It’s been revealed that Bristol could lose all of its lollipop ladies and men as the city council aims to cut costs. As part of ongoing budget negotiations, the intentions to “remove funding” from school crossing patrols come April have emerged. Bristol Live readers are concerned for children’s safety on the roads.
Bristol’s lollipop staff recently received letters indicating they are “at risk” of redundancy, causing concern among parents. The city council’s measures would contribute to a £314,000 annual saving – a small fraction of the extensive £52million budget deficit anticipated over the forthcoming half-decade.
Outraged by the proposal, one parent from Bridge Farm Primary School in Whitchurch objected, calling the scheme “absolute insanity”. She stated: “We have three lollipop ladies at our school, and this would be a huge loss. It is an absolutely shameful move by the council. These people’s roles are so important to ensuring the safety of children.”
Bristol Labour group leader, Cllr Tom Renhard, expressed his concern over the Green Party’s plans to scrap school crossing patrols, stating: “One serious injury on Bristol’s roads is one too many. We are deeply concerned that Green Party plans to scrap school crossing patrols will put children in harm’s way.”
A report presented to the sub-committee revealed a looming £42million funding shortfall for the next year, which could escalate to £110million in five years, primarily due to demands from adults’ and children’s social care. Council leader Cllr Tony Dyer (Green, Southville) warned of potential bankruptcy if the council fails to bridge this financial gap, necessitating tough decisions.
The council had previously proposed cutting lollipop patrols in 2018 but faced widespread opposition. It was decided to retain only school crossing patrols at locations without a traffic light crossing or a zebra crossing.
The Local Democracy Reporting Service has stated that discussions between the council and schools regarding individual patrols are still underway.
Commenter Bearfruit says: “My daughters’ school doesn’t have a lollipop person. I doubt it would be very effective though due to the amount of traffic and inconsiderate/dangerous parking. ALL of the drivers are doing the school run. If any child gets hit by a car, it will be by another parent, probably in the same year group or class. I’ve seen several near misses and had a few myself. We’ve raised it with the school but they do nothing about it. The road just needs to be closed to traffic (with the obvious exceptions still permitted). Also on the rare occasion there is a traffic warden it’s incredible how much safer and less congested it is, because people don’t park in stupid places.”
Hhyde asks: “Why is everyone acting as this is a major loss? Sure, having lollipop patrols is nice, but we cannot afford it. This isn’t a political party issue. It is the fact that council staff are seeking to cut back to the bone to avoid Section 114, effective BCC bankruptcy. So, you can comment about how lovely these people are, which I am sure is true, but are you willing to increase the tax you pay for the luxury of having them? If not, then are you willing to reduce the spending on adult and child social care? Either way, there is a risk of death and injury. So, what are we going to cut or what are we going to pay?”
Bs3bob is outraged: “”Nice” you are having a laugh aren’t you? They can be essential for children’s safety. Cut the management at the council first before the funding for lollipop people.”
Fisherman19 thinks: “Lollipop people have to be the cheapest way of keeping our kids safe and promoting community unity. This council of ours has proven themselves to be out of touch and penny pinching.”
Redcoat points out: “If the police were to patrol outside the schools at about 8.15 to 9.00 they could get a fair bit of revenue from fining all those that park on double yellow lines, all those whizzing past on privately owned electric scooters, and people speeding at more than 20. That might help pay for a few lollipop personnel. I think there could be more accidents in injuries and even deaths, as the lollipop people do see some horrendous driving behaviour.”
Ezergood says: “No one to protect schoolchildren from motorists..”
Berklicker replies: “The inability to safely cross the road is not the motorists’ fault. Stop, look and listen! I learned the green cross code as a small child and it’s not hard to remember. Are children taught that today? People need to learn to take more responsibility for themselves.”
Junius1 states: “It just doesn’t do for Labour councillors to play politics over this budget to stave off bankruptcy, given the profligate spending on controversial projects under the previous mayoral administration. Perhaps Labour councillors can assure Bristol that it will get a financial settlement from the government which will offset the need to make these cuts? In any case, BCC needs to be upfront now, given the relatively small sums these individual service cuts appear to save, about the likely increase in council tax it will be seeking to levy for 2025/26.”
Do you think lollipop personnel are essential to children’s safety? Should money be found to keep them? Have your say in our comments section.