Database of Precedents

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	14/03/2025
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Publication of all reports
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“20. The Register Committee learned from the panel analysis that the agency publishes full reports in only three out of its nine external quality assurance activities.

21. In its additional representation, ANVUR demonstrated that all reports are now published on ANVUR’s website. In addition, the agency explained that the accreditation protocols foresee a higher level of standardisation of reports which will in turn ensure that reports will continue to be published in full.

22. The Register Committee welcomed the steps taken by the agency and found that the agency now publishes all of its reports. Following this, the Register Committee could not follow panel’s conclusion and found ANVUR compliant with ESG 2.6.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	14/03/2025
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	Lack of stakeholder involvement in governance bodies
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“23. The Register Committee learned from the review report that the Governing Board of ANVUR consists exclusively of university professors, while no other stakeholders were involved in the governance of the agency.

24. In its additional representation, ANVUR explained that their regulations do not prevent any expert, regardless of which stakeholder group they belong to, from being a member of the Governing Board. In the Register Committee’s view, however, participation in the Governing Board is challenging, especially for students, due to the full-time character of the role, even though there are different governance arrangements and divisions of governance tasks which would enable broader stakeholder involvement. (e.g. by reducing the expected working hours for some stakeholder groups).

25. ANVUR further argued that stakeholders are involved in other bodies of the agency, such as the Advisory Board, leading to ANVUR’s governance being informed by stakeholders. While the Register Committee found the involvement of stakeholders in the work of the Advisory Board to be a positive practice, it noted that this does not fulfil the requirements of the standard which implies stakeholders’ involvement in strategic decision-making (governance), and not merely in the advisory processes of the agency.

26. Considering lack of stakeholder involvement, beyond the university academic staff, in ANVUR’s governance, the Register Committee was unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion and found that ANVUR only partially complies with ESG 3.1.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	14/03/2025
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Lack of ability to independently design external QA procedures, lack of ability to autonomously determine organisational structure
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“27. The Register Committee learned from the panel’s analysis that ANVUR’s ability to design its external QA procedures (i.e. operational independence) and to set up its internal organisational structure (i.e. organisational independence) is rather limited. In panel’s view, the Italian regulations stipulated very specific details on the agency’s external quality assurance procedures, methodologies and the evaluation standards, as well as the internal governance and organisational structure. This approach diminishes ANVUR’s ability to act autonomously regarding its internal regulations and structures.

28. In its additional representation, ANVUR argued that most of the issues outlined by the review panel stem from the Italian national context and legislation. In regard to the operational independence of the agency, ANVUR argued that it has sufficient autonomy in designing its external QA procedures because national legislation emphasises ANVUR’s responsibility to independently define the criteria, indicators, and requirements of its external QA, while in regard to organisational independence, ANVUR states that the national legislation prescribes collaborative relation between the Ministry and ANVUR, instead of a direct supervisory role of the Ministry.

29. The Register Committee took note of ANVUR's remarks. The Committee could still follow panel's view that ANVUR is facing obstacles regarding organisational and operational independence, as the review panel already considered these legislative acts and nonetheless outlined detailed reasons for their concerns about ANVUR’s independence.

30. Considering that the review panel presents convincing evidence and analysis that ANVUR faces obstacles in its organisational and operational independence, the Register Committee concurred with the panel that ANVUR complies only partially with ESG 3.3.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	14/03/2025
Standard	3.4 Thematic analysis
Keywords	Use of external QA results
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“31. The Register Committee noted that ANVUR’s main channel for publishing the thematic analysis is the Biennial Report on the State of the Italian Higher Education and Research System. In addition, ANVUR conducts several ad hoc research initiatives on topics relevant for the Italian higher education system.

32. The Register Committee followed the panel’s conclusion that the agency complies with the standard. The Committee, however, emphasised the panel’s recommendation that ANVUR could use the findings and analyses of its external quality assurance processes more systematically and critically in its thematic analyses.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	14/03/2025
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	Internal QA not sufficiently systematised and formalised
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (01/10/2024)
RC decision	Compliance

“33. The Register Committee noted that ANVUR is in the process of expanding and implementing a diverse set of internal quality assurance processes. For the Committee, it was not clear how far has the agency reached in this process of developing their IQA system and, therefore, it sought further clarification from the panel.

34. The review panel explained that even though ANVUR conducts its internal QA procedures regularly and effectively, including collection, analysis and reaction to the feedback of its stakeholders, it is yet to develop a structured and systematic framework for its internal QA processes.

35. The Register Committee could therefore follow the panel’s conclusion that the agency complies with the standard. The Committee, however, emphasised the panel’s recommendation to ensure that internal quality assurance of ANVUR should be systematised and formalised, leading to a more coherent and consistent approach.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	02/07/2024
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	Lack of clear deliberation rules
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“7. In its last decision for renewal of registration (of 2019-11-05), the Register Committee found that CTI only partially fulfilled the requirements of the standard as the consistency in their decision making was not always assured - the Committee noted a lack of clear deliberation rules detailing the basis upon which specific decisions were made.

8. The Register Committee noted that CTI has introduced a new tool for ensuring consistency in its decision making – a deliberation table, used for synthesizing the panel assessments. Furthermore, the Committee understood from the analysis of the panel that the deliberation tables ensure consistency in the decision making process and make the review process more transparent.

9. Following the recent developments regarding the introduction of the new tool and its impact on consistency of the outcomes of CTI, the Register Committee was able to concur with the panel's conclusion, and found that now the agency complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	02/07/2024
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Publication of full reports
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“10. In the previous decision for renewal of registration (of 2019-11-05), the Register Committee found CTI to be partially compliant with the standard as it only published summary of evaluation reports which lacked important details from the full reports.

11. From the external review report, the Register Committee learned that a new template, which includes the full report, was introduced. Furthermore the Committee understood from the analysis of the panel, since 2019, CTI started publishing in full all of its reports.

12. Having addressed the earlier concern regarding publication of full reports, the Register Committee concurred with the panel’s conclusion and found that the agency now complies with the standard. The Committee, however, underlined the panel’s recommendations that the agency ensures that the reports are more analytical, their clarity and soundness are improved as well as their visibility on the agency's website.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	02/07/2024
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Follow-up
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“11. The Register Committee, noted in the analysis by the panel that evalag’s review procedures include a self-assessment report and an external assessment followed by expert’s report, but no follow-up activities, unless related to conditions/requirements established by evalag when taking the corresponding decision.

12. Given the concerns on the lack of consistent follow-up in all of evalag's procedures the Register Committee concurred with the panel that evalag complies only partially with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	02/07/2024
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Training of experts
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“13. The Register Committee understood that the panels involve students and other stakeholders on equal bases. Furthermore, the Committee learned that despite the regular (online) trainings offered by the agency, very few people have enrolled for this online trainings.

14. The Register Committee therefore followed the panel’s conclusion that the agency continues to comply with the standard. The Committee, however, shared the panel’s view that the agency should find ways into making training opportunities more attractive for the reviewers to attend.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	02/07/2024
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Definition of terms; Complaints; Appeals
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“15. The Register Committee noted that the Complaints and Appeals Policy is detailed, covering the potential causes for a complaint or an appeal and it is easily accessible on the agency’s website. However, the Committee noted the panel’s concerns on the need to clarify the terms ‘complaints’ and ‘appeals’.

16. The Committee, therefore, followed the panel’s conclusion that the agency continues to comply with the standard. The Committee, however, shared the panel’s view that the agency should clarify what is meant by the terms ‘complaints’ and ‘appeals’ in all its documents, including the name of the ‘Complaints Commission’.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	02/07/2024
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	Student involvement in governance
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“17. In its last decision for renewal of registration on EQAR (of 2019-11-05), evalag was found to be partially compliant with the standard as it had no clear overarching strategy, bringing together planning, budgeting and risk assessment. Furthermore, the main decision-making body, the Foundation Board, did not included a student member.

18. From the review report and the panel’s analysis the Register Committee noted that the main shortcomings identified in the previous decision were only minimally improved i.e., the statutory changes in order to involve student member in the Foundation Board, limits their involvement only in specific cases ( “If international standards in the field of study and teaching are dealt with, a student member may be called upon as a permanent or temporary, non-voting guest.”)

19. Furthermore, the Committee understood that evalag, at the time of the review, worked on a new overarching strategy bringing together planning, budgeting and risk assessment, however this strategy was to be approved only in July 2024.

20. Considering the minimal improvements made since the last decision, the Register Committee could not follow the panel’s judgement of compliance and found that evalag complies only partially with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	02/07/2024
Standard	3.4 Thematic analysis
Keywords	Inactivity in thematic analysis
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“21. The Register Committee understood by the panel’s analysis that the agency, since the last review, produced two publication named “Thematic analysis 2018 to mid-2021” and “Thematic Analysis mid 2021 to mid 2023”. However, as noted by the panel “these significantly digressed from the previous approach and in the eyes of the panel could not be taken as reports that describe and analyse the general findings of evalag’s external quality assurance activities as established by the standard. These reports give merely an overview of the most important projects, publications and events in the period under study, more like an annual report.”

22. The Register Committee, could concur with the panel analysis and underlined the panel’s recommendation that the agency should resume the work on thematic analysis, which was abandoned after 2018, particularly in light of the severe changes in the ‘German system’.

23. The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel that evalag complies only partially with the standard.

24. For the remaining standards, the Register Committee was able to concur with the review panel's analysis and conclusion without further comments.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/10/2024
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	ESG part 1, implementation in practice
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“10. The Register Committee understood from the analysis by the panel that only one external quality assurance activity, EQA Audit, covered all standards of the ESG Part 1 in full. Both provider accreditation and programme accreditation procedures did not cover ESG Part 1 in full.

11. The Committee learned that during the site-visit the panel was presented with the draft versions of the new Provider accreditation Manual and the new Programme Accreditation Manual and noted that further alignment with ESG Part 1 is expected to be ensured through these documents. In its statement on the report, MFHEA informed that the Provider Accreditation Manual has been published and in use as of January 2024 and the Programme Accreditation Manual will be in use as of January

2025.

12. The Register Committee took note and welcomed the actions taken by the agency. Nevertheless, the Committee could not confirm without a panel insight whether the new standards and procedures have been implemented in practice.

13. In its additional representation, MFHEA confirmed that its Provider Accreditation Manual came into force in January 2024 and that now all provider accreditation procedures follow the new methodology. MFHEA further informed that the Programme Accreditation Manual will be officially presented by the agency in November 2024 (see clarification of 2024-09-24) and the same will be in place for all programme accreditation procedures as of January 2025.

14. The Register Committee welcomed, once again, the actions taken by the agency in order to ensure that all MFHEA activities cover ESG Part 1 in full. Nevertheless, the Committee could not confirm how these changes have been implemented in practice without panel insight. Therefore, the Committee upheld its initial judgement that the agency complies only partially with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/10/2024
Standard	2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose
Keywords	methodology
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“15. The Register Committee learned that at the time of the site-visit the provider accreditation was a desk-based procedure conducted by the MFHEA’s staff. The Register Committee is concerned about the fitness for purpose of this procedure for regulating providers’ access to the higher education sector. As noted by the panel, the methodology differs for providers seeking university status and for other providers of higher education. The Committee noted that it was unclear for the panel which methodology is applied when.

16. In its statement on the report, MFHEA informed that these concerns have been further addressed in the revised manuals for programme and provider accreditation. Furthermore, MFHEA explained that all procedures now include a site-visit by a review panel (see more under ESG 2.3).

17. The Register Committee took note of the actions taken by the agency. The Committee could however not confirm whether and how the updated procedures are implemented in practice.

18. In its additional representation, the agency reaffirmed that it had addressed the panel’s concerns regarding the provider accreditation procedures in the new manual, which has been in use for all provider accreditation procedures as of January

2024. Furthermore, the agency reaffirmed this will also be addressed for all programme accreditation procedures when the new Programme Accreditation Manual will come into force as of January

2025.

19. The Register Committee welcomed the actions taken by the agency in order to address the concerns raised by the panel and the Register Committee. Nevertheless, the Committee could not confirm how these changes have been implemented in practice without a panel insight. Therefore, the Committee concurred with the panel’s conclusion that the agency complies only partially with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/10/2024
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	no site visits, inconsistency,
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“20. The Register Committee learned from the analysis of the panel that only the EQA Audit process is clearly outlined in the audit manual. For the rest of the activities, both the information provided to the panel as well as the publicly available documents, were not always consistent.

21. The Committee noted the panel’s concerns on a number of shortcomings related to the programme and provider accreditation

procedures, such as short application forms instead of self-evaluation reports for some procedures, no site-visits (see also ESG 2.2) and lack of consistent follow-up.

22. In its statement on the report (of 2024-05-20), MFHEA informed that the discrepancies between the documents and the shortcomings related to programme and provider accreditation procedures have been further addressed in the revised manuals for programme and provider accreditation procedures, which have been in use as of January 2024 for provider accreditation procedures and will be, respectively, as of January 2025, for programme accreditation procedures.

23. The Register Committee took note of the revised manuals but could not confirm whether and how these changes are implemented in practice.

24. In its additional representation, the agency reaffirmed that the concerns raised by the Committee for provider accreditation procedures have been addressed in the new Provider Accreditation Manual and the concerns for programme accreditation procedures will be addressed in the new Programme Accreditation Manual.

25. The Register Committee took in consideration the actions taken by the agency in order to address the concerns raised by the panel and the Register Committee. The Committee, however, could not confirm how these changes have been implemented in practice without a panel insight and found that some of them are yet to be implemented. Therefore, the Committee could concur with the panel that the agency complies only partially with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/10/2024
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	students
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“26. The Register Committee learned from the analysis of the panel that at the time of the review, some provider and programme accreditation procedures did not involve experts and that these procedures were conducted by MFHEA’s staff. The Committee understood that the only reviews that involved panels were the accreditation procedures for provider seeking university status and EQA Audit (see also ESG 2.3).

27. In its statement to the report, MFHEA informed that the revised manuals, referenced earlier in this decision, require that now every procedure is conducted by an external review panel of a minimum of three experts out of whom one is a student.

28. The Register Committee took note of the actions taken by the agency. Nevertheless, the Committee could not confirm whether these changes have been implemented in practice.

29. In its additional representation, MFHEA referred to the new manuals for provider and programme accreditation where the involvement of students in every external review panel will be guaranteed. Furthermore, MFHEA informed that despite that, the new Programme Accreditation Manual would be in place as of January 2025, the agency already includes students in the review panels for programme accreditation procedures.

30. From the additional representation, the Committee has learned that at the given time only a very small portion of programme accreditation reports are available on MFHEA’s website and further publication of reports is planned in January 2025 (see ESG 2.6). From the limited number of reports available online, the Committee could see that the agency started including a student reviewer in the expert panel.

31. The Register Committee welcomed the changes made by the agency in order to involve students in all external review procedures and encouraged MFHEA to continue this practice. The Committee, however, found that it remains to be evaluated by an external panel whether the planned changes have been consistently implemented and students are included in all programme review panels once the new programme accreditation manual is adopted. Therefore, the Committee concurred with the panel that the agency complies only partially with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/10/2024
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	inconsistency in outcomes
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“32. MFHEA has established a National Quality Assurance Framework (NQAF), which sets the parameters for external quality assurance in Malta. The Register Committee learned that at the time of the review, only the standards for the EQA Audit procedures mirrored the NQAF standards and that only for that procedure the criteria were clearly defined and ensure a consistent judgement of each standard.

33. The panel noted several inconsistencies regarding the rest of the MFHEA’s activities. For example, the NQAF standards for programme accreditation were not clearly referred to in the internal application form. Similar challenges were noted in the report for awarding university status to a provider; the report did not follow the application form where the NQAF standards were referred to.

34. Furthermore, the panel could not find further evidence that the agency had a clear approach which standards and procedure manuals are applied in its activities. The panel could not find consistency in the agency’s guidelines, standards and manuals. The panel was also unable to find guiding criteria for outcomes in order to ensure a consistent judgement for all types of providers and programme accreditation.

35. In its statement to the report, MFHEA informed that it addressed some of the panel’s recommendations in its revision of the Accreditation Manual for Higher Education Institutions; for the Committee, though, it was unclear what particular changes took place to address the shortcomings. The agency also explained that they will further address the shortcomings in the new

Programme Accreditation Manual in January 2025.

36. The Committee could follow the panel’s view and found that the agency did not have clear criteria for outcomes and that there is lack of consistency in their implementation for most of its procedures, as well as the lack of systemic approach to ensuring consistency in its decision making.

37. In its additional representation, MFHEA informed that the concerns raised by the Register Committee have been or will be addressed with the respective manuals for provider and programme accreditation procedures. Furthermore, MFHEA informed that at the given time, they are designing the guidelines for the Quality Assurance Committee and its peer reviewers to refine its criteria for outcomes.

38. The Register Committee noted the steps taken by MFHEA to formulate its criteria for outcomes for programme and provider accreditation procedures in a clear manner in its new manuals. The Register Committee, however, found it challenging to assess the practical implementation without a panel insight. The Committee also found that the new programme evaluation manual is yet to be adopted and implemented in practice. Following this, the Committee thus concurred with the panel’s conclusion that MFHEA complies partially with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/10/2024
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	publication of reports
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“39. The Register Committee learned from the analysis of the panel, that the agency did not publish all of its reports from its programme and provider

accreditation procedures.

40. In its statement on the report, the agency informed that with the publication of the new manuals, as of January 2024 and January 2025 respectively, all accreditation reports and decisions will be published on its website. The Register Committee, however, could not find any recently

published reports when performing an additional check on the MFHEA’s website.

41. In its additional representation, MFHEA informed that as of January 2024, all accreditation decisions are to be published on the MFHEA website

together with the expert panel reports. MFHEA further explained that “the reason no Provider Accreditation Reports have been found on MFHEA

website is that since this is a recent development, to date no provider accreditation have been finalised and therefore there were no provider

accreditation reports to publish” and that “with regards to programme accreditations there is a small number of reports which are ready. It is expected that actual publication will happen in January 2025…”.

42. The Register Committee took note and welcomed the planned actions by MFHEA to ensure that all reports and decisions are publicly available. The Committee found that, however, the presented actions are yet to be implemented in practice and once implemented, remain to be reviewed by

an external review panel.

43. Therefore, the Committee concurred with the panel that the agency complies only partially with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/10/2024
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	student in governance, distintion between activities
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“44. MFHEA has a mission statement which is publicly available and included in the strategic plan. As outlined by the panel, however, the strategic plan lacks a detailed outline of clear and explicit goals.

45. The Committee learned from the panel’s analysis that MFHEA did not ensure a clear distinction between its external quality assurance activities in the field of higher education and its other fields of work. In its statement on the report, the agency explained in order to enable a clear distinction

between its activities, it plans to initiate legislative changes. These changes, however, were either planned to happen later in 2024 or in 2025.

46. The Register Committee also learned from the report that MFHEA involves external stakeholders from different sectors in its governance and

work, e.g., members of the Board have different backgrounds in higher education. The Committee, however, noted that students are not involved in

the work of the governance body (or governance), i.e., the Board nor in its accreditation body, i.e., the Quality Assurance Committee (QAC). The Register Committee understood that in order to ensure better involvement of stakeholders, including students, in its governance structures, MFHEA

has foreseen legislative changes.

47. For the Committee it was unclear which particular changes will take place in order to address the lack of clear distinction between higher education and non-higher education activities and the lack of student involvement in the governance and work of the agency (in the Board and the

QAC), and whether the planned legislative changes have been adopted yet

48. In its additional representation, the agency informed that the clear distinction between MFHEA’s external quality assurance activities in higher

education and its other fields of work, will be ensured through structural changes in its organisational structure; the agency plans to set two units

tackling further and higher education separately.as of January

2025. Furthermore, the agency informed that legal provisions were amended to

include student representatives in the Quality Assurance Committee and the MFHEA Board and that students are now represented in both of them.

49. The Register Committee noted and welcomed the planned changes aiming to ensure clear distinction between its external quality assurance

activities in the field of higher education and its other fields of work and the involvement of students in the Board and the Quality Assurance Committee.

50. However, given the concerns raised above and that relevant parts of the presented actions are yet to be fully translated into the daily work of the

agency, they remain to be reviewed by an external review panel. Therefore, the Committee could not concur with the panel and found that the agency complies only partially with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/10/2024
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	government involvement, organisational independence
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“51. The Register Committee learned from the report that the members of the MFHEA Board are all nominated by the Minister responsible for

education and appointed by the Prime Minister of Malta. The Prime Minister also nominates the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Board, who undergo parliamentary scrutiny before being officially appointed. Furthermore, the dismissal and resignation of the Board members could be

only done by or via the Prime Minister.

52. Following the panel’s analysis, the Register Committee expressed its concerns that the organisational independence of the agency is constrained by its strong link and dependency on the government. This is reinforced by the small size of the higher education system.

53. The Quality Assurance Committee (QAC) of MFHEA is the body responsible for decision making on external quality assurance of further and

higher educational institutions. The MFHEA Board, on the other hand, is responsible for endorsement of the evaluation decisions taken by the QAC.

The panel noted inconsistencies regarding what accreditation procedures and which decisions are being endorsed by the Board. Further, as noted by the panel, the participation of the head of QAC, a body appointed by the Board, in the endorsement of QAC’s decisions as a Board member could create internal conflict of interest.

54. In its additional representation, the agency stated that “There are several layers to ensure the independence and suitability of the members of

the Board. These are nominated by the Minister for Education, however they are appointed by the Prime Minister and the Chairperson needs to be

approved by the Public Appointments Committee which is a Parliamentary committee made up of members from both sides of the House (Parliament) which conducts Parliamentary Scrutiny of the nominee. The law also lists the eligibility criteria for Board members, thus ensuring the objective suitability of person nominated by the Minister and appointed by the Prime Minister.”

55. Furthermore, the agency clarified that the current chairperson of the newly appointed QAC has not been appointed as a member of the Board and that the process for the required legislative changes to reflect this distinction are currently underway.

56. The Register Committee considered the additional representation and welcomed the distinction between the two bodies by excluding the

chairperson of the QAC in the Board. The Committee found that, however, this practice is yet to be codified as to ensure continuous prevention of

conflict of interest within the accreditation process. Furthermore, the committee maintains its concerns raised by the panel on the inconsistencies

regarding what accreditation procedures and which decisions are being endorsed by the Board.

57. Finally, the Committee maintains its concerns raised above about how the organisational independence of the agency is constrained by its strong link and dependency on the government.

58. Therefore, the Committee could not concur with the panel and found that the agency complies only partially with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry