By Keith Vaz

When we, as a country, see people suffering at home and abroad, I like to think we have a very good record of "doing our bit" and stepping up to help the most vulnerable. This explains why there has been such an outcry over recent reports of poor treatment for asylum seekers in the UK. These will be brought before the attention of the Home Secretary at the home affairs select committee today.

First there was discrimination in Middlesbrough when asylum seekers were identified by the red doors of their homes. We then heard that people were being forced to wear red wristbands to be given food in Wales. Now we have heard about serious issues with asylum housing in Glasgow.

At the invitation of committee member, SNP MP Stuart McDonald, who has repeatedly raised this issue, I visited Glasgow to see conditions first hand.

Let us think about how we would expect an individual who has fled war, torture or oppression to be treated when granted asylum in this country.

Would it involve dumping them in a cold, dirty home, with roommates who may or may not speak the same language, no serious induction, intimidating and rude behaviour from staff, no means to wash clothes or cook food for days at a time and, in the case of one of the people I met, without even a lightbulb in their room? Representatives from the Scottish Refugee Council, who are doing excellent work, said cases like these were typical.

Some of these conditions I had described to me by present and former asylum seekers and whistleblowers from a sub-contractor and some I saw for myself.

It is a serious concern that vast swathes of the UK do not house a single asylum seeker. Scotland is a prime example. Glasgow City Council is the only local authority to do so.

This is not right. Areas like Glasgow, Middlesbrough and Birmingham should be proud of their record in helping the most vulnerable but, as the number of asylum seekers needing housing grows, other authorities need to pick up the slack.

The problem-strewn contract with Syrian refugees stands in stark contrast to the efficient manner in which the Home Office has met its target to have housed 1,000 by Christmas, 460 of whom are housed in Scotland.

John Wilkes, chief executive of the Scottish Refugee Council, explained to me that part of the reason for the success of this programme was that the Home Office provided adequate resources to local authorities. By adequate resources, I mean double the funds provided for other asylum seekers.

When the Home Office entered into the Compass asylum seeker housing contracts with only three companies to cover the whole country – Clearsprings, G4S and Serco – it came as no surprise that global firms such as G4S and Serco were able to undercut their competitors.

Councillor Harry McGuigan of Glasgow City Council and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities informed me that the council formerly received £18 a night per asylum seeker housed. G4S spends an average of only £9.35 a night.

The question is: how do you adequately house, feed and care for somebody on only £9.35 a night? The answer appears to be that you cannot.

We may be paying the most minimal fee under the Compass contract, but if the contract is not being effectively or appropriately delivered, then cheaper does not mean the value for money which the taxpayer expects.

Following the home affairs committee's recent report on this matter, it is clear there is much more to investigate, including the need to hear oral evidence from Serco and private property firm Orchard & Shipman.

This is why the committee will be launching a full inquiry into asylum seeker housing and we expect our first oral evidence session to take place on June 7.

If we continue to hear damning stories about how we treat vulnerable people the Home Office and its contractors will risk besmirching the UK's charitable and generous reputation. This is unacceptable, and we must establish whether or not this contract is fit for purpose.

Labour MP Keith Vaz is chairman of the home affairs select committee.