WHEN Robin Cook's conscience would not allow him to vote for the invasion of Iraq, he was forced to resign from the Cabinet and end his political career on the backbenches.

There was no question of Tony Blair giving his frontbench colleagues a free vote on the war.

They either accepted the principle of "collective responsibility" - or they quit.

Now Cabinet ministers will get a free vote on key aspects of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill - making it easier for lesbian couples to have fertility treatment, so-called saviour siblings' and, most contentiously, hybrid animalhuman embryos.

Yet which of these issues creates the greater moral dilemma? A war which has caused perhaps one million civilian deaths, or using the outer, empty shell of animal eggs to try to save countless lives?

Make no mistake, that is what the most "moral" aspect of this Bill boils down to - whatever the outrageous campaign of disinformation by church leaders in recent days.

The leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland condemned "experiments of Frankenstein proportions", as if there was some dastardly department of health plot to create new life forms.

Our own Bishop of Durham joined in, telling his flock: "Gender-bending was so last century - we now do species-bending."

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, scientists will use these hybrid embryos - in place of scarce human eggs - to try to find cures for crippling diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, Motor Neurone, cancer and heart disease.

More than 99 per cent of the animal's genetic make-up is removed from the egg before human DNA is inserted. And the hybrid exists in a laboratory for just 14 days, to harvest stem cells for research, before being destroyed.

Going back to my earlier question - whether Iraq or embryo research poses greater moral questions - there can be only one answer, surely?

It must be going to war.

Now, I am not suggesting that Catholic Labour MPs who cannot support these measures should be literally dragged kicking and screaming into the Yes' lobby. Of course they shouldn't.

But any MP is already free to vote with their conscience, if they wish. It simply means, for a government minister, stepping down and sitting on the backbenches - just as Robin Cook did.

Instead, Mr Brown has caved in after a concerted campaign of fire-and-brimstone Easter sermons, which appeared to replace the traditional teaching about the Resurrection.

But why should the Church have a monopoly in deciding what is a moral issue?

TONY Blair was said to have delivered the speech of his life on the eve of the Iraq War vote - commanding, Churchillian, "passion in his voice and fire in his belly" said one newspaper.

But a rather different image was painted this week by Stockton North MP Frank Cook, as he remembered the Prime Minister's desperate last-gasp lobbying for his vote.

Mr Cook said Mr Blair was "clearly in some distress" during a 25-minute meeting, as he realised the biggest Labour revolt in history would mean he would go to war only because of Tory support.

He told MPs: "Blair said I really need your support'. He was distressed, he was chalk white and was visibly shaking."

Later, after the vote was won, Mr Cook remembered: "Blair was standing against the bookcase, still white, still quivering."

I wonder if the Blair memoirs will agree?