Hansard

In addressing the 22 amendments in my name in the group, I am conscious of a comment that the minister made earlier. He said that legislation needs a good evidence base. I thoroughly agree with that, of course. However, the single seller survey pilot started in July 2004, with a target of carrying out 2,000 surveys; the figure of 2,000 was then reduced to 1,200 and, in the end, only 74 single seller surveys were carried out on which to base this legislation.

The decision to make the single seller survey compulsory came as a shock to the members of the Executive's steering group on the subject. The group was given no say in the final decision. The three policy drivers for the single seller survey were to improve information on property condition, to reduce wasted expenditure on multiple surveys and to address artificially low upset prices.

The Executive's evaluation of the pilot study, which was undertaken by Arneil Johnston, stated that it was impossible to say anything authoritatively about the experience of purchasers. Therefore, the argument behind the first policy driver is not proven. As for multiple surveys, members who have received the many letters from Edinburgh solicitors and estate agents in recent days will know that virtually all properties—especially in Edinburgh—are now bought subject to survey. There has also been a move towards fixed prices, which addresses the charge relating to low upset prices.

A conflict of interest also arises. If a survey is the seller's, the seller pays a surveyor who is acting on behalf of the seller. Solicitors cannot act for buyers and sellers, so how can we expect a surveyor to do so? If the potential purchaser wants information on the property, he will be forced to have his own survey carried out in order to discuss the property with a surveyor. That takes us back to multiple surveys.

I know of a property in Edinburgh that was one of the 74 that participated in the pilot scheme. By the time it finally sold, the survey was out of date and the purchasers had to have their own survey done. The inclusion of the single seller survey in the transaction has been described as the "kiss of death" by agents and the seller, who now wishes that he had never opted in. In future, buyers and sellers will unfortunately not have the choice of opting in or out, as the bill will make the single seller survey compulsory.

As I said, most properties are bought subject to survey and the successful bidder has the survey carried out, usually within 24 hours of hearing that his offer is acceptable. He is then of course free to discuss the report with the surveyor, who has no conflict of interest. If the purchaser refuses to accept the seller survey and opts instead to carry out his own survey, who will then pay for the seller survey?

The offer subject to survey and the recently introduced solicitor-led standard style of offer in Edinburgh contracts can bring the binding stage forward. Sometimes it can take place in the course of one day.

Issues also arise to do with the shelf-life of the single seller survey. It is incredible what one can learn as a member of the Communities Committee: I now know that dry rot spreads at a rate of 1m a month. The length of time for which the results of a survey remain acceptable is clearly an issue.

We also have to consider the cost of the single seller survey and the purchasers information pack. Every time the issue was raised in committee, it seemed that more and more was being added to the information pack. We have to wonder whether the figure of £100 for legal fees that is given in the financial memorandum is accurate. I doubt it. In the financial memorandum, it is estimated that the single seller survey will reduce purchase prices in the first year by £120 million. The predicted fall in subsequent years is not given.

I come back now to Arneil Johnston's evaluation of the pilot scheme. The report says:

"from the limited evaluation possible, it would appear that the existence of a Single Survey is not considered by sellers to improve the marketability of properties".

The report had nothing authoritative to say about the experiences of purchasers and it was inconclusive about the influence of the single seller survey on non-purchasers and about its impact on selling agents. So much for the good evidence base for legislation.

Arneil Johnston's report concluded:

"the majority of surveyors … strongly believe that the Single Survey will not have a positive impact on improving the condition and energy efficiency of private sector housing in Scotland".

The whole rationale behind the pilot exercise was that it would lead to improvements in the fabric and energy efficiency of homes in Scotland. Not only do we not have a decent evidence base, but the 74 surveys showed that single seller surveys will not even achieve what the Executive has set out to achieve.

The single seller survey will make it very expensive for people to put their properties on the market and it will cause considerable delays. Selling older properties will become even more difficult. The single seller survey will probably put an end to sellers testing the market before the final decision is made to sell.

The single seller survey pilot was a failure, but there was also a failure in consultation. In the eyes of buyers, sellers, surveyors and selling agents, the survey has been a failure. As I said at stage 2, if there was a handbook on how not to legislate, the single seller survey would be the leading chapter.

I move amendment 24.