The role of MPs’ religions in the assisted dying vote | Andrew Copson

Last week MPs voted for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at its second reading. Because assisted dying is seen as a matter of individual conscience, there were no instructions from parties on how their MPs should vote and so each one made their decision based on their own convictions. It was striking in practice how much this seemed to depend on their religion or worldview – particularly given how little religion featured in the debate itself.

Before we think about analysing this, what do I mean by an MP’s religion or worldview? Well, for many MPs it is a matter of public record or they have told Humanists UK in correspondence or in surveys. For others, we use oath and affirmation data. Our staff watched MPs swear in or affirm in 2015, 2017, 2019, 2022, and 2024. Typically an MP who affirms is non-religious, while religious MPs swear on a book matching their religion. This isn’t always the case –  some religious MPs don’t swear oaths on principles and some non-religious MPs default to swearing on the King James Bible for the sake of culture or tradition reasons. In many cases we’ve been able to identify where an MP’s religion or worldview is different from what their oath or affirmation would suggest. For these reasons, we’re not always certain whether an MP is a Protestant or non-religious. Nevertheless, overall the data still paints a broadly accurate picture.

On this data the Bill was supported by 79% of non-religious MPs, 67% of Sikhs, 56% of Jews, 42% of Protestants, 40% of Hindus, 21% of Catholics, and 9% of Muslims.

The most striking thing about this is that for some of these groups, religion or worldview is a stronger predictor than political affiliation. 62% of Labour MPs voted in favour, as did 20% of Conservatives, 85% of Lib Dems, 100% of Green MPs, 60% of Reform, 75% of Plaid, and 0% of DUP.

Speaking patterns were similar. 82% of non-religious MPs who spoke or intervened in the debate did so in favour of the Bill, compared to 32% of Protestants. Every Catholic and Muslim who spoke or intervened did so against the Bill.

Outside of the debate, many MPs talked about their religion or worldview as part of their motivation, as Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood did, in a move that was criticised by some but I believe was the right and honest thing to do (after all, we would all be motivated by our deepest beliefs in making these kind of decisions and in a democracy for our representatives to be open about their motivations is surely a praiseworthy thing).

But only two MPs mentioned their religion or worldview as a factor in the debate. Carla Lockhart MP said:

‘The root of my conviction is this: life in all its forms is of inherent worth and value. While I have come to that conclusion partly because of my faith…’

And Rachel Hopkins MP mentioned her humanism, saying:

‘As a humanist, I believe we have but one life and that we should live it well and make it meaningful. I believe that individuals should have autonomy in life. Similarly, I believe that at the end of life every person should have agency and the right to die with dignity and to a safe and painless death, on their own terms, subject of course to strong safeguards. I believe that the Bill contains stringent safeguards. Although my humanist beliefs have contributed to my view, personal experience…’

Eight MPs referred to the religious perspectives of others, often to say that in their experience religious people are often in favour. And indeed the polling evidence backs this up – in 2023, a YouGov poll found that 96% of Jewish people, 85% of non-religious people, 78% of Anglicans, 68% of Catholics, 48% of Hindus, 32% of Sikhs, and 26% of Muslims support assisted dying. This means that among every religion or belief group except Sikhs, support among MPs ran below the population as a whole, but this was particularly true among Christian MPs.

Writing for the i ahead of the Second Reading, journalist Lewis Goodall said ‘None of this is illegitimate or improper, and it is entirely natural that anyone would be guided by their spiritual beliefs. But because of Britain’s quietly profound secularism, religious MPs’ opposition is rarely articulated in overtly theological terms. Alastair Campbell famously said of our politics that “we don’t do God”, and proponents correctly assess that any attempt to cite expressly doctrinal arguments would be deeply alienating. MPs in favour of the legislation privately believe that the debate can therefore be a form of shadowboxing.’ On Twitter he added ‘Some say assisted dying has been “parliament at its best”. I’m not sure. Instead religion has quietly played a dominant role in the debate… with few believing MPs being straightforward about why.’

MPs will come to support or oppose assisted dying for a whole variety of reasons. It is also up to every MP to choose which arguments they wish to advance, there is limited time to speak, and MPs are under no obligation to out themselves in terms of their religion or worldview when speaking on this or any other issue. But it is striking nonetheless how some of the most vocal opponents of the Bill are among the most religious MPs. And equally how, while a strong majority of non-religious MPs voted in favour, just 21% of Catholics and 9% of Muslims did likewise. That data shows that Goodall is right and it does seem that religion has played a strong but silent role in the assisted dying debate.