IT is becoming increasingly clear that there are real problems with the way the city council has been handing out contracts. Last autumn, following a complaint by a local elector, the council’s internal auditors, Veritau, and external auditors, Mazars, criticised the way a contract was awarded to one specific external consultant.

There was no evidence to explain why £56,000 had been paid out in 2015/16, they said: while a council officer who had signed off the deal had kept no relevant records, and had since left the job.

Now it appears that the problems are more widespread than this single case. A separate, routine report by internal auditor Veritau into the authority’s civil engineering and building maintenance department identifies “examples of missing and incomplete documentation”.

This has prompted the authority’s external auditor Mazars, in a new report published this week, to say that “a strengthening of council-wide arrangements in this area is required”. It certainly is.

And the authority also needs to be more transparent about how it deals with such issues. Why do we say that? Because another report by Veritau which will go to the council’s audit and governance committee next week looks in detail at that original complaint about the award of a contract to a consultant. A council summary reveals that the report highlights a raft of failings - not least inadequate contract monitoring. Worryingly, however, the authority has decided not to make this report public.

The council has a history of this sort of thing. We understand the desire to protect the identity of individuals. But names could easily be redacted. The Veritau report should be published, with redactions if necessary, as soon as possible.