HOSPITALS should be warned of possible increases in accident and emergency cases if school crossing patrols are cut.

The astonishing admission is made in Wirral Council’s own budget “consultation” document.

A section detailing the consequences of scrapping more lollipop men and women states: “While there is no direct impact on partners, any increase in road casualties is likely to have some implications for the emergency services and NHS.”

A councillor today said she is “absolutely appalled” the local authority could even consider pressing ahead with crossing patrol cuts under the clear acknowledgment such a step could lead to road accidents in which school children are hurt.

The proposal to axe more than 40 of Wirral's patrols would save the council £90,000 a year.

Councillor Leah Fraser said: “It is an abhorrent state of affairs when officials are warning their cost-cutting decisions could result in children being injured and their lives being put at risk.

“When I read that statement in the budget documents, I felt sickened.

“This isn’t about cash cuts but about the twisted priorities of this town hall.

"On this occasion, as with the Lyndale School closure last week, it has its priorities all wrong.

“To admit they want to save money this way even though there would be casualties is shameful - especially at a time when they’re spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on refurbishing the town hall”

She added: “We should be cutting the number of councillors not school crossing patrols.

“If it’s a choice between keeping crossing patrols to keep our children safe, and reducing the number of councillors, I know which I would prefer.

“I would ask the chief executive Graham Burgess to explain why reducing the numbers of councillors is not an option for the residents of Wirral in this consultation.”

The council claims it can no longer afford to provide funding for all 102 school crossing patrols across the borough, with Mr Burgess proposing to scrap 41 on existing pedestrian, pelican or puffin crossings.

The proposal, expected to save the council £90,000 next year, is part of a range of cost-saving measures being put forward by Mr Burgess as part of plans to save £18m next year.

Responding to Cllr Fraser's concerns, Mr Burgess said: "Of course children and their safety is at the top of our agenda.

“If their safety was put at risk then we wouldn’t remove them in those areas. If we weren’t doing a risk assessment then that would be a risk but we are and we will mitigate and ensure there is no impact on childrens' safety."