AS an ex-Fire Service and fire investigation officer, I feel qualified to comment on the recent correspondence regarding Scottish Government legislation applicable to domestic smoke/carbon monoxide alarm installations.

At the outset, I must state unequivocally that these devices have saved countless lives, and homeowners who do not have a suitable number of appropriately-located detectors are exposing themselves and their families to needless and potentially catastrophic risk.

The headline "No need for multiple smoke alarms" (Letters, October 22) implies that it is the mandating of multiple detectors which is the problem with the new legislation. This is not the case. Whilst one detector is undoubtedly better than none, depending on the layout of the property, a number of detectors is usually necessary for adequate coverage. It is the requirement for interlinking (i.e. having one detection activate all alarm heads) which is the contentious issue.

Mains-powered systems with battery back-up and interlinked heads are the "gold standard", and it makes perfect sense to require these in multiple occupancies and new-builds. Retro-fitting, however, is hugely disruptive and prohibitively expensive, and cannot be justified for existing private dwellings. Many homes are already fitted with modern, self-contained detector heads incorporating 10-year lithium batteries and high-volume sounders, and give a timely audible warning prior to expiry. With very few exceptions, these are entirely satisfactory. Purchase of replacement detectors with the necessary wireless technology to enable interlinking offers little or no tangible benefit for the considerable outlay.

No doubt the legislation is welcome news for installers (and the cowboys) who can anticipate a bonanza. Widespread non-compliance by occupiers who (rightly) regard their existing provision as adequate is likely, and insurance companies will be gifted another specious pretext to facilitate dodging their obligations.

Apart from the ridiculous timescale (now happily being reconsidered), my opinion is that the statutory requirement for interlinking is ill-considered and disproportionate, and should be deleted from the legislation. Otherwise, substantial unnecessary expense will be incurred by those Scottish home owners who can afford it, and those who can’t will be unreasonably criminalised. I also have some concerns regarding possible unforeseen consequences of the uncontrolled and unnecessary proliferation of wifi devices. I do recognise, however, a case for interlinking may exist in a (very small) number of single-occupancy domestic properties. If in doubt, or if advice is required on the optimum number, location or type of detector heads, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service will assist on request.

Neil Sinclair, Paisley.