Email your MP today
WM Tool - April 2026
ADMIN CONTENT
Supporter Post Code
Supporter WM Constituency
MP Party
MP Name
MP Email
Post to MP on X
Stephen Kinnock
Labour
Aberafan Maesteg
PLEASE NOTE:
Your MP, Sir Julian Lewis, does not receive email correspondence. Why not copy and paste the email into a letter and post it to him at Sir Julian Lewis MP, House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA
You have landed on this page without entering a postcode.
CLICK HERE TO ENTER YOUR POSTCODE
The postcode you've entered is not associated with a particular constituency.
It may be formatted incorrectly.
Did you remember to include the space in the middle?
CLICK HERE TO TRY AGAIN
SUBJECT:
You can edit this subject heading
Labour MPs who signed the letter to the PM
<p>Dear Mr Kinnock,</p> I would like to express my concern that you signed a letter to the Prime Minister calling for an assisted dying/suicide bill to be (re-)introduced in the new session of Parliament. This is a sensitive issue with strongly held views on both sides of the debate. However, it has become clear that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill contained many shortcomings. It put at risk people who are most vulnerable to coercion, pressure and depression, and particularly those with disabilities.. Lord Falconer himself introduced 76 amendments to the Bill which shows that the Bill passed by the House of Commons was wholly inadequate. Medical Royal Colleges, although neutral on the principle of assisted dying/suicide, have expressed their opposition to the Bill which they consider to be unsafe. Moreover, 80 amendments aimed at making the Bill safer were not even debated during Report Stage in the Commons. It would be irresponsible to bring the same Bill back unamended and use the Parliament Acts to force it onto the Statute Book. With one in three people not getting all their palliative care needs met, the postcode lottery in palliative care should be addressed as a priority. Recent polling by Whitestone Insight shows that two-thirds (67%) of the public agree that “it is essential that high quality hospice and/or palliative care is universally available before any assisted suicide laws are passed”. <strong>71% of Labour voters agree with this.</strong> Whilst it may be frustrating for supporters of the Bill that the House of Lords’ scrutiny process has taken so long, 69% of Labour voters think that “members of the House of Lords have a moral obligation to block or amend any legislation if <strong>they genuinely believe it could put vulnerable people at risk”.</strong> I would ask you to reflect on these concerns. Thank you for all your work on behalf of constituents and in representing our local area. With best wishes,
Labour MPs (Non signatories)
<p>Dear Mr Kinnock,</p> I would like to express my concern that over 100 MPs have signed a letter to the Prime Minister calling for an assisted dying/suicide bill to be (re-)introduced in the new session of Parliament. This is a sensitive issue with strongly held views on both sides of the debate. However, it has become clear that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill contained many shortcomings. It put at risk people who are most vulnerable to coercion, pressure and depression, and particularly those with disabilities. Lord Falconer himself introduced 76 amendments to the Bill which shows that the Bill passed by the House of Commons was wholly inadequate. Medical Royal Colleges, although neutral on the principle of assisted dying/suicide, have expressed their opposition to the Bill which they consider to be unsafe. Moreover, 80 amendments aimed at making the Bill safer were not even debated during Report Stage in the Commons. It would be irresponsible to bring the same Bill back unamended and use the Parliament Acts to force it onto the Statute Book. With one in three people not getting all their palliative care needs met, the postcode lottery in palliative care should be addressed as a priority. Recent polling by Whitestone Insight shows that two-thirds (67%) of the public agree that “it is essential that high quality hospice and/or palliative care is universally available before any assisted suicide laws are passed”. <strong>71% of Labour voters agree with this.</strong> Whilst it may be frustrating for supporters of the Bill that the House of Lords’ scrutiny process has taken so long, 69% of Labour voters think that “members of the House of Lords have a moral obligation to block or amend any legislation if <strong>they genuinely believe it could put vulnerable people at risk”.</strong> Some Bill supporters are suggesting tactics that would undermine democratic scrutiny. Some are even suggesting packing a new Committee in the Commons only with supporters of assisted suicide to force a new bill through unamended as quickly as possible. However, the public do not support this approach. Excluding those who said they didn’t know, 68% of people agreed that “if the proposed law falls because the House of Lords’ attempts to address safety concerns raised by experts cannot be completed within the parliamentary timetable, no parliamentary procedure should be able to override that” with only 32% disagreeing. I would ask you to reflect on these concerns. Thank you for all your work on behalf of constituents and in representing our local area. With best wishes,
Sir Keir Starmer
<p>Dear Mr Kinnock,</p> I would like to express my concern that over 100 MPs have signed a letter to you calling for an assisted dying/suicide bill to be (re-)introduced in the new session of Parliament. This is a sensitive issue with strongly held views on both sides of the debate. However, it has become clear that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill contained many shortcomings. It put at risk people who are most vulnerable to coercion, pressure and depression, and particularly those with disabilities. Lord Falconer himself introduced 76 amendments to the Bill which shows that the Bill passed by the House of Commons was wholly inadequate. Medical Royal Colleges, although neutral on the principle of assisted dying/suicide, have expressed their opposition to the Bill which they consider to be unsafe. Moreover, 80 amendments aimed at making the Bill safer were not even debated during Report Stage in the Commons. It would be irresponsible to bring the same Bill back unamended and use the Parliament Acts to force it onto the Statute Book. With one in three people not getting all their palliative care needs met, the postcode lottery in palliative care should be addressed as a priority. Recent polling by Whitestone Insight shows that two-thirds (67%) of the public agree that “it is essential that high quality hospice and/or palliative care is universally available before any assisted suicide laws are passed”. <strong>71% of Labour voters agree with this.</strong> Whilst it may be frustrating for supporters of the Bill that the House of Lords’ scrutiny process has taken so long, 69% of Labour voters think that “members of the House of Lords have a moral obligation to block or amend any legislation if <strong>they genuinely believe it could put vulnerable people at risk”</strong>. Some Bill supporters are suggesting tactics that would undermine democratic scrutiny. Some are even suggesting packing a new Committee in the Commons only with supporters of assisted suicide to force a new Bill through unamended as quickly as possible. However, the public do not support this approach. Excluding those who said they didn’t know, 68% of people agreed that “if the proposed law falls because the House of Lords’ attempts to address safety concerns raised by experts cannot be completed within the parliamentary timetable, no parliamentary procedure should be able to override that” with only 32% disagreeing. I would ask you to reflect on these concerns. Thank you for all your work on behalf of constituents and in representing our local area. With best wishes,
LIB DEM MPs who signed the letter to the PM
<p>Dear Mr Kinnock,</p> I would like to express my concern that you signed a letter to the Prime Minister calling for an assisted dying/suicide bill to be (re-)introduced in the new session of Parliament. This is a sensitive issue with strongly held views on both sides of the debate. However, it has become clear that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill contained many shortcomings. It put at risk people who are most vulnerable to coercion, pressure and depression, and particularly those with disabilities. Lord Falconer himself introduced 76 amendments to the Bill which shows that the Bill passed by the House of Commons was wholly inadequate. Medical Royal Colleges, although neutral on the principle of assisted dying/suicide, have expressed their opposition to the Bill which they consider to be unsafe. Moreover, 80 amendments aimed at making the Bill safer were not even debated during Report Stage in the Commons. It would be irresponsible to bring the same Bill back unamended and use the Parliament Acts to force it onto the Statute Book. With one in three people not getting all their palliative care needs met, the postcode lottery in palliative care should be addressed as a priority. Recent polling by Whitestone Insight shows that two-thirds (67%) of the public agree that “it is essential that high quality hospice and/or palliative care is universally available before any assisted suicide laws are passed”. Whilst it may be frustrating for supporters of the Bill that the House of Lords’ scrutiny process has taken so long, <strong>71% of Liberal Democrat voters </strong>think that “members of the House of Lords have a moral obligation to block or amend any legislation if they<strong> genuinely believe it could put vulnerable people at risk”.</strong> I would ask you to reflect on these concerns. Thank you for all your work on behalf of constituents and in representing our local area. With best wishes,
LIB DEM MPs (Non-signatories)
<p><p>Dear Mr Kinnock,</p></p><p>I would like to express my concern that over 100 MPs have signed a letter to the Prime Minister calling for an assisted dying/suicide bill to be (re-)introduced in the new session of Parliament.</p><p>This is a sensitive issue with strongly held views on both sides of the debate. However, it has become clear that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill contained many shortcomings. It put at risk people who are most vulnerable to coercion, pressure and depression, and particularly those with disabilities.</p><p>Lord Falconer himself introduced 76 amendments to the Bill which shows that the Bill passed by the House of Commons was wholly inadequate. Medical Royal Colleges, although neutral on the principle of assisted dying/suicide, have expressed their opposition to the Bill which they consider to be unsafe. Moreover, 80 amendments aimed at making the Bill safer were not even debated during Report Stage in the Commons. It would be irresponsible to bring the same Bill back unamended and use the Parliament Acts to force it onto the Statute Book.</p><p>With one in three people not getting all their palliative care needs met, the postcode lottery in palliative care should be addressed as a priority. Recent polling by Whitestone Insight shows that two-thirds (67%) of the public agree that “it is essential that high quality hospice and/or palliative care is universally available before any assisted suicide laws are passed”.</p><p>Whilst it may be frustrating for supporters of the Bill that the House of Lords’ scrutiny process has taken so long, <strong>71% of Liberal Democrat voters </strong>think that “members of the House of Lords have a moral obligation to block or amend any legislation if they <strong>genuinely believe it could put vulnerable people at risk”.</strong></p><p>Some Bill supporters are suggesting tactics that would undermine democratic scrutiny. Some are even suggesting packing a new Committee in the Commons only with supporters of assisted suicide to force a new Bill through unamended as quickly as possible. However, the public do not support this approach. Excluding those who said they didn’t know, 68% of people agreed that “if the proposed law falls because the House of Lords’ attempts to address safety concerns raised by experts cannot be completed within the parliamentary timetable, no parliamentary procedure should be able to override that” with only 32% disagreeing.</p><p>I would ask you to reflect on these concerns.</p><p>Thank you for all your work on behalf of constituents and in representing our local area.</p><p>With best wishes,</p>
Other MPs (Non-signatories)
<p><p>Dear Mr Kinnock,</p></p><p>I would like to express my concern that over 100 MPs have signed a letter to the Prime Minister calling for an assisted dying/suicide bill to be (re-)introduced in the new session of Parliament.</p><p>This is a sensitive issue with strongly held views on both sides of the debate. However, it has become clear that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill contained many shortcomings. It put at risk people who are most vulnerable to coercion, pressure and depression, and particularly those with disabilities.</p><p>Lord Falconer himself introduced 76 amendments to the Bill which shows that the Bill passed by the House of Commons was wholly inadequate. Medical Royal Colleges, although neutral on the principle of assisted dying/suicide, have expressed their opposition to the Bill which they consider to be unsafe. Moreover, 80 amendments aimed at making the Bill safer were not even debated during Report Stage in the Commons. It would be irresponsible to bring the same Bill back unamended and use the Parliament Acts to force it onto the Statute Book.</p><p>With one in three people not getting all their palliative care needs met, the postcode lottery in palliative care should be addressed as a priority. Recent polling by Whitestone Insight shows that two-thirds (67%) of the public agree that “it is essential that high quality hospice and/or palliative care is universally available before any assisted suicide laws are passed”.</p><p>Whilst it may be frustrating for supporters of the Bill that the House of Lords’ scrutiny process has taken so long, <strong>62% of voters</strong> think that “members of the House of Lords have a moral obligation to block or amend any legislation if they <strong>genuinely believe it could put vulnerable people at risk</strong>”.</p><p>Some Bill supporters are suggesting tactics that would undermine democratic scrutiny. Some are even suggesting packing a new Committee in the Commons only with supporters of assisted suicide to force a new Bill through unamended as quickly as possible. However, the public do not support this approach. Excluding those who said they didn’t know, 68% of people agreed that “if the proposed law falls because the House of Lords’ attempts to address safety concerns raised by experts cannot be completed within the parliamentary timetable, no parliamentary procedure should be able to override that” with only 32% disagreeing.</p><p>I would ask you to reflect on these concerns.</p><p>Thank you for all your work on behalf of constituents and in representing our local area.</p><p>With best wishes,</p>
Add your contact details
YOUR FIRST NAME
*
YOUR LAST NAME
*
YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS
*
EMAIL PERMISSION
*
YES - keep up to date with Care Not Killing via email, including updates about this campaign and other campaign actions we take on this issue. (RECOMMENDED)
NO - I don't want to keep up to date with Care Not Killing.
Captcha
SEND MY EMAIL
If you are human, leave this field blank.
