The Rt Hon Malcolm Bruce MP

Jan-Feb Column

• Will Splitting the Home Office make it more effective?

The fact that John Reid has proposed that the Home Office be divided into two separate departments, each with its cabinet Minster, is I suppose the, logical follow-through to his description of the department as "not fit for purpose."

Malcolm argues that the Home Office's powers have been reformed too many times and that we should simplify laws

However, he should reflect that one of the reasons the department has failed is that the Government has fatally overloaded it. Parliament has passed five Home Office Acts under New Labour; others have been resisted and sections of others have been repealed before they were even implemented.

This is because ministers have tried to run the agenda to meet the headline requirements of the Daily Mail (without securing the support of that newspaper). The space taken up by the legislation is equivalent to War and Peace twice over.

This has made life difficult for courts, police, prisons, probation, prosecution and other services.

Ministers want to slap on ASBOs to show they are tough on anti social behaviour, they want longer sentences to show they are tough on crime; they want control orders to show they are confronting terrorism. They want more and more records kept on more and more people and they are pressing ahead with identity cards at enormous expense.

I know I am not alone in concluding that we don't need more laws. If anything we need fewer. What we do need is effective enforcement of what we have got.

When people hear that prisoners recommended for deportation have been released without such action and have disappeared; that foreign prisoners have been returned to this country without our knowledge; that serious criminals have absconded and that ASBOs have been ignored or not followed up they can see the Home Office is not fit.

It is an open question whether having two cabinet ministers competing with each other to introduce the most legislation and appear toughest in the tabloids will address the failures or compound it. My instincts suggest that whatever else we do we should simplify the laws and enforce them effectively.

• Local Economies in Aberdeenshire

The North East has full employment and increased immigration and yet it has a real dilemma as to where the jobs of the future will come from. Scottish Enterprise announced ambitious plans last week for the Aberdeen Science and Energy Park, which could secure our region's long term future in the energy in industries. It could help secure a key role for Aberdeen as a lead centre for the Government's proposed Energy Technologies Institute

This is welcome and we should, as I suggested in my last column, be looking for ways of attracting all kinds of investment throughout the North East.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to believe that the majority of new jobs in the region will come from the manufacturing centre or be based on industrial estates.

All our communities need to be open for business and need some industrial land for expansion but more jobs are likely to come from the commercial sector including retailing.

Inverurie probably has the most balanced economy in the area with a mix of industrial, commercial, retail, administration and commuter jobs. Ellon has the most commuter bias and limited local employment opportunities, which may make Tesco's decision to open in the town particularly significant.

From the many conversations I have had I know many Ellon folk shop at Tesco's at Danestone or other city supermarkets. They may now feel more motivated to shop in Ellon and other shops may benefit.

Certainly since ASDA and Tesco opened in Huntly there has been a general view that there have been more people in the town. Of course, not everyone benefits and new developments have to be monitored closely but it seems to me that expanding retail opportunities in our market towns actually strengthens the local economy and reduces journeys into Aberdeen.

• Anniversary of the Union

I suppose it is appropriate that the 300 Anniversary of the Act of Union comes in the Burns season. Of course, Burns did not experience a Scottish Parliament and was only able to lampoon the parcel of rogues.

Scotland and England marks 300 years of Union in Burn's season.

Nevertheless, I remind English Unionists that the Union which dates from 1603 began with a parliament and its re-establishment in no way needs to prejudice it.

Having played a very active role in negotiating and securing the terms under which the present Scottish Parliament was established I believe it modernises the union and gives scope for its further development towards a more federal UK.

So the union of 1707 is not a cause for throwing hats in the air or putting out more flags. It was a more practical affair than that. One London journalist described it as an arranged marriage, which gave benefits to both parties at the time. It gave the people of Scotland access to England's markets (which became global in the centuries that followed the Union). England secured a peaceful neighbour and the protestant succession.

By the same token, I have often remarked that breaking the Union would be divorce for which the marriage vows should be applied - i.e. it would have to be for richer for poorer for better for worse.

I was, therefore somewhat surprised when the leader of the SNP, who only argues the case for independence in economic terms, admitted that if Scotland left the UK this year as he wants, he would keep the pound while negotiating entry into the euro.

This hugely qualifies what separation means and demonstrates that it doesn't mean independence. Scotland's currency, interest rates and exchange rate would be determined entirely outside Scotland.

And, of course, entry into the euro could be highly problematic as it would require debt levels, borrowing and inflation to meet the rules laid down by the European Central Bank who would not tolerate free spending, unaffordable tax cuts or increasing public debt.

By the time we get to May I suspect most voters will be more interested in what the parties propose to do in practice about the health service, education, crime, the environment and the economy rather than busting the UK.

• EU directive on Pollution affects local farmers

Farmers are understandably exercised about the latest restrictions on pollution under EU directives.

These have a particularly strong impact on the important pig and poultry sectors neither of which receive any form of subsidy and consequently have tight margins that mean extra costs simplify squeeze their already tight margins.

The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency have proposed changes to the pollution directive which is affecting farmers

In the case of the Integrated Pollution and Prevention Control Directive (IPPC) the major concern is the scale of charges proposed by SEPA (the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency).

These appear to be higher than those being imposed on farmers in England and seem excessive in terms of the work entailed in inspecting for licenses.

The proposed rule changes in the action programme for nitrate vulnerable zones raise different problems. Farmers maintain in most cases that the level of nitrate pollution is falling and that the restrictions on storing and spreading slurry do not conform to scientific information and have very high costs for limited justification.

In fact, they also maintain that the regulations will force farmers to spread slurry at times when it could cause more nuisance and generate more complaints than necessary.

This is exactly the kind of situation - the Scottish application of EU regulations as agreed by the UK Government- where Nora Radcliffe and I work together and have taken these issues up with Scottish Ministers to ensure that all the issues are fairly considered.