Neil Hudson: Every young person with the ability to go to university should be encouraged to do so but Labour's 50% target was wrong

Neil Hudson is a Veterinary Surgeon and Senior Lecturer and former Admissions Tutor. He was the Conservative candidate in Edinburgh South in 2010 and Newcastle North in 2005.

As a University Senior Lecturer and having been an Admissions Tutor, I am very aware not only of the pressures faced by our young people trying to get into university, but also of the difficulties faced by universities and colleges trying to match the best students to the limited number of places on their courses.

The challenges facing the sector are hugely complex, which is why the debate that rages across the UK about its future desperately needs a dose of realism. We need to make sure that our Higher Education sector across the whole UK remains at the forefront of global excellence.

Equally, we need to ensure that the prospects are bright for both students and staff in our institutions. It is vital that any person, young or old, who has the potential and ability to go to university should be able and encouraged to do so with no barriers. This should be done on merit and potential and not on the basis of ability to pay.

The decision to increase tuition fees in England has been painful but, unfortunately, necessary. Before Labour opponents jump in too quickly, it is important to point out that it was the Labour Party that first introduced tuition fees and instituted the Browne Review.

The situation north of the border in Scotland is equally complex and it has been left to the Conservatives, alone amongst the Scottish parties, to bravely and realistically face up to the challenge of how to bridge the gap in funding that will now exist between Scotland and England. University Principals are crying out for a realistic solution to this and are making it painfully obvious that the policies pursued variously by the SNP, Labour and the Lib Dems are unsustainable and will leave institutions in Scotland at a real disadvantage.

Dr Neil Hudson: Have the right lessons been learned from the Foot and Mouth outbreak of 2001?

Neil Hudson is a Veterinary Surgeon and was the Conservative candidate in Edinburgh South in 2010 and Newcastle North in 2005.

Ten years after the crisis that hit the UK in 2001, a recent major conference in Edinburgh looked at how best to manage any future outbreak of Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD). The meeting concluded that vaccination could be a way of averting the mass culling of animals that we saw in 2001. I welcome any approach that can minimise the extent of culling, but I haven’t always been so convinced by vaccination and I don’t think it would have been the best response in 2001.

Don’t get me wrong, I never again wish to witness the scenes that I experienced in 2001. I spent a period working as a veterinary officer during the outbreak and, as a vet, it was heartbreaking to supervise the culling of these animals. But the extent to which the disease had spread and the vaccines available ten years ago meant that it was the only option at that time. 

That doesn’t mean I think the situation was handled perfectly.  In particular, I think that the involvement of the Army should have come much sooner.  The timing of the FMD outbreak (in the lead up to a General Election) meant that the Labour Government tried to downplay the extent of the problem and minimise public concerns.  Make no mistake – a FMD outbreak is a national emergency and needs to be dealt with as such.  Across the UK, the 2001 outbreak is estimated to have cost some £8bn.

In 2001, many argued that vaccination would have been a better, less costly option. But the conditions were not right for this to have been a viable option in 2001.  Vaccination against the disease has been used elsewhere but usually as a last resort if other control measures are not working in halting its spread. In my view, vaccination was not an appropriate response in 2001 partly due to the difficulties in differentiating between vaccinated animals and animals that have actually been exposed to the disease. This has significant ramifications for the FMD status of a country from an international trade perspective if trading partners cannot be confident that animals have not been exposed to FMD.