GA 2(a)(i) Which of the possible actions outlined in paragraphs 215–217 would be most meaningful in addressing issues related to acceptance and continuance procedures? In of indicating which of the possible actions proposed by the IAASB would be most meaningful to address issues related to engagement and continuance procedures, the survey respondents indicated their preference for the following four actions [the most meaningful listed first, from (1) to (4)]: (1) Strengthening the requirements in ISA 600 to drive earlier identification by auditors of those situations where there is:- No reasonable way of obtaining sufficient appropriate audit evidence, and clarifying what to do in such situations - Likely to be significant complexity or difficulty in obtaining sufficient appropriate audit evidence. (2) Clarifying the existing application material and providing additional application material, for matters that may need to be considered in obtaining an understanding of the group, its components and their environments, as well as the component auditors, and as required by paragraph 12 of ISA 600 (3) Emphasizing that the agreed terms of the engagement include that group management agree to the preconditions for the group audit, including agreeing to provide the auditor with access to all information relevant for the group audit (i.e., consistent with ISA 210). (4) Strengthening the link in ISA 600 to the requirements in ISQC 1 that address the firm’s acceptance and continuance policies and procedures, and the requirements in ISA 220 that address the engagement partner’s related responsibilities for quality at the engagement GA 2(a)(iii) Are other relevant issues that we should consider, or actions that would be more effective than those described? If you would not support a particular action, please explain why. 93.1% of the survey respondents indicated that they do not believe that there are other issues that the IAASB should consider relating to this section. However the need to expand on roles and responsibilities of component auditors, including the auditors of joint ventures and associates was highlighted. GA 2(b)(i) Are access issues as described in paragraph 207(a) frequently being experienced in practice? If yes, please provide details and, where possible, explain how these are being addressed today. 55.6% of survey respondents indicated that access issues are no longer being experience in practice. This is by no means a conclusive response, since 44.4% are still of the view that access issues remain a challenge.
GA 2(a)(i) Which of the possible actions outlined in paragraphs 215–217 would be most meaningful in addressing issues related to acceptance and continuance procedures? In of indicating which of the possible actions proposed by the IAASB would be most meaningful to address issues related to engagement and continuance procedures, the survey respondents indicated their preference for the following four actions [the most meaningful listed first, from (1) to (4)]: (1) Strengthening the requirements in ISA 600 to drive earlier identification by auditors of those situations where there is:- No reasonable way of obtaining sufficient appropriate audit evidence, and clarifying what to do in such situations - Likely to be significant complexity or difficulty in obtaining sufficient appropriate audit evidence. (2) Clarifying the existing application material and providing additional application material, for matters that may need to be considered in obtaining an understanding of the group, its components and their environments, as well as the component auditors, and as required by paragraph 12 of ISA 600 (3) Emphasizing that the agreed terms of the engagement include that group management agree to the preconditions for the group audit, including agreeing to provide the auditor with access to all information relevant for the group audit (i.e., consistent with ISA 210). (4) Strengthening the link in ISA 600 to the requirements in ISQC 1 that address the firm’s acceptance and continuance policies and procedures, and the requirements in ISA 220 that address the engagement partner’s related responsibilities for quality at the engagement GA 2(a)(iii) Are other relevant issues that we should consider, or actions that would be more effective than those described? If you would not support a particular action, please explain why. 93.1% of the survey respondents indicated that they do not believe that there are other issues that the IAASB should consider relating to this section. However the need to expand on roles and responsibilities of component auditors, including the auditors of joint ventures and associates was highlighted. GA 2(b)(i) Are access issues as described in paragraph 207(a) frequently being experienced in practice? If yes, please provide details and, where possible, explain how these are being addressed today. 55.6% of survey respondents indicated that access issues are no longer being experience in practice. This is by no means a conclusive response, since 44.4% are still of the view that access issues remain a challenge.