Available for Power: Remand Cells vs MPs' London Homes

There is a phrase that haunts Britain's justice system: "remanded in custody". It sounds procedural, almost polite. In reality it is the state taking someone who has not been convicted and placing them in a prison cell so they will be present for trial, or held until a later hearing. Officially, remand is justified by risk: the court believes there is a real chance the defendant will not surrender to bail, will commit further offences, or will interfere with witnesses. Bail is meant to be the default. But once the word "risk" enters the room, liberty is treated as optional.

At the end of September 2025, England and Wales held around 17,700 people on remand. Over 11,600 of them were "untried" - not yet convicted of anything. The system says this is about availability: keep a person close to the court so the case can move. Yet anyone who has watched cases drag on knows the bitter irony. People are imprisoned so they can be produced on time, while the machinery that is meant to judge them routinely runs late.

Now look at Westminster. MPs are also required to be "available". They are expected to work in two places: their constituency and Parliament. To make that possible, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) funds an accommodation budget so MPs are not out of pocket for the costs of working between two locations. In 2024/25, the published rent budget cap for an MP's London-area accommodation was £29,290. The system presents this as necessary infrastructure for democracy.

Put those two availability policies side by side and the moral imbalance is obvious. When an ordinary person is needed for court, the state reaches for custody. When a lawmaker is needed for votes and committees, the state reaches for a funded second home or a hotel. Both are defended as practical. Only one strips liberty.

The comparison is not that MPs should be sleeping on benches. It is that the state has two instincts, depending on who you are. For defendants, it is containment. For legislators, it is insulation. A remanded person can lose employment, housing, family stability and mental health, and then is told it is not punishment. An MP is protected from the same disruption and told the support is not a perk.

IPSA says the funding exists because commuting from distant constituencies to Westminster can be impractical, and the budget prevents MPs being personally out of pocket. Fair enough as a principle. But if practicality can justify paid accommodation for the powerful, practicality should also justify far wider use of bail, electronic monitoring, supported accommodation, and court scheduling that does not turn unconvicted people into warehouse stock.

This is what "two-tier" looks like when you stop arguing about slogans and follow the incentives. The justice system makes human freedom the buffer for its own delays. Parliament makes money the buffer for its own demands. If Britain wants to call itself fair, it needs to bring those two instincts into the same moral universe: availability should never cost liberty when the state has cheaper, kinder ways to achieve the same end.

Sources used for fact-checking and context

• Ministry of Justice, Offender management statistics quarterly: April to June 2025 (published 30 Oct 2025) and remand population dataset (data.justice.gov.uk).

• House of Commons Justice Committee, The role of adult custodial remand in the criminal justice system (17 Jan 2023).

• Bail Act 1976 (legislation.gov.uk) and CPS guidance on Bail / Custody Time Limits (cps.gov.uk).

• Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA): Accommodation guidance and 'Why do MPs need an accommodation budget?'

• House of Commons Library, Members' pay and expenses 2024/25 (28 Mar 2025) - IPSA scheme budget cap