This is an extremely important matter. Every hon. Member in the House knows by this time what has been going on in regard to the so-called companies set up for the purpose of avoiding any liability in respect of houses they purchase. In most cases the leases have only a short period to run. The company itself is a company of straw which draws out of the tenant whatever it can and does nothing by way of repairing the houses. Eventually, the company sells to another company the directors of which are nominees of the previous company. The tenant then has writs served on him making demands for vast sums of money although he has never been able to find the landlord.

In many cases the tenant, after years in which he has not known who the landlord was, is served with a notice demanding hundreds of pounds for rent and he is not in a position to meet the demands made on him. I suggest to the Minister that, in addition to the ordinary criminal penalty to which reference has been made, there should be some penalty in the nature of the company not being able to claim any moneys from a tenant unless throughout the period in respect of which the claim is made it has declared who the directors are, who the company is and who is benefiting. That would immediately have the effect of preventing a large number of these shady customers from carrying on this kind of enterprise. They would then know that they could not claim any moneys from innocent tenants.

Tenants are often left in houses which they themselves have to repair. The houses are in very bad condition, and the council pounces on the tenant because the actual owner cannot be found to provide the funds for essential repairs. In my view, those repairs are not essential to keep the tenant protected. The kind of penalty suggested in the Bill will not be sufficient to cover this position. One company sells its debts to another company by a deed of assignment, sometimes not giving notice to the tenant that the debt has been transferred until the last minute. The tenant does not know where he or she is.

I am definitely of the opinion—probably the House will agree—that if some way were found whereby the courts could not be forced to make orders in cases of that kind for arrears of rent, or so-called arrears, the machinations of large numbers of these people would be destroyed. They would have to declare who the actual owners were, or would at least have to declare who was getting the benefit from the rents which were extracted. I do not think that such a provision could be called unfair. At present, a company puts the debts at a nominal sum and extracts the money from the tenants by means of the court. These companies use the courts to get the full amount, £200 or £300, from a tenant, who may have been in the premises for a large number of years. The tenants have to prove what they or their predecessors have paid for repairs done by the local authority or the deduction of sums by way of rates or for property tax which the landlord has failed to pay.

I hope that the Government will consider my suggestion favourably and will at some stage introduce something of that nature in addition to any other penalty which is imposed.