Open consultation

Amendments to the Poisons Act 1972 Framework: consultation document

Published 1 October 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

About this consultation

This consultation begins on 1 October 2026 and ends on 11 November 2026.

This consultation is open to the public. We are particularly seeking the views of those who:

• use explosives precursors and poisons for non-professional purposes (for example for hobbies, or in the home)
• businesses which use explosives precursors and poisons for professional activities
• businesses which sell explosives precursors and poisons to home users and business users
• manufacturers

Consultation response

A response to this consultation will be published online on GOV.UK.

Consultation principles

The principles that government departments and other public bodies should adopt for engaging stakeholders when developing policy and legislation are set out in the consultation principles.

How to respond

You can respond online or download the questions and email or post your response to:

Poisons Act Consultation
CBE Threats Unit
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

precursorsandpoisons@homeoffice.gov.uk

Confidentiality

Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004).

If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, under the FOIA, there is a statutory Code of Practice with which public authorities must comply and which deals, among other things, with obligations of confidence. In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us, if relevant, why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Home Office.

The Home Office will process your personal data in accordance with the DPA and in the majority of circumstances, this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties.

Introduction

This consultation seeks views on a package of proposed amendments to strengthen the regulatory framework for explosives precursors and poisons under the Poisons Act 1972. The proposals are intended to ensure that the regime remains effective, proportionate and responsive to current national security and public safety risks, while maintaining access for legitimate users.

The measures would apply in Great Britain — England, Scotland and Wales.

The consultation is aimed at businesses, online marketplaces and manufacturers that supply chemicals, chemical products, or relevant plant materials; professional and business users of explosives precursors and poisons; and members of the public who use certain chemicals and chemical products for legitimate non-professional purposes, including hobbies and domestic use. Other interested parties are also welcome to respond.

The CONTEST Strategy published in 2023 was clear that ‘Despite a prevalence of lower sophistication attacks in the UK, the threat we see today and in the coming years, is more diverse, dynamic and complex’. This is relevant to poisons and particularly explosives precursors, following the devastating terrorist attack in Manchester in 2017. For that reason, the strategy committed to ‘Enhance capabilities to detect terrorist activity involving chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosives (CBRNE) material and their precursors and to control and safeguard these materials’.

The proposals in this consultation support that commitment by seeking views on a coherent set of changes to strengthen controls on substances of concern, ensure the regime remains effective in addressing evolving risks, improve compliance, and maintain a proportionate balance for legitimate users. The information received will play an important role in assessing the practicality and effectiveness of the proposed amendments and will help shape the government’s final policy position. Any future changes to the regime will be informed by a full understanding of their potential impacts.

Background

The Poisons Act 1972 is one of the key mechanisms through which government controls access to hazardous explosives precursors and poisons in Great Britain. It does this through licensing requirements for regulated substances, and via reporting requirements for suspicious transactions involving reportable substances. These controls are intended to reduce the availability and misuse of substances that may present risks to national security or public safety, while preserving access for legitimate users.

The need to review controls on plant-derived toxins has been brought into sharp focus by the findings of the Southport Public Inquiry, which examined the circumstances leading up to, and including, the attack in July 2024. The Inquiry’s Phase 1 report concluded that the perpetrator was able to acquire castor beans lawfully and subsequently produce a crude preparation of ricin without triggering existing regulatory controls or interventions. The Chair highlighted that this exposed weaknesses in the way access to certain hazardous substances and materials are regulated, monitored and understood. The perpetrator was, however, convicted of offences under the Biological Weapons Act 1974, demonstrating the wider legislative controls in place for toxic substances such as ricin.

Ricin and abrin are among the most toxic plant-derived substances known. While their misuse is rare, their potential to cause serious harm is well established. While the possession and production of ricin and abrin is an offence under the Biological Weapons Act 1974, the current Poisons Act framework does not regulate ricin contained in castor beans or abrin contained in rosary peas as regulated poisons. This means that relevant plant materials may currently be acquired without the controls that apply to other substances of concern. The government is therefore seeking views on whether these materials should be brought within the regulated poisons framework.

The government also considers that the current framework should be reviewed in light of concerns about specific chemicals that remain accessible through legitimate supply chains. Potassium nitrate has recognised uses, including in fertilisers, but can also be misused as an explosives precursor. Sodium nitrite has legitimate commercial and technical uses, but has also been linked to serious public safety concerns, including harmful use by individuals.

The proposed changes also seek to reduce the concentration thresholds at which certain regulated substances become subject to regulation. This addresses recent evidence which suggests that certain materials can present security risks at lower concentrations than those currently subject to controls. Reducing the concentration thresholds would ensure that the regulatory framework more appropriately reflects the risks associated with these substances.

In summary, these risks suggest a need to consider whether existing requirements are sufficient, or whether stronger controls would be proportionate for these substances. Regulation under the Poisons Act would not address every possible route of access, particularly where substances are sourced from overseas suppliers. However, it could reduce availability through domestic supply chains, restrict access by members of the public unless licensed, and form part of the government’s wider response to these risks.

Taken together, these issues point to the need to consider strengthening of the Poisons Act framework. In addition to changes to the classification of specific substances, the government is seeking views on targeted reforms to improve the operation, consistency and sustainability of the regime. This includes aligning record keeping requirements for business-to-business sales of regulated poisons with those for regulated explosives precursors and increasing licence fees to better reflect inflation and the administrative cost of operating the licensing system.

A consultation options assessment accompanies this consultation. Responses will provide essential evidence on how the proposals may affect suppliers, regulators and legitimate users, and will inform the government’s decisions on whether and how to amend the Poisons Act regime. Specific comments on the consultation options assessment are very welcome through the final question in the questionnaire.

Copies of the consultation paper are being sent to the following stakeholder groups.

• chemical industry
• retail and online marketplaces
• agriculture and horticulture
• scientific, technical and professional
• hobbyist and specialist users
• safeguarding organisations

However, this list is not meant to be exhaustive or exclusive, and responses are welcomed from anyone with an interest in or views on the subject covered by this paper.

We are seeking to engage as wide an audience as possible.

The proposals

Option 0: ‘Do nothing’ is to make no changes to the current regulatory framework

This option would retain the current regulatory framework under the Poisons Act 1972 without amendment. The existing list of regulated and reportable substances would remain unchanged, and no additional control measures would be introduced. Ricin contained in castor beans and abrin contained in rosary peas would continue to fall outside the scope of regulated poisons, and existing arrangements for licensing, record-keeping and fees would remain as they are.

This option would not address the issues identified in relation to plant-derived toxins, including those highlighted by recent incidents and the Southport Inquiry. It would also leave unchanged the current classification of sodium nitrite, sodium nitrate and potassium nitrate, and would not address the proposed operational improvements to record-keeping requirements or licence fees. As a result, the current framework would remain unchanged despite evidence that aspects of the regime could be strengthened.

Option 1: Comprehensive package of reforms

This option would take forward some of, or all, proposed changes to regulated and reportable poisons and explosives precursors but would not include any changes to EPP licence fees or business-to-business record-keeping requirements. Specifically, it would do this by:

Changes to regulated poisons

• Adding ricin (CAS 9009-86-3) contained in castor beans to the list of regulated poisons. We would also amend Schedule 1 to the Control of Poisons and Explosives Precursors Regulations 2015 so that the general exemption for “vascular plants and their seeds” does not exempt castor beans.
• Adding abrin (CAS 1393-62-0) contained in rosary peas to the list of regulated poisons. We would also amend Schedule 1 to the Control of Poisons and Explosives Precursors Regulations 2015 so that the general exemption for “vascular plants and their seeds” does not exempt rosary peas.
• Changing the classification of sodium nitrite (CAS 7632-00-0) from a reportable to regulated poison. We are proposing it becomes regulated above 10% w/w.
• Adding oxalic acid dihydrate (CAS 6153-56-6) to the list of regulated poisons at a concentration above 14% w/w.

Changes to regulated and reportable explosives precursors

• Changing the classification of sodium nitrate (CAS 7631-99-4) from a reportable to regulated explosives precursor. We are proposing it becomes regulated above 10% w/w or 1.65%N. ^{[footnote 1]}
• Changing the classification of potassium nitrate (CAS 7757-79-1) from a reportable to regulated explosives precursor. We are proposing it becomes regulated above 10% w/w or 1.39%N. ^{[footnote 2]}
• Changing the concentration threshold of potassium chlorate (CAS 3811-04-9). It is currently regulated above 40% w/w. We are proposing it becomes regulated above 10% w/w.
• Changing the concentration threshold of potassium perchlorate (CAS 7778-74-7). It is currently regulated above 40% w/w. We are proposing it becomes regulated above 10% w/w.
• Changing the concentration threshold of sodium chlorate (CAS 7775-09-9). It is currently regulated above 40% w/w. We are proposing it becomes regulated above 10% w/w.
• Changing the concentration threshold of sodium perchlorate (CAS 7601-89-0). It is currently regulated above 40% w/w. We are proposing it becomes regulated above 10% w/w.
• Adding calcium nitrate tetrahydrate (CAS RN 13477-34-4) to the list of reportable explosives precursors.

In summary

Proposal	Current position	Proposed position
Ricin in castor beans	Not regulated under the Poisons Act	Regulated poison
Abrin in rosary peas	Not regulated under the Poisons Act	Regulated poison
Sodium nitrite	Reportable poison	Regulated poison (10%)
Oxalic acid dihydrate	Not listed	Regulated poison (14%)
Sodium nitrate	Reportable explosive precursor	Regulated explosive precursor (10% or 1.65%N)
Potassium nitrate	Reportable explosive precursor	Regulated explosive precursor (10% or 1.39%N)
Potassium chlorate	Regulated at 40%	Regulated explosive precursor (10%)
Potassium perchlorate	Regulated at 40%	Regulated explosive precursor (10%)
Sodium chlorate	Regulated at 40%	Regulated explosive precursor (10%)
Sodium perchlorate	Regulated at 40%	Regulated explosive precursor (10%)
Calcium nitrate tetrahydrate	Not listed	Reportable explosive precursor

Option 2: Comprehensive package of reforms, plus licence fee changes, alignment of record-keeping requirements and amend definition of regulated poison

This option would include all measures set out in Option 1 and would additionally:

• increase EPP licence fees to improve cost recovery and better reflect the costs of administering the regime; and
• align record-keeping requirements for sales of regulated poisons to professional and business users with those already required for sales of regulated explosives precursors.
• amend the definition of a regulated poison so that, where a regulated poison is subject to a concentration threshold, lower concentrations become reportable poisons unless otherwise specified.

This option would therefore implement the full package of substance control, cost recovery and administrative reform measures proposed in the consultation.

Explosives precursors and poisons (EPP) licence fee change

The application fee has remained at £39.50 since it was established by the Control of Explosives Precursors and Poisons Regulations 2015, with a £25 fee for a replacement licence. We propose increasing these fees to better reflect both inflation and the administrative cost of delivering the regime. A CPI-based uplift suggests a 2026 equivalent of around £56 (with replacement costs around £35.50), however this does not fully capture the evolution of the regime over time.

Since 2015, the EPP regime has expanded in scope and complexity, including strengthened controls, enhanced compliance requirements, and ongoing refinements following legislative updates such as the 2023 Regulations. These changes have increased the administrative burden associated with processing applications, conducting due diligence, and maintaining the regime. In this context, a higher fee in the region of £70 to £80 would more accurately reflect the cost of administering the regime, support its long-term sustainability, and align with a broader move toward improved cost recovery, while remaining proportionate for legitimate users.

Alignment of requirements regarding the recording of customer information for sales of regulated explosives precursors and poisons to professional and business users

Currently, there are slightly different requirements for business-to-business (b2b) sales of regulated poisons and regulated explosives precursors, in terms of recording and retaining customer information. These requirements are set out in Control of Poisons and Explosives Precursors Regulations 2015 and the Control of Explosives Precursors and Poisons Regulations 2023 respectively.

In order to simplify requirements on businesses, we propose to align the requirements by changing those for sales of regulated poisons to be the same as those for regulated explosives precursors. In practice, this would mean that the following information should be recorded and kept for 18 months:

• the business customer’s name and address
• a record of the business customer’s photographic ID
• a statement of the business customer’s trade, business, profession, or public function the business customer performs
• the business customer’s VAT number, if they have one

Amending the threshold for reportable poisons so that, where a regulated poison is subject to a concentration threshold, lower concentrations become reportable poisons unless otherwise specified.

We propose that regulated poisons are all included in the list of reportable poisons but without concentration limits. In accordance with the current list of regulated poisons, oxalic acid and phenols would become reportable poisons at any concentration level.

Enquiries

Enquiries (including requests for the consultation documentation in an alternative format) can be sent to:

Poisons Act Consultation
CBE Threats Unit
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

Email: precursorsandpoisons@homeoffice.gov.uk

Complaints or comments

If you have any complaints or comments about the consultation process you should contact the Home Office at the above address.

Copyright

© Crown copyright 2026

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated.

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

Footnotes

1. The nitrogen threshold would only apply to nitrogen derived from the individual regulated substance and should not be aggregated with nitrogen derived from other nitrate salts present within the same product formulation. ↩

2. The nitrogen threshold would only apply to nitrogen derived from the individual regulated substance and should not be aggregated with nitrogen derived from other nitrate salts present within the same product formulation. ↩