What initially appeared to be a problem of conscience only for three cabinet members, all of them Roman Catholic, turned into a quite serious row, where not only faith issues are playing. Actually, the most recent events related to this matter made it very clear that it was not a question of religion, but a genuine constitutional aspect what was being discussed. Former labour minister Mr. Byers, who defined himself as a non practising Methodist, put it as clear as this 'The public will look on in disbelief if a matter as sensitive as the creation of human-animal embryos is made a matter of party policy with the government instructing its MPs how to vote’.

And this is in my opinion the key point of this matter, beyond the content of the Bill itself –which seems plainly unacceptable to me- and letting aside the normal reaction of the Catholic Church in Britain, crystallized in the Easter Sunday Sermon of Cardinal Keith O’Brien in Edinburgh (you can read it at http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2008/03/cardinal-stop-t.html).

It is about whether we should expect from our political representatives something else than their being transmission instruments of their chiefs on command. Otherwise, we’d better elect just a single member for each group and we would save significant amounts of time and money. It is about time MPs –diputados or whatever they are called in each country- are more answerable to their constituents than to their whips, and more than ever when discussions are not about technicalities but about fundamentals. It seems that is what will happen again this time in the United Kingdom. Both the Tories and the Lib-Dem granted freedom of voting on the hybrid embryo regulations to their MPs. Most probably Mr. Brown will finally have to surrender, as Mr. Cameron, the Tory leader, foresaw yesterday ‘I think he will give free votes because people looking at Parliament will simply not understand how you can whip MPs to vote against their conscience on issues like this. They will think the Prime Minister has simply lost his way if he went ahead with that’.

Freedom of voting should not be the exception to the rule but the rule itself. Then each representative could be traced by his voting on the different matters and therefore allow a more accurate judgement by his constituents at the following election. It could even be helpful in order to raise suspects of misconduct and allow a tougher scrutiny by the media, and at the end of the day it could contribute to keep to our representatives on their toes.