A high turnout by Labour peers ensured that MPs, who twice voted to make the change in the Adoption and Children Bill, had their way and an eleventh-hour confrontation between the Commons and Lords was averted.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the Health Minister, defended the decision of the Commons to allow unmarried couples, including gays, to adopt as “right and necessary”, saying that it would improve immeasurably the life chances of hundreds of children.

Lord Hunt referred to the number of children in care for whom no adopters now come forward and said that children in care were more likely to go to prison and experience homelessness and unemployment. He said it was necessary to “widen the pool” of families willing to adopt. “People in casual or short-term relationships are unlikely to put themselves forward and, if they do, they are unlikely to get very far in the process,” Lord Hunt said.

But Earl Howe, a Conservative Health spokesman, moved identical amendments to those carried by the Lords last month that would prevent unmarried couples, whether heterosexual or gay, from adopting jointly, as is now the case. Lord Howe insisted that marriage was the “optimum environment for raising children”, and children in care, who he agreed were vulnerable, deserved “the best”.

By improving adoption procedures, the Bill would in any case widen the pool of adopters, he argued. The commitment of marriage was a prerequisite for adopting as a couple. “Two people who live together but who are not prepared to marry are implicitly signalling that they do not regard themselves as being in a permanent or lifelong relationship,” Lord Howe said.

This provoked Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat) to say: “I take offence to this remark, which I regard as entirely ungrounded.”

Turning to gay partnerships, Lord Howe said that it would be wrong to grant rights and responsibilities to relationships whose status was not defined in law.

Lord Howe’s amendment was defeated by 215 votes to 184, a majority of 31, clearing the way for unmarried couples to adopt. The votes against it included 19 Tory peers.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick, a former law lord, supported change in favour of unmarried couples, saying that to give a child two legal parents, even of the same sex, was not an obstacle and in the child’s interests.

The number of adoptions by single homosexuals was small and the change would probably mean a small number of adoptions by homosexual couples, Lord Lloyd said. But, if one child in care found a home with an unmarried couple as a result, it would be worth it.

Lord Jenkin of Roding (Conservative) moved an amendment seeking to allow adoption by unmarried couples, but not by those of the same sex. He withdrew a similar amendment last month but said afterwards that many peers expressed support. “I cannot be convinced that the wellbeing of adopted children with two fathers or two mothers is significantly enhanced by going through the motions of giving them both legal status,” Lord Jenkin said. I do not think the country is ready to accept that adoption by same-sex couples should have legal equivalence, because that is what is being said, to adoption by a couple consisting of a man and a woman.”

The Bishop of Chelmsford, the Right Rev John Perry, opposed change, arguing that heterosexual relationships short of marriage were “very much less secure” than marriage, which was a public declaration in law to be committed for life. Same-sex relationships were even less secure, he said.

Baroness Billingham (Labour) intervened, saying that she had been brought up in care and thought it “totally cruel and unjust” to place obstacles between a child in care finding a happy, loving home.

Debate

What now for the Tories? Can they unite or will they die?

Email your views to
debate@thetimes.co.uk

Times Recommends

• Model judge and his funky new gown
• First review: Sex and the City
• Thatchers clutch at straws after crops fail