organisation so it's no surprise they cut staff when they're under funding pressure.

But the old Summerhand position which was paid and used to attract a lot of younger people was scrapped and replaced with volunteers. Is this not them that the article is referring to

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, Tonka said:

But the old Summerhand position which was paid and used to attract a lot of younger people was scrapped and replaced with volunteers. Is this not them that the article is referring to

 

I read it as they are paid, temporary lock keepers, who have volunter lock assistants working with them.

 

Over the years we've employed around 24 seasonal lock keepers during the annual boating season on temporary contracts through an employment agency. We have never had specific funding for these posts and providing these additional personnel for assisted passage at locks is not part of the Environment Agency's statutory duties."

[magnetman]

26 minutes ago, Tonka said:

But the old Summerhand position which was paid and used to attract a lot of younger people was scrapped and replaced with volunteers. Is this not them that the article is referring to

No it wasn't scrapped. Last year the EA had 24 paid summer assistants. This year it will be 10. Volunteers are in addition to these but volunteers are not authorised to operate the lock on keeper power (faster movement of traffic) without a paid lock keeper on site. 

 

 

 

 

So the result will be more times when locks will be unmanned and operated on public power which results in slower movement of traffic due to the timers and the likelihood of a random Boat owner being less efficient at packing the lock chamber than a lock keeper. 

 

 

 

 

An interesting question arises. 

 

If the lock is being operated on public power and there is a terrible accident in which several children are killed in awfully undescribable ways (chopped up by propellers, throttled by taut lines and struck by flying bollards etc) would the person operating the lock controls be liable? 

 

As someone who is generally selected to operate locks 'he knows how it works' I am interested to know what the legal position would be if I inadvertently killed other people's children.

 

A lock keeper is presumably insured. 

 

 

[Paul C]

Liable for what? You can't replace a child. It would be whoever was negligent.

[magnetman]

I mean an untrained individual operating lock controls. If someone drowned in the locking procedure and the person operating the sluices did not notice them going into the water and carried on with the lock cycle there could be a claim. 

 

People do fall in from time to time. 

 

 

 

 

[Paul C]

It would be whoever is negligent.

[magnetman]

Yes. If it is a lock keeper then there will be public liability insurance. 

[Paul C]

A boater would also be insured.