Public Sector Audit in a period of austerity and reform

2010年8月13日，英国社区和地方政府国务大臣宣布废除“公共财政保护者”审计委员会。“审计委员会迷失了方向。它不再是维护纳税人利益的监管机构，而是白厅政府的产物。我们需要纠正这种平衡。”自1983年成立以来，审计委员会为地方政府（Local Authorities）和国家卫生服务信托基金（National Health Service Trusts）等公共部门组织任命了审计师，规范了费用，并监督了审计质量，这些组织的年支出高达2000亿英镑。到2017年4月，审计委员会将被废除，地方公共部门组织的审计将受到新的审计制度的约束，在这种制度下，地方机构任命自己的审计员，并由财务报告委员会（Financial Reporting Council）对质量进行监督。在紧缩时期，这些改革的一个关键目标是降低成本。作为回应，欧盟委员会2011年的审计招标过程已经确保了截至2017年期间的大量费用减免。不出所料，人们担心新制度生效后的审计质量和费用上涨。该项目由三项研究组成，重点关注公共部门审计的成本和质量，是由这些改革提出的问题推动的，并将建立在我之前对公共部门审计的研究、我作为NHS非执行董事的经验和我作为审计师的培训基础上。它还将成为一个公共部门会计合作研究中心的跳板。研究1旨在估计新的审计制度对审计费用和审计质量的影响，这与NHS基金会信托类似。这项研究将为目前关于新制度可能产生的影响的辩论提供信息，这在很大程度上没有研究证据支持。研究2着眼于在当地管理部门控制范围内节省审计费用的可能性。研究2将利用一个独特的数据集，由英国地方当局的审计前财务报表为代表，调查审计前财务报告质量和审计费用之间的关系。它将为估计审计前财务报告质量的改进可能节省的审计费用提供一个基础。研究3调查了在一段时间内审计质量、审计人员类型（Big4、审计委员会和其他机构）与审计费用之间的关系。本研究的一个显著特征将是构建新的审计质量措施，利用审计前财务报表的可用性。调查结果可能预示着，一旦目前的审计合同到期，费用将上涨，或市场集中度将提高。此外，审计师在财务报告质量方面的差异可能会影响未来对审计师的任命。除了为英格兰的政策和实践提供信息外，这些研究还与威尔士和北爱尔兰议会以及苏格兰议会具有政策相关性，这些议会都没有遵循英国的领导，并且对于澳大利亚，新西兰和加拿大等国家的更广泛的国际受众，这些国家的公共部门审计历史上遵循与英国类似的模式。将利益相关者的意见纳入每项研究的设计，对研究结果的解释及其随后的传播，将通过建立利益相关者共同生产小组来确保。该小组的贡献将是提供具有实践和政策影响的高质量学术论文和研究成果的核心。整个项目将成为建立公共部门会计研究合作区域中心的跳板。

On 13 August 2010 the UK's Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, announced the abolition of the Audit Commission, 'protector of the public purse'. "The Audit Commission has lost its way. Rather than being a watchdog that champions taxpayers' interests, it has become the creature of the Whitehall state. We need to redress this balance." Since its creation in 1983 the Audit Commission has appointed auditors, regulated fees and monitored audit quality for public sector organisations such as Local Authorities and National Health Service Trusts whose annual expenditure amounts to £200bn. By April 2017 the Audit Commission will be abolished and the auditing of local public sector organisations will be subject to a new audit regime in which local bodies appoint their own auditors and the monitoring of quality is performed by the Financial Reporting Council. A key aim of these reforms, in a time of austerity, is lower costs. In response, the Commission's 2011 audit tendering process has already secured large fee reductions for the period up to 2017. Unsurprisingly, there are fears for audit quality and for rises in fees when the new regime comes into effect.This project, which comprises three studies focused on the costs and quality of public sector audit, is motivated by the issues raised by these reforms and will build on my prior research in public sector audit, my experience as an NHS non-executive director and my training as an auditor. It will also act as a springboard for a collaborative public sector accounting research centre.STUDY 1 aims to estimate the effect of the new audit regime, which is similar to that for NHS Foundation Trusts, on audit fees and audit quality. This study will inform the current debate on the likely effect of the new regime, which is largely unsupported by research evidence.STUDY 2 looks to the potential for savings in audit fees which are within the control of local management. Study 2 will utilise a unique data set, represented by the pre-audit financial statements of English local authorities, to investigate the relationship between pre-audit financial reporting quality and audit fees. It will provide a basis for estimating potential audit fee savings from improvements in pre-audit financial reporting quality. STUDY 3 investigates, in the previously unexplored setting of local authorities, the relationship between audit quality, auditor type, (Big4, Audit Commission and other) and audit fees over a period of considerable pressure on fees. A distinctive feature of this study will be the construction of novel measures of audit quality which exploit the availability of pre-audit financial statements. The findings could presage a rise in fees or an increase in market concentration once the current audit contracts come to an end. Further, variations in financial reporting quality by auditor may influence future auditor appointments. In addition to informing policy and practice in England these studies have policy relevance for the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament, none of which is following the English lead, and for wider international audiences in countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada where public sector audit has historically followed a similar model to that in the UK. The integration of stakeholder input into the design of each study, the interpretation of findings and their subsequent dissemination will be secured through the establishment of a stakeholder co-production group. The contribution of this group will be central to delivering high quality academic papers and research findings with practice and policy impact. The project overall will act as a springboard for the establishment of a collaborative regional centre for public sector accounting research.