The Official Controls (Location of Border Control Posts) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 - Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment

Section 2: Engagement and information gathering

2.1 Business/Third Sector engagement

Engagement has been carried out, notably through a public consultation launched by the Scottish Government on 16 December 2025 through 15 January 2026 via Citizen Space. This consultation was issued to the general public, and those with any interest were able to respond. Additionally, the consultation specifically called to the attention of groups with interest in the matter. These groups included: Local Authorities; competent authorities such as the Animal Plant Health Agency, the Forestry Commission, Food Standards Scotland.

Business engagement identified a wide range of potential benefits associated with the proposed approach, including unlocking new ferry routes, reducing commercial costs, and maximising the use of existing infrastructure such as the underutilised Grangemouth BCP. Also emphasised were operational and environmental advantages, such as reduced congestion, fewer delays, improved resilience during disruption, and potential carbon‑emission reductions from shifting freight movements to direct maritime routes.

No specific engagement with representatives of small businesses or businesses based outside of Scotland have taken place as they are not expected to be impacted by the proposed changes due to their limited nature and scope.

2.2 Internal SG Engagement

Internal Scottish Government policy areas such as Transport Scotland have been consulted to ensure that the proposed changes do not clash with existing Transport Scotland policies. 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 and governance groups, including the Animal Disease Prevention Group (ADPG). Engagement has also taken place with HMRC. 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.

The UK Government has provisions in place allowing establishment of BCPs away from the immediate point of entry of SPS goods, but those provisions would not govern the situation of the specified Scottish ports, as they apply only to specific geographical situations which do not exist in this area.

2.4 Wider Public Sector

Local Authorities were informed of the public consultation, as was the Animal Plant and Health Agency (APHA) Scotland, and the Scottish Government engaged in various discussions with local authorities on the proposed changes ahead of the consultation.

If businesses were to engage with the new requirements and should additional BCPs or altered checks at BCPs be implemented, there is the potential for increased burden, resource pressures and logistical complexities for local authorities to enforce appropriate biosecurity measures.

2.5 Other Key Stakeholders

Given the technical, time-limited and deregulatory nature of the proposal, no further specific engagement has occurred.

2.6 Public consultation

A public consultation was carried out between 16 December 2025 and 15 January 2026 via Citizen Space, and was also specifically issued to targeted stakeholders (governmental, regulatory and business interests) on its launch date given the short consultation period. 12 responses were received in total.

The consultation responses show broad support for increasing flexibility in the siting of Border Control Posts (BCPs), with most respondents agreeing that alternative or offsite locations could improve trade flow and reduce delays, provided that biosecurity and food‑safety standards remain robust. Several highlighted that such flexibility could help address existing vulnerabilities. However, views were mixed on whether these arrangements should be time‑limited: while some argued that stability is essential for encouraging long‑term investment and avoiding unnecessary risk, others favoured a review period to ensure the model remains fit for purpose.

Respondents identified a wide range of potential benefits associated with the proposed approach, including unlocking new ferry routes, reducing commercial costs, and maximising the use of existing infrastructure such as the underutilised Grangemouth BCP. They also emphasised operational and environmental advantages, such as reduced congestion, fewer delays, improved resilience during disruption, and potential carbon‑emission reductions from shifting freight movements to direct maritime routes.

Alongside these benefits, respondents raised several key disadvantages and risks. These included concerns about weakened biosecurity controls, reduced traceability, increased burden and resource pressures on local authorities, and logistical complexities associated with non‑standard BCP operations. A minority of respondents reported no significant disadvantages, arguing that current volumes are manageable and that increased throughput could improve efficiency. Contributors also offered extensive suggestions for appropriate biosecurity and risk‑management provisions—ranging from vehicle tracking, preregistration and data‑sharing protocols, to minimum infrastructure standards, robust hygiene controls, mandatory risk assessments, and limits on distance between ports of entry and BCPs—to ensure compliance and maintain high safety standards.

No specific element of the proposals have been updated in response to consultation feedback. However, there would be further consultation and involvement of public authorities regarding enforcement procedures if businesses were to engage with the updated requirements.