The Charges for Residues Surveillance Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2026: final business & regulatory impact assessment (BRIA)

Section 2: Engagement and information gathering

2.1 Business / Third Sector engagement

Engagement has been carried out, notably through a joint public consultation launched by the VMD in partnership with the Scottish and Welsh Governments on 24 November 2025 through 19 January 2026 via Citizen Space. This consultation was made available to the general public, and communications were also sent to sector group representatives, so those with any interest were able to respond.

Almost all respondents agreed with the recommendation that the most equitable approach to setting the new charges would be to base the calculations on specific production volume of each sector. This approach would prevent some sectors unfairly cross subsidising others and takes account of different risks and characteristics of sectors, aligning charges with their actual programme costs. Some respondents raised that they would appreciate further clarification and transparency on breakdown of costs by sector, as well as information on measures considered by those running the NRCP to give customers value for money and cost effectiveness. Most respondents suggested that additional costs could likely be transferred to primary producers, rather than remain with food processors.

No specific engagement with representatives of small businesses or businesses based outside of Scotland have taken place as these proposals have a limited scope and an identical application to all businesses in Scotland, while Wales and England have drafted separate instruments considering the UK-wide NRCP.

2.2 Internal SG Engagement

Internal Scottish Government policy areas such as Food Standards Scotland have been consulted to ensure that the proposed changes do not clash with existing policies and responsibilities. No other SG policies have been identified that could impact the proposal or achieve the same outcome.

2.3 UK / Devolved Administrations

The Scottish Government has engaged with the UK Government and the Devolved Governments on its proposed changes as part of cross-government working. Conversations began in August 2025 when VMD shared initial documents detailing the evidential basis for updating the NRCP statutory charges and the involved parties discussed initial proposals and plans for a joint public consultation. These discussions continued through the policy development process and included input on a joint response to the public consultation. This engagement has not identified any issues that would result in Scotland being less attractive as a place for investors, make Scottish firms less competitive or impose additional burdens for Scottish businesses who operate across the whole of the UK. No specific changes have been made to the policy proposal as a result of this engagement due to the GB-wide nature of the proposals.

2.4 Wider Public Sector

Given the limited nature of the proposal and its relation to statutory requirements, no specific engagement with wider public sector organisations has occurred as these groups are not involved in the policy as implementors, developers or regulators.

2.5 Other Key Stakeholders

Given the limited nature of the proposal and its relation to statutory requirements, no further specific engagement has occurred.

2.6 Public consultation

A public consultation was carried out between 24 November 2025 and 19 January 2026 via Citizen Space, launched by the VMD in partnership with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. This consultation was made available to the general public, and communications were also sent to sector group representatives. 9 responses were received in total.

The consultation document explained the reasoning behind the need to increase charges for businesses covered by the NRCP. It set out the following three options with a recommendation for Option C:

a) Do nothing. Schedule 1 will remain unchanged, and charges would be maintained at current levels.

b) A flat rate 22% increase to the charges in Schedule 1, applied across all sectors taking part in the NRCP.

c) A specific percentage increase tailored for industry sectors based on their specific sampling plans, testing costs and production levels.

Option A would not achieve full recovery of costs. This option would therefore threaten the viability of the NRCP which is necessary to help protect human health. The NRCP also supports exports of products of animal origin worth £12 billion to the UK economy, and this may become compromised without action.

Option B would lead to disproportionate increases in fees for some sectors and ongoing under recovery of costs in others. There are varying production volumes and costs of sampling each sector so, in effect, some sectors would cross-subsidise others.

Option C is considered to be the most appropriate and equitable option as it recognises that not all sectors have the same cost profile. This is due to the different sampling and testing arrangements, which are carefully decided each year based on risk assessments and other factors.

Almost all respondents agreed with the recommendation that the most equitable approach to setting the new charges would be to base the calculations on specific production volume of each sector. This approach would prevent some sectors unfairly cross subsidising others and takes account of different risks and characteristics of sectors, aligning charges with their actual programme costs. Some respondents raised that they would appreciate further clarification and transparency on breakdown of costs by sector, as well as information on measures considered by those running the NRCP to give customers value for money and cost effectiveness. Respondents generally believed that the increase in costs would not impact too much on profits, with a majority noting that there would be low impact or even no impact at all to their profit margins. A plurality believed demand for their goods and services would remain the same after any increases. Most respondents suggested that additional costs could likely be transferred to primary producers, rather than remain with food processors.

No specific element of the proposals have been updated in response to consultation feedback. As the majority of respondents agreed that Option C was the most equitable approach, the Scottish, Welsh and UK Governments agreed to separately bring forward the necessary legislation to update the charges as per option C. This will allow the NRCP to return to full cost recovery while we consider future charging options and methodologies. All Governments intend to continue monitoring the operation of the scheme and to bring forward a further public consultation if other changes are required.