'If Rishi is to launch Rwanda flights on a wing and a prayer he'll need Justin Welby's help,' says Nigel Nelson

Ever since Justin Welby slammed Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda plan in Monday’s House of Lords debate there have been calls for the Church of England to keep its nose out of politics.

I beg to differ. If the Church of England is to reclaim the relevance it has lost it should get more involved in politics, not less.

For starters that’s its constitutional duty while Church and State are entwined, and bishops sit in Parliament as of right as legislators. Britain is not a secular nation in name, even though it has become one in fact.

The Church’s contribution to that is to march 30 years behind the society it claims to represent; an institution unable to square the circle of being politically liberal but socially conservative.

Because of its exemption from equality laws, it took the Church of England until 2015 to appoint its first woman bishop, Libby Lane in Stockport. And it still will not marry same-sex couples. No wonder young people are not attracted to it.

That’s why the Church of England’s image would be helped if it got more involved in politics. I’m not suggesting that Lord Welby turn the Church of England into a political party and call itself, say, the Christian Democrats.

But with 26 bishops in the House of Lords, it could have a shadow Cabinet.

• Heat pump tsar still using gas to heat home despite encouraging Britons to make £18k switch
• 'We voted to leave the EU, not become a mini EU'
• Abolishing the House of Lords would be 'flagrant breach of the British constitution'

The Archbishop of Canterbury would be leader, the Archbishop of York deputy leader, and bishops given portfolios in line with the Government departments they shadow.

Having a bishop for health would not be a problem, nor one for social welfare. Though the defence brief might need to call itself peace and reconciliation.

It would help in getting bishops on the airwaves because broadcasters would know who speaks on what to pit them against Government ministers, the kind of PR which might encourage more bums on pews.

I put this proposal to Lord Welby’s predecessor, Rowan Williams, though I don’t think he was really listening. We had a convivial sandwich lunch in his Lambeth Palace study, he thanked me graciously for popping in, and I heard no more about it.

So it is unlikely the PM or his ministers will pay much attention to what the bishops are telling them. More troubling for the Tories is what their own grandees are saying.

Ken Clarke is perhaps the most respected of them. He has been, in his time, Justice Secretary, Chancellor, Education Secretary, Health Secretary and Home Secretary so he knows a thing or two about solving ticklish political problems.

And he went straight to the big hole in the Rwanda Bill; seeking to designate Rwanda a safe country for migrants when the Supreme Court ruled that, based on the evidence, it is not.

Judges were concerned about a country willing to send hit squads to Britain to assassinate Rwandan exiles living here. Had they also known about Rwandans fleeing persecution at home being granted asylum here they would no doubt have been concerned about that, too.

Perhaps we should all be asking why, according to the Rwandan opposition, 6,328 Rwandans sought refuge in other countries in 2022 if the regime in their homeland is so fluffy and cuddly.

Lord Clarke said the PM’s proposed legislation was a denial of the facts, like declaring all cats are dogs. He might have added that Mr Sunak could pass a law saying he was 6 foot 2, but that wouldn’t change the fact he is 5 foot 7.

Lord Clarke added: “That is a very dangerous constitutional provision. I fear...the risks of moving towards an elected dictatorship. The sovereignty of Parliament has its limits, which are the limits of the rule of law.”

He said that the Government secretly wanted the Lords to vote the Bill down to get them “out of the hole that they have dug for themselves. I hope we will not fall into that trap”.

He got his way. The Bill passed its second reading and a slew of amendments will be added later.

The Tory peer Viscount Hailsham said the evidence for the safety of Rwanda should be considered by a joint committee of both Houses. That is a sensible way forward. Which means Sunak is unlikely to take it. By the time it has reported the election will be done and dusted.

Flights to Rwanda have become so totemic to the PM’s electoral fortunes that he is prepared to push forward on nothing but a wing and a prayer.

Perhaps the Archbishop could help him with that last bit.