Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 11th October 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Bad for families, students, top companies, pensioners and now Scotland's biggest council – latest blow to SNP's income tax



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 20 June 2008
SCOTLAND'S largest council yesterday became the latest organisation to come out against the Scottish Government's plans for a local income tax.
Glasgow City Council has claimed it would be left with a funding gap of between £60 million and £133 million if the Scottish Government's plans of replacing the council tax with a centrally set 3p additional income tax were to go through.

It has said that, in reality, local income tax would have to be set at 4.5p to pay for the services it needs to provide.

Glasgow City Council joins a growing number of organisations and experts to come out against the local income tax.

This week, the business group CBI Scotland attacked the move, and it has found ill-favour with unions, students, economists, businesses and academics.

Labour has also claimed that more pensioners, who were supposed to be the winners from the local income tax, would be paying than currently pay the council tax.

Their figures show that 339,000 pensioner households pay the council tax, whereas 412,000 pensioners would be billed through the local income tax.

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities will meet on 27 June to discuss the proposal and will probably come out against the idea of the tax being set centrally.

But there was comfort for the Scottish Government from a calculation by Glasgow City Council that 72 per cent of households would be better off if the local income tax was set at 3p, and only 21 per cent of households worse off. But if it were set at 4.5p, 46 per cent would be better off and 47 per cent worse off.

Steven Purcell, the leader of Glasgow City Council, said: "We've taken a long, hard look at this proposed new tax and I simply cannot see how it can be made to work without increasing taxation for a large number of people or drastically cutting council services.

"We will either see cuts of tens, potentially hundreds, of millions of pounds or nearly half of Glaswegians will pay substantially more tax.

"Both outcomes would be a disaster for Scotland's economy."

But a Scottish Government spokesman claimed that the vast majority of Glaswegians supported the 3p local income tax proposal and the abolition of the council tax.

"The council's own figures give the game away," he said. "They show that under a 3 per cent local income tax, the vast majority of Glaswegians would be better off."

BIG NAMES AGAINST THE NEW TAX …

CBI Scotland: "The Scottish Government has failed to make a convincing case for changing the local tax system."

Matt Smith, Scottish secretary for Unison: "The introduction of a further tax on wages will either make many families worse off, or lead to cuts in public services."

Glasgow City Council: "The proposals would lead to a funding gap for Glasgow City Council of between £60 million and £133 million per annum."

Alistair Darling, the Chancellor: "Local income tax would be a disaster for the financial services industry."

Miles Templeman, director-general of the Institute of Directors: "A local tax we think is a risky path that may lead to problems."

James Alexander, president of NUS Scotland: "My concern is that students, who are amongst the poorest people in Scotland, are going to face the prospect of paying local income tax."

Professor Richard Kerley, of Queen Margaret University, expert on local government finance: "The local income tax may be unconstitutional."

Professor Arthur Midwinter, of Edinburgh University, former adviser to the Scottish Parliament's finance committee: "This is the least rigorous set of proposals for local taxation since the community charge green paper in 1986."

Professor David Bell, of Stirling University, an expert in economics: "If you increase income tax through a local income tax, we really don't know – will people jump the Border?"

… AND ITS HIGH-PROFILE SUPPORTER

SNP: "The local income tax is a fair system reflecting individual ability to pay, unlike the unfair and discredited council tax which Labour and the Tories want to keep. It is important to bear in mind that the Scottish Parliament has already voted in favour of the principle of abolishing the council tax."

The full article contains 712 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Embra Don,

20/06/2008 14:49:23
I can scarcely remember such biased piece of propaganda - even in the Scotsman.
2

Richard M,

Scottish Raj 20/06/2008 15:02:43
There are lots of people throughout the whole of the UK who support the principle of a local income tax, and would like to see it succeed in Scotland as a precursor to reform elsewhere. The Tories hate such taxes because they are equitable, easy to implement and difficult to evade. Harder to understand is Labour's opposition - presumably this is because a local income tax is transparent, unlike the Council Tax which over the last 11 years has proven a convenient stealth tax, by virtue of having some many different bands and authorities
3

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 20/06/2008 15:11:08
#2 Richard M

Indeed. However, the LIT proposal is not a local tax - it is an increase in income tax, and an expansion of the executive's centralised authoritarianism. Furthermore, the 3% rate is a lie.
4

Alan B,

20/06/2008 15:17:19
#The Tin Man

How do u work out the 3% as a lie?

It would be political suicide for them to say 3% so prominently then introduce it at a different rate.

It is simply as stated a tax cut over all if they introduce this proposal.
5

Alan B,

20/06/2008 15:19:46
#Richard M

It is easier to evade or avoid income tax than council tax i would have thought.

Anyone getting cash in hand, small businesses etc.
6

The Tin Man,

20/06/2008 15:20:01
#4 Alan B

Go to the Scotttish Gov website and read the LIT consultation paper. It openly admits that 3% is insufficient.
7

The Tin Man,

20/06/2008 15:21:16
LIT is a good idea turned into a dog's breakfast.
8

Alan B,

20/06/2008 15:24:31
Every article i have seen in the scotsman is biased against LIT. While i do not support LIT myself abit less biase would not go amiss.

This article lines up many individual labour people and supporters as being against and then just give the snp as being for LIT. Missing out the fact that labour own coalition partners for the last 8yrs also support LIT.

It does not even state that those mentioned rejecting lit and their links to labour.
9

Alan B,

20/06/2008 15:25:31
#6 The Tin Man

It is a tax cut.
10

Alan B,

20/06/2008 15:26:58
#The Tin Man

While i do not support LIT i cannot see how u can say it is a "dog's breakfast".

11

Alan B,

20/06/2008 15:31:40
#AM2

"Is it “fair” that three or four working people sharing accommodation, thus reducing their use of council services, would pay a lot more?"

Yes

"Is it “fair” that self-employed people would have their earnings taxed in such a way that the harder they work the more local tax they pay in a personal capacity?"

Are u proposing abolishing income tax. As that conceptually is the logical conclusion of this argument.

I understand ur point here, and to a large extent i agree, but the same can be said of council tax. Work hard get a bigger house and then be penalised.

Taking ur point to a logical conclusion then u would go back to the poll tax.


12

Alan B,

20/06/2008 15:36:33
#AM2

The problems i have with council tax

- too high and been rising too fast.
- would rather pay for services when i am working rather than being penalised when i retire. Pensions are in a mess. To retire say at 60 with an income of say 15,000 a year for 20yrs would need to say 300,000. The same for ur wife if she stops working too look after kids etc.

That is particularly difficult given the huge taxation we have. To cover council tax at say 3,000 a yr that would mean having to save an extra 60,000 + an arbitary rises.

- if u are ill u have to sell ur house.


I support a property tax, but would like it reduced say 40%. And i would like those over say 65 to be exempt.

13

Alan B,

20/06/2008 15:39:42
#AM2

I am not defending LIT as u know so ur questions to me to defend it are irrelevent. I support the right of the scottish parliament to implement it if they can get support. Without labour in london withholding money like they did for free personal care.

If i disagree with a poster on a certain point i may question that point.
14

Alan B,

20/06/2008 15:41:23
#16 AM2

"Even if one of the people is 17 years old, say?"

Yes if they are earning over the threashold.

Students are a different matter.

15

Alan B,

20/06/2008 15:42:11
#18 AM2

Probably not as i see myself as centre right economically.

16

Alan B,

20/06/2008 15:48:50
#AM2

"What is it about a LIT which makes its yield so unpredictable? "

Interesting question and not sure the answer u are looking for. But lets say it is because people can lose jobs and hence the taxes they pay when unemployed or less of a growth in employment. Low wages growth and hence taxes.

Not sure if that is what u are looking for as an answer.

While that may make councils income less. Does council tax guard against this? Yes. How? By forcing people to pay a certain amount even if they may find it hard to do so.

Personally in a downturn i would like the government to tighten their belts and not just secure their own income at the expense of the rest of us.

17

Alan B,

20/06/2008 15:50:52
#16 AM2

"heart of my objection to a LIT ...."

i agree and would also add the inability of councils to vary rates. ie do not like central setting.
18

Alan B,

20/06/2008 15:52:05
#22 AM2

Stop this.

i am agreeing with u.
19

Doh,

20/06/2008 16:08:22


LIT is inherently fair.

Local government has to be paid for and LIT is the fairest way to pay for it.

Do you favour a wealth tax based upon one asset class - your home. Why?

Why not cars? wine? art? Why not number of windows?

Everyone needs somewhee to call home and forcing people to sell to pay tax.

Only Labour and the Tories could continue to support such an arbitary way of paying for local government. One which forces people to sell-up just to pay the council tax.

Let us not live in the past, let us make a tax reform that David Cameron would be proud to support in a Britain fit for old Etonians.
20

No 42 days,

20/06/2008 16:10:55
The SNP are just tartan socialists.
21

Raymond Thomas Brooke,

Leven England 20/06/2008 16:12:54
It seems to me that LIT is not that much different to POLL TAX
22

Alan B,

20/06/2008 16:25:59
#29 How?

Poll tax was a flat charge with everyone paying the same amount (there was rebate for some).

LIT is a percentage of ur income. As such completely different.

Poll tax has issues of fairness and problems with non payment that LIT addresses. Although fairness is obviously subjective.
23

Alan B,

20/06/2008 16:27:17
#Doh

"Why not cars?"

There are alot of taxes on cars. VAT, road tax and petrol excise duty.

"wine?"

there is alot of taxes on alcohol too. so not sure what ur point is.

24

Raymond Thomas Brooke,

leven England 20/06/2008 16:32:35
#30 Its the fairness bit
25

David Birse,

Dundee 20/06/2008 16:32:48
What about adding a "Report Unsuitable" link to the actual story itself rather than being able to ask for a ban on the comments. I would like to click on it.

Either that or say:

by David Maddox
Scottish Political Correspondent & Unionist Supporter

This story from the SLABMAN does nothing for readers that want to read the news unbiased and independently. What people must think of the reporting quality of this newspaper outwith the United Kingdom is beyond me?

The line:

...AND ITS HIGH PROFILE SUPPORTER

You forgot to add the Scottish Government at the end of this. Just thought I'd remind you.

Is this Steven Purcell starting the political process early of moving from being a councillor to that of an MSP and openly challenging Wendy Alexander for the leadership of SLAB?

No wonder this paper is in financial trouble!!!!!
26

Doh,

20/06/2008 16:53:37
#31

We do not fund local government from the proceeds of either car tax or alchol duty.

If you are so in favour of a tax on homes then let us have a tax on homes - but it shouldnt be used to fund local government - let us rename to council tax the Whitehall tax - remember it is a Tory tax invented to replace the poll tax.

Labour and the Tories are too scared (of each other) to propose any sensible reforms - it one of the reasons this country doesnt progress much.

We still have an unelected House of Lords - oh and we still have a property tax - a legacy from the days when only ratepayers voted.

Now that is an idea ....

27

Phillip,

20/06/2008 17:12:26
More Liebour propoganda masquerading as a news story.
28

Ford Transit 2.5 Tdi,

20/06/2008 17:18:45
#29 & #32

Low Bridge Warning....Pay the Troll.
29

elizabeth the first ,

20/06/2008 17:32:54
Another unthought out plan by Salmond and co.
30

elizabeth the first ,

20/06/2008 17:48:22
38. Are you a scot? if so,why so rude.
31

elizabeth the first ,

20/06/2008 17:51:09
Mr Salmond is a clever man,except when his ambitions get in the way.
32

Senga Jean,

20/06/2008 17:52:41
The SNP must be doing a wonderful job to arouse this frothing at the mouth Unionist propaganda. The SNP will be saying next that its Scotland's oil? (I forgot. So it is and Westminster is just squandering it)
33

elizabeth the first ,

20/06/2008 17:56:00
42.Dear me,you are very bitter,have you swallowed a bile bottle my dear.
34

ruthie,

alba 20/06/2008 18:22:24
Glasgow council has admitted that council tax has to change.Shame on this rag for this unionist propaganda.
35

elizabeth the first ,

20/06/2008 18:22:51
45. And you sir are obviously a nationalist extremist.
36

brownlie,

20/06/2008 18:34:53
What a surprise that Glasgow's Labour dominated Council oppose LIT without posing an alternative. Possibly this would be cart blanche to increase the Council Tax with no accountability.
37

,

20/06/2008 18:52:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
38

HEN BROON 5,

ALBA being held back by the UK 20/06/2008 18:54:51
Glasgow has one of the highest UK figures for non collection of this unfair tax. Political gerrymandering by the dregs of Labour.
39

beckypumps1,

Fife 20/06/2008 18:56:38
Every story has two sides, This is a shamefull bit of reporting from the Scotsman. Why has it taken so long to open this blog to comment?
40

HEN BROON 5,

ALBA being held back by the UK 20/06/2008 19:03:06
AM2 I would appreciate your opinion on the censoring on this forum. In particular any criticism of your self/ kimba/ Highland Mighty/ and one or two others. Why is it that these posts criticising you and the other monikers are removed and the poster moderated?

I notice that the blue printed box saying reason for removal has been taken away. Do you not think it would be a good idea for the person removing posts to give the reason for it?

Someone did at some time.

Do you not think that giving a reason for removal would help people in there comments and help to dispel the widely held opinion that this forum and the dead tree copy is nothing more than a unionist mouth piece?

I would really appreciate an answer instead of just having this post taken down.
41

HEN BROON 5,

ALBA being held back by the UK 20/06/2008 19:04:36


Scotland would be in budget surplus to the tune of more than £800 million with a "geographical share" of North Sea revenues, official figures today showed.

The Scottish Government today published the Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland report (GERS) which shows government spending in Scotland compared with what is raised.

Today's report is the first to be published under the SNP administration and includes a figure for Scotland's position if it was to receive its share, about 83% according to Aberdeen University experts, of North Sea revenues.

This would see the country's budget surplus stand at £837 million (0.7% of GDP) in 2006/07 - compared with a UK deficit of £4.3 billion.

Finance secretary John Swinney said the report shows the "flow of resources from Scotland to the rest of the UK is some £1.2 billion."

"This year's GERS publication has been informed by an updated and detailed analysis of North Sea revenues by Aberdeen University, enabling a geographical share to be allocated to Scotland's accounts.

"Indeed, as North Sea oil revenues soar, city accountancy firm Grant Thornton estimates that Scotland's surplus would now stand at some £4.4 billlion."

SNP MP Stewart Hosie also welcomed the figures, describing them as "game, set and match for the economics of independence."

“Whilst even GERS shows Scotland would be in a far healthier financial position than the UK as a whole, it is clear that the flow of resources is from Scotland to the rest of the UK, not the other way round," he said.

“The SNP have long known that Scotland could flourish as an independent country, now GERS shows that Scotland would be a prosperous nation with a budget surplus.

“With these figures based on oil prices of only $65 it is abundantly clear that with current prices of over $120 a barrel – meaning an offshore windfall of £4-5 billion this year on top of the £10 billion forecast at the time of the Budget – Scotland’s black gold is plugging t
42

HEN BROON 5,

ALBA being held back by the UK 20/06/2008 19:05:48
“Today’s GERS figures finally put to rest the daft arguments spouted by the London based parties for years. The naysayers and doom-mongers of Scotland’s financial future will need to rethink their position.”

Officials say the figures are the most accurate picture yet of Scotland`s fiscal position, with more than 3000 budget lines having been queried with the Treasury since the last figures were produced.


SEEMS NIALL ALSEN WAS RIGHT AFTER ALL EH AM....


Can you ask why this paper has not reported this?
43

Ford Transit 2.5 Tdi,

20/06/2008 19:29:01
#51
"Why has it taken so long to open this blog to comment?"

Yesterday it was by invitation only....I suppose I should be flattered....Immatation is..and all.

The Scatsman is not ashamed of reporting such as this, they wallow in it like a sex-starved Hippopotamus on Viagra.
44

Col. Blimp­IV*,

20/06/2008 19:29:04
Dear Hootsmon

..........................Why haven't you reported on any of that stuff Hen Broon was telling us about?
45

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

20/06/2008 20:10:43
LIT may be superficially attractive but fails particularly on the keys issues of accountability and efficiency. There is no link between actual taxation and expenditure because local councils won't actually set the LIT rate.

Local Councils will have absolutely no incentive to cut local expenditure. It eliminates any motivation for fiscal prudence and effective local government. The critical financial relationship between electors and local government would vanish. In reality we would be burdened in perpetuity with the present high levels of local expenditure. Even if a local council managed to achieve efficiency savings there would be no mechanism of repatriating said savings to taxpayers.
46

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

20/06/2008 20:11:23
I should add that I don't particularly support the retention of Council tax either.

It at the very least needs reforming if not replaced.

Certainly an argument could be made to bring in more directed assistance for groups such as pensioners who have been worst affected by Council Tax. A case could also be made for more frequent, independent revaluations. It would be far better than the nonsense of basing bands on notional 1991 values.

Personally though I would rather have a complete rethink over local taxation and there are definitely more radical alternatives out there such a local sales tax or a local wealth tax.

Whatever system is put in place must, in my opinion, strengthen not lessen the accountability role of local taxation. However it is because the financial and functional relationship between central, Scottish and local government is so intertwined that accountability is a real problem.

In truth, since and before devolution, Scottish and central government has habitually managed its own expenditure by forcing local government to take on Scottish and central government responsibilities. Consequently, many Scottish Councils have had to raise Council tax year after year to cope with these increased financial pressures.

It is this deep-seated dilemma that must be dealt with if any logical system for local government finances is to be created. The functions and finances of local government must be divorced from those of the Scottish and central Governments.

One could argue that the problem is not Council Tax per se but much more fundamental and deep-rooted problems.
47

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

20/06/2008 20:15:32
#53 My understanding is, and correct me if I am wrong, is that a surplus of around £4.4 billion per annum could exist at current market prices. This sounds great until you compare it to the surplus of around £44 billion that Norway will generate in the current year.
48

Conan the Librarian™,

20/06/2008 20:43:43
59
Evening Fed.
And you are still not a Nationalist:-)
49

Encarta,

20/06/2008 23:28:34
Here we go again.
50

Fifi la Bonbon,

21/06/2008 00:40:50
Och, these are mere quibblings from old fashioned fuddy duddies, with no patriotic sense. True Scots must ignore their traitorous pettifogging ways.

They talk of "statistics," "spending cuts" and "funding gaps" but we must ignore their special pleading in favour of wealthy special interest groups like "students" and "pensioners."

If the policies of the Scottish Nationalists were going to lead to spending cuts we would have seen this happening by now.

And we haven't, have we?
51

Col. Blimp­IV*,

21/06/2008 00:54:49
Oh...you have "fixed it", well done!

Carry on Techies.
52

democracy,

Scottish Borders 21/06/2008 16:16:44
Thank God! Its now clear that the status quo council tax is by far the best way forward and NOT the SNP's attempt to make it a fairer system, so now we move forward, safe in the knowledge that it will continue to be only the poorest in society that suffers, so now back to normal again, instead of us ALL suffering, thank you and goodnight!!
53

democracy,

Scottish Borders 21/06/2008 16:20:50
Have you noticed,it is always Unionist parties that want the poorest to suffer the most and ironically it is the poorest in society who vote Labour? interesting eh!!!
54

,

21/06/2008 17:57:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
55

,

21/06/2008 18:10:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
56

MisterN,

Scotland 23/06/2008 10:31:59
10

Unfair council tax because unlike LIT it is not fundamental to the principle of ability to pay but a home tax. With LIT if you dont earn it you dont pay it.

why should people pay LIT on savings there is already a saving tax regime in place taxing savings are you suggesting savings should be taxed twice?

Is it “fair” that an ordinary working couple living in a band D house and earning £24,000 each would pay more?

Why would anybody earning combined salaries of 48000 live in a band D property? and what happens to this band D property when property banding is reassesed?
It will become a band G property overnight and see a doubling of their council tax. I bet right then they would want to pay the LIT instead.

Is it “fair” that three or four working people sharing accommodation, thus reducing their use of council services, would pay a lot more?

How does sharing accomodation reduce the use of public services? and of course it would all depend on how much their earned and with no property tax a new incentive is born for them to find their own homes isnt there?

Is it “fair” that self-employed people would have their earnings taxed in such a way that the harder they work the more local tax they pay in a personal capacity

So you think taxation should not be based on the ability to pay or affordabilty then? so you think its "fairer" to tax people irrespective of how much they earn or fail to earn?

Is it “fair” that people could evade LIT by setting up limited companies and deriving much of their income through share dividends?

People are already avoiding income tax council tax savings tax etc etc why should LIT be any different?
Not a good arguement against a particular tax when all taxation methods have the same flaw.

Finally, I’m not alone in thinking this way. The 2006 Local Government Finance Review said: “A local income tax might be less 'fair', its yield would be less predictable and it would place a major administrative burden on tax
57

MisterN,

Scotland 23/06/2008 10:34:30
10 contd

Finally, I’m not alone in thinking this way. The 2006 Local Government Finance Review said: “A local income tax might be less 'fair', its yield would be less predictable and it would place a major administrative burden on taxpayers, employers, local and central government ... Property taxes are better suited for use as a local tax than income tax.”

This is a party political opinion not a fact.
Everybody is entitled to one even you unfortunately however some of us choose not to abuse this right by telling party political porkies.
58

MisterN,

Scotland 23/06/2008 10:42:26
57

Subjective opinion with no facts to support it no wonder youre ashamed to admit youre a unionist or let me guess you are another AM2 account?
Neither the poll tax nor the council tax where by any standards accountable or efficient.
You could avoid the poll tax by not registering to vote and the council taxation values changes on a daily basis with fluctuating house prices.
LIT is set and taken from sourse making it more difficult to avoid so your efficiency and accountablity arguement is bogus as is your claim to be a Federalist.
If you have nothing to contribute then contribute nothing and stop wasting posting space which could be better utilised with proper debate and arguement.
59

MisterN,

Scotland 23/06/2008 10:44:37
59

Norway produces oil from 85 production assets the UK has over 250 so somebody somewhere is telling porkies
and youre helping to spread them.
60

Sanny,

Upwey 09/07/2008 10:48:11
LIT;Poll Tax; Income Tax; VAT etc., etc.,
Let’s get back to basics: -
We need the provision of various services: Water, Sewerage, Health Care, Law Enforcement, Defence etc., etc.

These services need to be paid for and over the years we have had the introduction of a plethora of variously described taxes to cover these costs. Hence our Tax System, like Topsy – just growed! It is now past time that we sat down and re-thought the entire tax system and the best way of collecting same. I believe the current cost of collecting taxes runs at around 48p in the pound! Scope for savings anyone?

With the exception of those whose greed blinds then it is normally accepted that taxes should be based on ability to pay. In the idealised world; each according to their ability and each to according to ability. So why not abolish ALL the various taxes and replace them with a single tax. This is the basis of the well tried system of FLAT RATE TAX. You pay a flat rate on you total income from ALL sources. It is a simple system that is cheap to operate and hence it is efficient. Tax avoidance is extremely difficult and relatively simple to spot. Also we all know what percentage of our money the Government is spending.

Central government would then distribute funds to where they were required and in accordance with an open and agreed formula. Councils would receive funds and prepare a budget accordingly. The council expenditure and management would be subject to independent and public audit.

Such a system makes it extremely difficult to engage in dodgy practices. It could encourage the general populace to become more interested in how our money is spent and on whom it is spent. It would make the abuses of the outgoing MP of Glasgow East and the current alleged abuse of power in Paddy’s market more difficult to set up and easier to find. We may even find an improvement in honesty in Public Service.
61

Sanny,

Upwey 09/07/2008 10:49:52
Sorry " Each according to Need and each according to ability"

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Web Links:

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.