Dear Ms Thew

Thank you for your letter.

I believe that animal experimentation should only be carried out where there is no alternative and for reasons that are of significant human benefit. Organisations that carry out experimentation must be licensed and subject to regular inspection. I support Labour's policy which aims to:

• Reduce the number of animals used in experiment,
• Refine techniques to minimise suffering and
• Replace with non-animal alternatives whenever possible.

With regard to your three specific questions I believe that the '3 Rs' policy is consistent with the progressive measures you seek and therefore I would support increased transparency, prioritising non-animal science and alternate testing on household products where possible.

With best wishes

Tamsin Dunwoody
Labour Party Candidate for Crewe & Nantwich

Dear Ms Thew,

As an MEP I have consistently been against cruelty to animals and have opposed:

1. Animal experimentation and especially in relation to the REACH directive
2. Bear Bile Farms
3. Bull fighting
4. Killing of Whales
5. Experiments on Primates

I support increased transparency and accountability in animal experimentation.

I support prioritizing non-animal science.

I support banning the use of animals to test household products.

I am on record already on these subjects as an MEP and you can rely on the fact that I am a friend to animals.

Yours sincerely,

Mike Nattrass MEP
UK Independence Party candidate for Crewe & Nantwich

Dear Ms Thew

Thank you for your recent letter regarding animal vivisection. Animal rights is an issue that I care strongly about; my husband and I are members of many animal charities.

I believe that there is evidence to show that not enough effort is being made to fund modern techniques which provide alternatives to experimenting on live animals. Tests can now be carried out on cell and tissue cultures, while computer modelling can be used to predict the potential effects of many substances. There are also human "guinea pigs" and new medicines are already tested on healthy volunteers, it may be that some animal experiments may be avoided by moving to human trials earlier in the regulatory process.

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are firmly committed to exploring and promoting viable alternatives to animal testing. We would divert some of the money currently used to finance testing on animals to fund research into alternatives.

While I recognise the concerns of organisations such as yours, I feel it is necessary to balance concern for the animals involved with concern for those humans who will suffer should vital life saving studies not be carried out.

The replacement and reduction of trials involving primates should be vigorously pursued but we cannot ignore the progress such trials have provided. Major advances in the treatment of Parkinson`s disease came about as a direct result of research using primates, therefore we must accept that the research involving primates can be vital in treating debilitating conditions in humans.

Tightly regulated use of non-human primates is still a vital and necessary tool in developing new treatments and vaccinations for human diseases as Alzheimer`s, HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria as well as Parkinson`s disease. At present such use of animals cannot be completely replaced by alternatives such as functional magnetic resonance imaging, micro-dosing, computer-modelling or tissue cell culture. In these cases I believe it is crucial that the tests must be carried out in the most humane way possible, to minimise the suffering of the animals involved.

I do not agree with the testing of household and beauty products on animals. Wherever possible, I always look to purchase products which have not been tested in this way. I am a strong campaigner for less animal testing across the board, but believe that it should never be used for these purposes.

I am support refinement, reduction and replacement of these techniques, and will campaign to improve animal welfare and help to minimize the number of animals used in testing. In addition, this process will eventually help find alternatives to animals.

Where it is not possible to avoid animal experimentation it is of great importance that these tests are carried out in accordance with best practice. In order to ensure this, the Liberal Democrats propose to establish a permanent Animal Protection Commission, answerable to Parliament through a Cabinet Minister, to act as a 'one-stop shop' for all animals used by humans and to ensure animal welfare considerations are upgraded.

We would also like to extend the size and powers of the Home Office Inspectorate and encourage more unannounced inspections of animal experimentation establishments.

I hope that I have answered your query in full, should you have any further questions or require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me again.

Yours sincerely,

Elizabeth Shenton
Liberal Democrat candidate for Crewe & Nantwich

Dear Ms Thew

The Green Party and myself opposes the use of animal experimentation, particularly on cosmetic products and other household products, as well as experimentation using genetic manipulation. For more information our parties policy can be found on our website, where an up to date version of our animal policy can be found. The main highlights of our policy are within the animals section.

With regards to the specific issues you have queried:

• The Party and myself would like to see increased transparency and accountability on animal experimentation including reasons having to be given for why such experimentation is necessary and why other forms of non animal based experiments couldn't be used.
• The Green party would seek to divert all funding currently going into animal based experimentation into non animal forms.
• We would see an immediate ban of the use of cosmetic and household products on animals. We already attempt to do this as a party, with our party office using ecologically sound and non-animal tested products wherever possible.

There are wider policies that cover this area that will also indirectly relate to this topic, such as the use of preventative medicine, increasing the pool of human donors (instead of the use of xenotransplantation) research into artificial organs and use of tissue culture and computer simulation of the effects of products.

I hope that this answers your query. If you wish to discuss things further, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Regards,

Rob Smith
Green Party candidate for Crewe & Nantwich

Dear Ms Thew

Thank you for your letters regarding animal experimentation.

Following the recent High Court ruling which found that the licences given to scientists that allow them to carry out experiments on animals are being mislabelled, in addition to the news that the numbers of procedures have risen, I believe it is time to look closely at animal testing legislation to ensure that it is as robust as possible.

The Home Office recently released figures and statistics on the number of scientific procedures carried out on animals and I am deeply concerned that for a fifth consecutive year, these figures show that the number of animals used in scientific procedures has risen. In 2006 3.01 million animals were used in scientific procedures, up 115,800 on the previous year. This figure represents the largest number of animals used in scientific testing, where a license is issued, for 15 years.

Under the existing guidelines, there is no way to cap the number of animals used in scientific testing. The current licensing system is demand led and the 1986 Act provides the Home Office with no mechanism, as regulator, to reduce the number of living animals used in scientific tests.

Scientific innovation, especially in the area of medical advancement, would suggest that as new technologies, treatments and procedures are developed, it is inevitable that animal testing will continue.

The Conservative Party is committed to the 3 'R's, Refinement, Reduction and Replacement. Specific and reliable alternatives are continually being developed and by using substitute procedures such as functional magnetic resonance imaging, micro-dosing and computer modelling, we are often able to produce the same results as those that may be otherwise gathered through live testing. We are dedicated to developing these and other new technologies further.

We must, in every circumstance, weigh the benefits to humans, other animals and the environment, against the cost to the animals involved. Accepting this, the Conservative Party is also committed to tackling this issue where Labour has failed. A 15 per cent rise in the number of living animals used in scientific procedures since 2001 is unacceptable and the Home Office has shown scant regard for this spiralling trend.

Striking a balance between the need for medical innovation and animal welfare is possible. It is clear that reform of the current legislation is needed.

As for a ban on using animals to test household products, the Conservative Party is open to such a prospect but a final decision will not be taken until late June.

Shadow Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Rosindell M.P. is in the early stages of reviewing the 1986 Act and is committed to substantially reducing the number of animals used in scientific procedures. I will send him a copy of your letter so that he can feed your views into his thinking on this very important subject.

Once again, thank you for your letter.

Edward Timpson
Conservative Party candidate for Crewe & Nantwich