A MOTION calling for council officers to produce a report focused on the hardship to Worcester families and vulnerable individuals “due to the roll out of Universal Credit”, and exploring setting up a support fund, has been passed by city councillors.

There was a lengthy debate on the motion at the latest full council meeting held at the Guildhall on Tuesday night.

Under the Universal Credit scheme six different types of benefits are being rolled into one monthly payment as the government designed to make the system simpler.

But it has come under fire nationally with critics highlighting cases it which claimants would be worse off.

The motion, proposed by Labour councillor Lynn Denham, said: “Worcester City Council is concerned that the roll out of Full Service Universal Credit in Worcester will cause hardship. Council further notes that as many as 6,600 local families, including 11,300 children, will be affected by the roll out of Universal Credit in Worcester."

The motion called for a report back to the next available communities committee looking at the introduction of a fund of up to £50,000 that could support struggling households, within three days, and draw up a plan to monitor the impact of the roll out of Universal Credit in the city.

Cllr Denham stressed it was not about "political points scoring" but Conservative councillor Chris Mitchell hit out at some of the comments, saying: "Some of the comments sound good in the press. Everyone can have children, that's good, but we can't expect the state to pay for them."

Council Councillor Marc Bayliss said we recognised there were undoubtedly issues with Universal Credit and said he wanted the issue to be one of the bigger, bipartisan ideas people could agree on.

Councillor Richard Udall, the seconder to the motion, said there was universal support for the principal of Universal Credit but not when it was used to make cuts and was not helping people.

He added some councillors were "indifferent to individual suffering".

Cllr Tom Collins added: "This (proposed) hardship fund is not charity - its a reasonable measure."

The motion was put to the vote and passed 18 votes to 17.