MOTIONS for the Government to scrap planned tolls on the Mersey bridges and to review its budget were passed at Monday's council meeting at the Town Hall.

Cllr Dan Price (LAB - Great Sankey North) proposed the first motion concerning a move to scrap the proposed tolls which will affect Warrington drivers using the current Silver Jubilee Bridge and new Mersey Gateway Crossing unless the Government makes a U-turn.

"With the planned introduction of tolling, this Government is willing to cripple our transport system,"he said.

"Whichever Government there is, I will continue to tirelessly campaign against these tolls."

Cllr Brian Axcell (LD - Appleton) accused the council of trying to 're-write history', while Warrington South's Liberal Democrat candidate, Bob Barr, questioned Labour's commitment to the move.

"Instead of collecting hundreds of signatures on a petition, the Labour candidate for Warrington South needs only to collect two," he said.

"Commitments from the leader of his party and the shadow chancellor to remove tolls if they win the election - in the absence of these all we are seeing is political posturing which the public will see through."

After the motion was passed, Cllr Chris Vobe (LAB - Culcheth, Glazebury and Croft) proposed the need to call on the Government and the chancellor to review its budget.

In his last council speech before the elections he criticised the budget which 'made no mention whatsoever of investment in our NHS'.

He added: "We’ve heard not a peep from opposition councillors, nor from the chancellor, on why waiting times are drastically up, why Warrington’s GP numbers have dropped so dramatically, and why people across this town are struggling to get even the most basic of appointments."

Liberal Democrat leader, Ian Marks, said his party was 'somewhat perplexed' to know how the measures in the budget were going to have a 'disproportionate effect' on poorer families in the town.

Despite abstentions from Conservative and Liberal Democrat councillors, the motion was passed.

Ahead of the two passed motions, the council rejected a motion to suspend its constitution in order to have an hour for questions from councillors, instead of 30 minutes.

Of the 22 questions submitted, seven were heard, after which Cllr Kevin Bennett (TUSC - Fairfield and Howley) accused the council of putting a 'time limit on democracy'.

He said: "As an elected member, it is my duty to challenge poor decisions by the council and ask questions on important topics like the state of our bus service and the quality of life residents in this town have.

"Members should have the opportunity to put their questions to the council and get answers. This makes a mockery of the pledge by Labour that they are open and transparent."

In response, Cllr Hitesh Patel, executive member for personnel and communications, said: "The council's constitution, which all the political parties have approved, explicitly allows for 30 minutes for questions from elected members and that is usually enough.

"In the past when it has proved inadequate the executive board of the day would have provided written responses and that will happen on this occasion too."