Councillor claims funding cut for Wirral's school crossing patrols could be 'legally flawed'

Funding cut for Wirral's school crossing patrols could be 'legally flawed'

Funding cut for Wirral's school crossing patrols could be 'legally flawed'

First published in News
Last updated
Wirral Globe: Photograph of the Author by , Senior Reporter

A SENIOR Wirral councillor is calling on schools and governors to fight against plans to pull out of funding crossing patrols.

In a series of emails to the council’s legal officers and chief executive, Liberal Democrat Stuart Kelly points out that legally, the duty to provide and fund 'lollipop' crossing patrols rests with the council and not school governors.

However the council's chief executive says legal advice has assured him the move would be lawful.

The proposal to cut funding was discussed in recent budget deliberations as Wirral Council tried to reduce spending by £27.5m. The authority will ask schools to consider funding the patrols themselves.

But Oxton Cllr Kelly believes this proposal could be legally flawed.

He said: “The legal regulations governing school spending explicitly state that schools’ education budgets can’t be used to pay for services that the council should be providing itself – such as school crossing patrols.

“Despite this, Wirral Council is still trying to force our schools into using money that is intended to be spent on educating children to pick up the bill for the council’s own road safety responsibilities.

“It seems to me that the law explicitly forbids using a school’s budget for this purpose.

“In 2011 Dorset County Council tried the same trick, but Dorset’s schools rightly refused, the council was forced to back down and the crossing patrols stayed."

He added: “This matter needs to be discussed by Wirral’s schools forum and governing bodies as a matter of urgency.

“I call on the schools forum and governors to resist and not lose any of the money intended to provide an education for Wirral’s children.”

But Wirral Council chief executive Graham Burgess told the Globe he believes the option is legally sound.

He said: “Wirral Council’s grant will have been reduced by central Government by more than 50% by 2014/15 at the same time as demand for critical services is increasing.

“Given this massive funding reduction, some really tough decisions have to be taken.

“In this case, we have been talking not just to the schools forum but to every school affected to explore alternative funding options.

“We have taken legal advice and are confident that this option is legal.

“The safety of children is paramount and we will continue discussions with everyone affected.”

Comments (3)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:21pm Mon 13 Jan 14

uncatom says...

Hmm, if you complain to the school about the behaviour of pupils outside of school premises they will tell you behaviour outside of school is not their problem, so if they are not responsible for pupils behaviour, how are they responsible for school crossing arrangements? who is responsible for road markings, signage and speed restrictions adjacent to schools? perhaps Mr Burgess can explain to us why he thinks the considerable cost for a fire escape and his refurbished office are worth more than the lives of our children.
Hmm, if you complain to the school about the behaviour of pupils outside of school premises they will tell you behaviour outside of school is not their problem, so if they are not responsible for pupils behaviour, how are they responsible for school crossing arrangements? who is responsible for road markings, signage and speed restrictions adjacent to schools? perhaps Mr Burgess can explain to us why he thinks the considerable cost for a fire escape and his refurbished office are worth more than the lives of our children. uncatom
  • Score: 5

3:22pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Growl Tiger says...

Mr Burgess recently stated “We therefore need to spend less on ourselves in order to help mitigate the impact of cuts on our most vulnerable residents”. I presumed by this he meant less on councillors expenses, less on salaries, less on perks, less on pay offs, secrecy agreements, outside legal fees and refurbishment of office suites.

There has been no evidence to date of any cut backs in these areas. However, meals on wheels has been cut, there are threats to close Lyndale School and the removal of budgets for school crossing patrols.

What he says in theory is poles apart from his actions. The vulnerable are being hit the hardest whilst those in power in WBC “Carry on Regardless”!
Mr Burgess recently stated “We therefore need to spend less on ourselves in order to help mitigate the impact of cuts on our most vulnerable residents”. I presumed by this he meant less on councillors expenses, less on salaries, less on perks, less on pay offs, secrecy agreements, outside legal fees and refurbishment of office suites. There has been no evidence to date of any cut backs in these areas. However, meals on wheels has been cut, there are threats to close Lyndale School and the removal of budgets for school crossing patrols. What he says in theory is poles apart from his actions. The vulnerable are being hit the hardest whilst those in power in WBC “Carry on Regardless”! Growl Tiger
  • Score: 6

5:10pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Joeblogg85 says...

The brown stuff will be all over the place as soon as someone gets hurt. It's another PR disaster! Attack the poor lollies as they are an easy target. Shame on you Wirral!
The brown stuff will be all over the place as soon as someone gets hurt. It's another PR disaster! Attack the poor lollies as they are an easy target. Shame on you Wirral! Joeblogg85
  • Score: 3

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree