Home / Kitchen Deep Cleaning / Guide
Kitchen deep cleaning - fire safety
Fire safety for business premises is a legal duty across the UK, but the law is not the same everywhere. England and Wales use the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005; Scotland has its own regime, the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 and its regulations. The duties are broadly similar, but the framework and some details differ. Here is fire safety law, Scotland vs England. This is general information, not legal advice.
The short answer
Fire safety for non-domestic premises is a legal duty throughout the UK, but because fire safety is devolved, the specific law differs between jurisdictions. In England and Wales, the governing law is the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (often called the Fire Safety Order or FSO). It places duties on the responsible person - typically the employer, owner or occupier who has control of the premises - to carry out a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment and put in place appropriate general fire precautions. In Scotland, the governing law is the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 together with the Fire Safety (Scotland) Regulations 2006. It places broadly equivalent duties on the duty holder - the Scottish term for the person with control of the premises - again to assess the fire risk and take fire safety measures. So the core of the two regimes is similar: both require the person in control of a premises to assess the fire risk and manage it through appropriate precautions, using a goal-based, risk-assessment approach rather than prescriptive rules. The main differences are in the framework and terminology, and in some specifics. Terminology: England and Wales use responsible person; Scotland uses duty holder. Framework: they are separate pieces of legislation with their own structure and their own guidance. And there are substantive differences, the most notable being how shared control is treated: in Scotland, where more than one party has control of premises, all parties share responsibility to the extent of their control (under the Act), so a landlord cannot devolve fire-safety responsibility to a tenant as fully as in England - each party is responsible to the extent of their control. There are also differences in detail and in the guidance and enforcement arrangements. For a business, the practical point is: which law applies depends on where the premises is - the Fire Safety Order in England and Wales, the Fire (Scotland) Act and its regulations in Scotland - and while the fire-safety duties are broadly similar (assess the risk, manage it), the specific legal framework, terminology and some details differ, so a business operating in both, or in Scotland, should follow the law that applies there. This is general information; specific obligations should be checked against the current legislation and professional advice.
Key points
Why the law differs
The reason fire safety law differs across the UK is that it is a devolved matter - the different nations of the UK have their own fire-safety legislation, rather than a single UK-wide law. So England and Wales are covered by one regime and Scotland by another (and Northern Ireland by its own again). This is why a business needs to know which law applies to its premises: the answer depends on where the premises is located. A restaurant in England follows the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005; a restaurant in Scotland follows the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 and its regulations. For a business operating only in one nation, this simply means following that nation's law. For a business operating across nations - a chain with sites in both England and Scotland, say - it means being aware that the fire-safety legal framework is not identical between them, and following the right one at each site.
The good news is that the two regimes share the same fundamental approach, so the practical fire-safety task is broadly similar wherever you are - which is why the differences, while real, do not mean starting from scratch. Both are risk-assessment-based, goal-setting regimes: rather than prescribing exactly what every premises must have, they require the person in control to assess the fire risk of their particular premises and put in place the precautions appropriate to that risk. So in both England and Scotland, the heart of compliance is a suitable fire risk assessment and acting on it. The differences are in the legal framework around that - the specific legislation, the terminology, and certain details and arrangements - rather than in the basic obligation to assess and manage fire risk. The sections below set out the two regimes, what they share, and the key differences, including the notable one about shared control. Throughout, the practical message is: follow the law of the nation your premises is in, and get professional advice on the specifics.
England and Wales
In England and Wales, fire safety in non-domestic premises is governed by the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 - commonly the Fire Safety Order or FSO. It applies to virtually all non-domestic premises (with some exclusions, such as individual private homes), so it covers business premises including hospitality. The FSO works by placing duties on the responsible person. The responsible person is, in a workplace, the employer if the workplace is under their control, and otherwise the person who has control of the premises (an owner, occupier or managing agent) - in short, whoever controls the premises. Where more than one person has some control, each has duties to the extent of their control, but the concept centres on the responsible person for the premises.
The responsible person's core duty is to carry out a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment - assessing the risks from fire to people who may be affected - and then to put in place and maintain appropriate general fire precautions to reduce the risk and ensure people can escape safely. These precautions include measures to reduce the risk of fire and its spread, means of escape kept clear and usable, means of detecting fire and giving warning, firefighting equipment, and emergency procedures including drills and staff training. The responsible person must also keep the assessment under review and, following changes brought in from 2023, record the fire risk assessment in full regardless of the size of the premises (previously full recording was mainly required for premises with five or more employees). Enforcement is by the fire and rescue authorities, who can require improvements and, in serious cases, prosecute. So the FSO is the England-and-Wales framework: duty on the responsible person, centred on a fire risk assessment and appropriate general fire precautions. This guide explains it in outline; the detail should be checked against the Order itself and professional guidance.
Scotland
In Scotland, fire safety in non-domestic premises is governed by the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005, together with the Fire Safety (Scotland) Regulations 2006, which set out the detail of the fire-safety duties. This is a separate legal framework from the England-and-Wales Order, though it takes a broadly similar approach. The Scottish regime places duties on the duty holder - the Scottish term for the person who has control of the premises (an employer, owner, or other person with control). So where England and Wales speak of the responsible person, Scotland speaks of the duty holder; the concept is similar (the person in control of the premises carrying the fire-safety duty), but the terminology and the underlying legislation differ.
The duty holder's core obligations are broadly equivalent to those under the Fire Safety Order: to carry out a fire risk assessment based on the goal-based, risk-reduction approach, and to put in place appropriate fire safety measures - reducing the risk of fire and spread, providing means of escape, detection and warning, firefighting provision, and emergency procedures - and to keep it under review. So a business in Scotland faces a broadly familiar task: assess the fire risk and manage it with appropriate measures, under the Fire (Scotland) Act and the 2006 Regulations. The differences from England and Wales lie in the specific legislation and guidance, the terminology (duty holder), certain details, and the enforcement arrangements (in Scotland enforced by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service). And there is one substantive difference worth drawing out - how shared control is treated - which is covered next. Overall, though, the Scottish regime, like the English one, is a risk-assessment-based framework requiring the person in control to assess and manage fire risk. As always, the specifics should be checked against the current Scottish legislation and professional advice.
The key difference
While the two regimes are broadly similar, one substantive difference is worth understanding: how they treat premises where more than one party has control. In Scotland, under the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005, where two or more people share control of premises, each shares responsibility for fire safety to the extent of their control - responsibility is shared among all who have any control, each to the degree they control. This has a practical consequence for landlord-and-tenant situations: in Scotland, a landlord cannot fully devolve fire-safety responsibility to a tenant, because the landlord retains responsibility to the extent of the control they still have (over the structure, common parts, and so on). So both landlord and tenant may carry fire-safety duties, each for what they control.
In England and Wales, while multiple responsible persons can exist and each has duties to the extent of their control, the arrangement in practice can allow a landlord to devolve more of the day-to-day fire-safety responsibility to a tenant who controls the premises, depending on the lease and the circumstances. So the Scottish model tends to leave the landlord with clearer retained responsibility where control is shared, whereas the English model can see more of it pass to the tenant in control. This matters for anyone letting or occupying premises across the two nations: in Scotland, a landlord should not assume a tenant carries all the fire-safety responsibility, because the law shares it by control; in England and Wales, the allocation depends more on who controls what and the lease terms. This is a genuine legal difference, not just terminology, and it is one of the clearest examples of why you cannot assume the two regimes are identical. As with all of this, the exact position in any case depends on the specific legislation, the premises and the arrangements, and should be checked with professional advice - this guide flags the difference in principle, not the answer for a particular situation.
What it means in practice
For a business, the practical upshot is straightforward in outline. Which fire-safety law applies depends on where the premises is: the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 in England and Wales, the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 and the Fire Safety (Scotland) Regulations 2006 in Scotland. Whichever applies, the core task is broadly the same - assess the fire risk of the premises and manage it with appropriate fire-safety measures (reducing fire risk and spread, means of escape, detection and warning, firefighting provision, emergency procedures and training), keeping it under review. So a business in either nation does broadly the same thing, under its nation's law. The differences to be aware of are the terminology (responsible person in England and Wales, duty holder in Scotland), the fact that they are separate laws with their own detailed requirements and guidance, the different enforcing authorities, and substantive points like the shared-control treatment. A business operating in both nations should follow each nation's law at its premises there and not assume the two are identical.
It is also worth remembering that whichever law applies, the fire-safety measures on the ground are similar because they address the same physical realities of fire - and in a kitchen, those realities include grease. Grease builds up in the extraction system and on surfaces, and it is combustible - a real fire load and a common factor in kitchen fires. So under both the English and the Scottish regimes, controlling that fire risk is part of managing fire safety: the fire risk assessment (whether by a responsible person or a duty holder) should consider the kitchen's fire risk, and keeping the extraction and kitchen clean so grease does not accumulate is a practical fire-safety measure in either nation. This is the same wherever you are, because grease is combustible regardless of jurisdiction. So while the legal framework differs between Scotland and England, the practical fire-safety work - including keeping the kitchen clean to control the grease fire load - is common ground. The law tells you your duty; the physical fire risk tells you what to manage - and a clean kitchen with degreased extraction is part of managing it under either regime. As throughout, this is general information: confirm the specifics against the law that applies to you and take professional advice.
Questions
In England and Wales, the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (the Fire Safety Order or FSO). In Scotland, the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 together with the Fire Safety (Scotland) Regulations 2006. They are separate pieces of legislation because fire safety is devolved, so which applies depends on where the premises is located. Both take a broadly similar, risk-assessment-based approach: the person in control of the premises must assess the fire risk and put in place appropriate fire-safety measures. The main differences are in the legal framework and terminology (England and Wales use responsible person; Scotland uses duty holder), the detailed requirements and guidance, the enforcing authority, and some substantive points such as how shared control is treated. So a business follows the law of the nation its premises is in, and one operating in both should not assume the two regimes are identical. This is general information, not legal advice.
Yes, in their core - both regimes require the person in control of the premises to carry out a suitable fire risk assessment and to put in place and maintain appropriate fire-safety measures, using a goal-based, risk-reduction approach rather than prescriptive rules. In both, the measures include reducing the risk of fire and its spread, means of escape kept clear and usable, detection and warning, firefighting provision, and emergency procedures including training and drills, with the assessment kept under review. So the fundamental fire-safety task - assess the risk, manage it - is broadly the same whether under the England-and-Wales Order or the Fire (Scotland) Act and its regulations. This is why the differences, while real, do not mean starting from scratch when operating in the other nation. The differences lie in the legal framework, terminology, certain details, enforcement, and substantive points like shared control - not in the basic obligation to assess and manage fire risk.
Mainly terminology for a similar concept, under different laws. In England and Wales, the Fire Safety Order places duties on the responsible person - typically the employer, owner or occupier who controls the premises. In Scotland, the Fire (Scotland) Act places duties on the duty holder - the Scottish term for the person who has control of the premises. So both terms mean, broadly, the person in control of the premises who carries the fire-safety duty. The concept is similar; the terminology and the underlying legislation differ. There is, however, a related substantive difference in how shared control is treated (see below): in Scotland, where control is shared, responsibility is shared among all parties to the extent of their control, which can leave a landlord with retained responsibility that in England might pass more fully to a tenant. So the terms are broadly equivalent, but the surrounding law is not identical - which is why it is worth knowing which regime, and which term, applies to you.
In Scotland, under the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005, where two or more parties share control of premises, each shares responsibility for fire safety to the extent of their control - so responsibility is shared among all who have any control, each to the degree they control. A practical consequence is that a landlord cannot fully devolve fire-safety responsibility to a tenant, because the landlord retains responsibility for what they still control (structure, common parts and so on). In England and Wales, while multiple responsible persons can exist each with duties to the extent of their control, in practice the arrangement can allow more of the day-to-day fire-safety responsibility to pass to a tenant who controls the premises, depending on the lease. So the Scottish model tends to leave the landlord with clearer retained responsibility where control is shared. This is a genuine legal difference, not just terminology, and matters for letting or occupying premises across the two nations. The exact position in any case should be checked with professional advice.
Follow each nation's law at its premises, and do not assume the two are identical. Which fire-safety law applies depends on where the premises is: the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 in England and Wales, the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 and the Fire Safety (Scotland) Regulations 2006 in Scotland. The core task is broadly the same in both - assess the fire risk of each premises and manage it with appropriate measures, kept under review - so you are not doing something fundamentally different at each site. But be aware of the differences: the terminology (responsible person versus duty holder), that they are separate laws with their own detailed requirements and guidance, the different enforcing authorities (fire and rescue authorities in England and Wales; the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service in Scotland), and substantive points like the shared-control treatment. So apply the right law at each location and take professional advice on the specifics, rather than assuming a single approach covers both nations identically.
Not fundamentally, because the physical fire risks are the same wherever you are - and in a kitchen those include grease. Grease builds up in the extraction system and on surfaces, and it is combustible: a real fire load and a common factor in kitchen fires. So under both the English and the Scottish regimes, controlling that fire risk is part of managing fire safety - the fire risk assessment (whether done by a responsible person or a duty holder) should consider the kitchen's fire risk, and keeping the extraction and kitchen clean so grease does not accumulate is a practical fire-safety measure in either nation. The legal framework differs between Scotland and England, but the practical fire-safety work - including keeping the kitchen clean to control the grease fire load - is common ground, because grease is combustible regardless of jurisdiction. So the law tells you your duty and the physical fire risk tells you what to manage; a clean kitchen with degreased extraction is part of managing it under either regime.
Under both the English and Scottish fire-safety regimes, controlling the kitchen's grease fire load is a practical measure - grease is combustible wherever you are. Our kitchen deep cleaning and extraction cleaning keep it down. Ask us about reducing your kitchen's fire risk.
