I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in Clause 2, page 1, line 18, after 'applies', insert :— 'Provided that any such order which enables disabled persons to claim a Business Ration of petroleum shall include among the disabled persons so entitled such disabled persons as, by reason of physical disability, require a vehicle to take them to and from their place of work and are the holders of a local authority's disabled drivers' badge'. This is a probing amendment which I hope will not detain the Committee for long. As I understand the Bill, it is under this clause that petrol rationing, if it comes in, will be introduced. Press notices have already appeared in the newspapers explaining how to claim and who can claim what. I am not altogether sure whether at the moment these notices have any statutory authority, but no doubt in due course it is intended that they should have the authority of this clause.

The point that I wish to make is limited but important for a number of disabled drivers. The Press notices that have been put out show that the business ration for vital and priority drivers may be claimed by a number of people about whom one would not wish to quarrel. At the end of the list come the disabled who in the course of their work use three specific categories of vehicle. The first is a DHSS vehicle, no doubt the Invacar. The second vehicle is one for which a DHSS grant or maintenance allowance is payable. The third is a vehicle exempt from excise duty. The problem which arises and which this amendment seeks to deal with is in the case of a disabled driver who needs his vehicle to get to and from work but does not qualify under any of the categories unless the second category has a wider meaning than is at first apparent.

A constituent of mine who is a member of the legal profession is compelled to drive from my Constituency to central London and back every day, and he cannot do without his vehicle. It is because of his problem and, no doubt, that of many others in the same situation that I raise this case. He does not have a DHSS vehicle. He had an ordinary car. It is not exempt from excise duty, and so under the terms as they appear in the Press notice he would be confined to the second category if that were the category under which he could claim his business ration. The second category is b. a vehicle for which a DHSS grant or maintenance allowance is payable". My constituent, being a man of relatively affluent means, has no need for a DHSS grant or maintenance allowance and is certainly under the impression that his means are such that if he asked for one he would not get it. Quite clearly, however, the question of whether he should be entitled to a ration of petrol to enable him to get to work and home again can hardly depend on whether or not he is poor enough to be entitled to a grant or maintenance from the DHSS for his vehicle.

It seems to follow that there is an anomaly which could have grave effects for people in the position of my constituent, unless paragraph b. is to be read as meaning "a vehicle for which a DHSS grant or maintenance allowance is payable, or would but for his means have been payable ". I appreciate that we are not construing a statute, but if that is what is intended it would be a good idea if it were put not in legal terms but in plain terms so that people in my constituent's position would know that they could claim.

It may be said that my constituent could claim a supplementary allowance on a hardship basis, but it would be most unsatisfactory that he and others like him should have to resort to that, when logic seems to suggest that they should be able to claim the ordinary business ration under the provisions applicable to disabled persons. They can hardly be separated on a hardship basis from people who will be able to claim under those provisions.

As the amendment suggests, my constituent has a local authority's disabled driver's badge. He must have his car, and he has to park it as near his office as he can. His disabled driver's badge helps him in that respect.

I hope that the Minister can promise to revise the wording so that everyone knows the position. If he cannot do that, I hope that he will at least give an appropriate assurance that I can take back to my constituents and other people in the same position.