Last night, sense and liberty prevailed and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill provisions were passed.

Four issues were granted a free vote by the Government. These were amendments on abortion, the study of chimeric embryos, the saviour siblings issue and the removal of discrimination against lesbians seeking IVF treatment.

There is a strong argument that there should not have been free votes on these issues, however, I'd like to put that to one side.

A number of Ministers, including three members of the Cabinet, voted against this Government legislation on the grounds that it was a matter of conscience.

I strongly agree that MPs should rebel against their parties on matters of conscience, if they believe the issue is important and their party's position is ethically unsupportable. In the same way, I would support a soldier who disobeys an order that he or she believes to be unsupportable.

Yet I don't understand how it can be described as taking a stand on a matter of conscience when there are no consequences for having done so. A soldier who refuses an order to commit a war crime risks sacking, trial or in some countries, execution. But the ministers, some of whom are whips, risked nothing when taking their stand.

Robin Cook and John Denham rebelled on the votes to go to war with Iraq because it was a matter of conscience, and in doing so, they understood that the consequence was the need to resign from the government. A small number of Labour rebels vote against the Government on all sorts of issues, the vast majority of which could be described as a matter of conscience, yet it is clear that this prevents them from being promoted.

I disagree with the rebels on the HF&E Bill, but I respect their stance. However, can someone explain to me how we can expect any backbencher to be disciplined and respect the whip on issues that trouble their own consciences when ministers and whips remain in post after rebelling against government legislation?

Should the HF&E rebels resign?