THE surest test of any government’s commitment to fairness is how they treat those who seek refuge in their country, which is why there is so much anger at Donald Trump’s ban on refugees. So how should we judge the UK Government on the system of asylum accommodation that means an asylum seeker in Glasgow was forced to live in conditions her GP said would adversely affect her child’s growth?

The case has emerged in a report by the Home Affairs Select Committee, which concluded much of the accommodation for asylum seekers is a disgrace. The housing provided is frequently unclean, says the report, with families often in conditions that could endanger their health. In the Glasgow case, the woman’s child could not crawl around because the room was so small – conditions which her doctor said meant the child might not develop properly.

The Home Affairs Select Committee was rightly appalled by the case, but concerns about accommodation for asylum seekers have been around for some time. Before 2011, it was provided mainly by councils and charities, but the system was changed and is now contracted out to private companies via the COMPASS process. The aim – as usual – was to get value for money, but the result – as usual – was a tendering process that encouraged companies to provide accommodation at the lowest possible price.

Now the committee’s report has put the case for reform beyond doubt. A much better system of inspection and enforcement is urgently needed. The process also needs to be quicker, although some of the delays are caused by appeals. And those councils which have consistently refused to take their fair share of asylum seekers must now be forced to do so.

The select committee says the current system is totally unfit for purpose; the aim must be a system that treats vulnerable people with dignity and respect.