Nobody holds any brief whatever for the sort of behaviour of the type of landlord mentioned by hon. Members opposite, but I remind the House that, almost by definition, these mushroom companies make it extremely difficult to find out exactly who is the "beneficial owner"—to use the term in the sense expressed by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and not in the usual one. Even if such investigations are successful they will almost invariably involve some delay, very often considerable. We are concerned hero with quick action by local authorities to alleviate the position in those houses that happen to be multi-occupied.

I would, therefore, remind the House that the Clause, after all, deals only with the offence that is created when somebody wilfully fails to conform to an order ender subsection (1). It is self-evident that it is right—and admittedly this was an omission from the Bill as first drafted—to make the directors who can be ascertained liable for the offence that is being created, even though it may be difficult to find the man who is truly behind the company.

Certainly, I think that we must assume that these companies or the people behind them own these houses for profit, and, there again, we have in the Bill given local authorities power to place charges on such property in order to cover their expenses in rectifying the evils of management, or overcrowding, or lack of amenities, and so on, which give rise to the orders we are discussing. This Clause is, therefore, rather narrower than the matters raised today by hon. Members opposite.

I hope that the House will accept the Amendment. I will certainly read the constructive suggestions put by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner). Of course, one does not wish to condone these people and one admits that these are the people basically responsible. But sooner or later, even if they have any number of "front" directors, if those "front" directors are fined fairly heavily, profits will be considerably affected.