Savjani v Commissioners of Inland Revenue

Mr. Prabhudas Savjani was bom in India. He came to this country in 1970. He is married. His wife came from Kenya. They have a son, born on the 15th May, 1976 at the Royal Infirmary at Leicester. He is named Neil Prabhudas Savjani. His mother registered his birth. She was given a short certificate of birth. It only gave the name of the child, its sex and the date of birth.

The father was entitled to tax relief in respect of his child. That is provided by section 10 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, which says:

"If the claimant proves—(a) that there is living at any time within the year of assessment a child of his…he shall…be entitled…to a deduction from the amount of income tax with which he is chargeable"—or in a proper case repayment of tax which he has already paid.

So Mr. Savjani would be entitled to tax relief in respect of this child. He went along to the office of the Inspector of Taxes in Leicester. At that office there are ample facilities for people to obtain advice and information as to their tax position. There were five interview booths in this particular room at Lillie House in Leicester. Chairs were provided for members of the public waiting to be interviewed. In another room there were two interview booths and chairs for members of the public. We have been shown a series of pamphlets which have been issued by the income tax authorities in which they give advice as to the relief different categories of claimants are entitled to. On the back of the pamphlet entitled "Income Tax PAYE" there is a notice saying:

" Remember—if you want help ask at any tax office or PAYE Enquiry Office. You will find addresses in the telephone book under 'Inland Revenue'".

Mr. Savjani went to the office of the Inspector of Taxes on the 26th November, 1976 in order to claim tax relief in respect of his son. He took the short form of birth certificate. A clerk looked up a file and found that Mr. Savjani, the father of the child, had been born at Kanakpur in India. Thereupon the clerk said to him, "It is no good your bringing the short form of birth certificate which only gives the name and sex of the child and the date of birth: you must bring the full birth certificate which gives the name of the child's father and mother and where they came from".

Mr. Savjani said that—when he was told that—he felt very humiliated and upset: because he knew that, if he had been born in England, he would not have had to produce a full birth certificate in regard to his child. The short form would have been sufficient—which cost him nothing. But the full birth certificate cost £2.50. So Mr. Savjani paid £2.50 and got the full birth certificate and produced it to the revenue authorities. When he did so, he was granted relief and received a repayment of tax.

The matter was taken up by the Commission for Racial Equality. They said that the officers of the Inland Revenue had been guilty of unlawful discrimination contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976. An agreed statement of facts was put before the judge: and has now been put before us. I will read the material paragraph from the agreed facts which the Commissioners said was their policy:

"At all material times the Defendants had a policy in relation to the proof of claims that each taxpayer originating from the Indian sub-Continent (including one who had come to the United Kingdom from another country such as Kenya) when claiming tax relief for the first time for a child born in the United Kingdom should be required to produce a certified copy of the entry in the Register of Birth relating to such child in proof of his claim. Normally, and as a general rule, such certified copies were not required from other claimants for this relief. This requirement was embodied in written instructions issued by the Inland Revenue Officers".

So it is plain that instructions went out from the Inland Revenue officers that, in respect of a child whose parent or parents were born in the Indian sub-continent, they were not to be satisfied with the short form of birth certificate. The applicant had to provide the full form, with the names and place of birth of the father and mother. Correspondence passed between the Race Relations Board and the Inland Revenue. On the 17th May, 1977 the Inland Revenue wrote to the Race Relations Board, saying:

"…In the case of claimants who are immigrants, we are bound to consider a report made to Parliament by the Public Accounts Committee in 1968. The Committee found that fraudulent claims to personal reliefs had been made upon an extensive scale by immigrants from the Indian sub-continent and that the claim had frequently been supported by false documents. Following this report we were obliged to introduce more stringent checks upon claims by immigrants. In the case of children born in the United Kingdom, these have included the inspection of the full birth certificate which enables the child allowance entitlement of the claimant to be verified by reference to original evidence of the names of the father and mother".

So there it is. It is a policy rule laid down by the Inland Revenue. In respect of children whose parents were born on the Indian sub-continent, they require the production of the full birth certificate.

The question is whether or not there was unlawful discrimination? The judge held that there was not. Now there is an appeal to this court.

I need not go into all the sections of the Race Relations Act 1976 except to say, first: this was plainly a discrimination. On racial grounds this father was treated less favourably than other fathers. But the question is: Was it an unlawful discrimination? To answer that, one has to look to section 20 of the 1976 Act:

"It is unlawful for any person concerned with the provision (for payment or not) of goods, facilities or services to the public or a section of the public to discriminate against a person who seeks to obtain or use those goods, facilities or services—(a) by refusing or deliberately omitting to provide him with any of them", and so forth.

The whole question is whether in this case the Revenue authority were providing "facilities or services" within that section. Examples are given in section 20(2). One example is "(c) facilities by way of banking or insurance or for grants, loans, credit or finance": another is "(g) the services of any profession or trade, or any local or other public authority". The Revenue authority are clearly a "public authority". The question is whether they are providing "services" to people like the father in this case, who came to claim tax relief.

The judge drew a distinction between the giving of advice and the advice itself. He said that the Commissioners would be guilty of discrimination if they said, "We will only give advice to white people and not to coloured people". But that they were not guilty if they said to a coloured person, "We advise you to bring a full birth certificate". He held that the giving of advice was a "service": but not the actual advice itself.

To my mind the distinction which was drawn is too fine by far. Under the Taxes Management Act 1970 the Revenue are entrusted with the care and management of taxes. They provide a service to the public in collecting tax. They also provide a service to a section of the public in so far as they give relief from tax or make repayments of tax or—I would add—give advice about tax. Those are all most valuable services which the Revenue authority provide to the public as a whole and to sections of the public. It seems to me that the provisions for granting relief, giving advice, and the advice which is given, are the provision of services. As Lord Justice Templeman indicated in the course of argument: Would it be right for the Revenue authority to issue a circular saying that people born in England need not worry about full certificates—the Revenue would take their word—but they would require them in the case of someone coming from the sub-continent of India. It seems to me that such a circular would be the provision of a service. It would be discrimination in the provision of a service for the public.

I can understand the difficulty of the Revenue authority in dealing with the problem. To what extent should they insist on the production of birth certificates? There as a way out given by section 41(2) of the Race Relations Act 1976:

"Nothing…shall render unlawful any act whereby a person discriminates against another…if that act is done—(a) in pursuance of any arrangements made…by or with the approval of…a Minister of the Crown".

If the appropriate Minister of the Crown should think that arrangements should be made for insisting in certain circumstances on the production of a full birth certificate, that could be made perfectly lawful...