Members  

• Paul Boyle (Chair)
• Sue Bateman (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs)
• Ann Berrington (Independent Member)
• Mark Brewin (HM Revenue & Customs)
• Michael Chapman (NHS England)
• Chris Dibben (Independent Member)
• Tricia Dodd (Independent Member)
• Andrew Garrett (Independent Member)
• Roger Halliday (Independent Member)
• Stephanie Howarth (Welsh Government)
• Mike Jones (Department for Work & Pensions)
• Alistair McAlpine (Scottish Government)

Advisers

• Jason Marsh (Security Advisor, Office for National Statistics)
• Nicola Shearman (Data Protection Officer, UK Statistics Authority)

Other attendees  

• Klaudia Boguta (Items 7, 8, 9, and 11)
• Colin Farrell (Items 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11)
• Jo-Anna Hagen (Items 7, 8, 9, and 11)
• Julian McCrae (Item 10)
• Johanna Salvage (Items 7 and 8)
• Barnaby Watts (Item 10)

Secretariat  

• Daniel Beck (UK Statistics Authority)
• Amy Curtis (UK Statistics Authority)

Apologies  

• Martin Bowyer (Central Digital and Data Office)
• Emma Gordon (Administrative Data Research UK)
• Sarah Henry (Office for National Statistics)
• Stephanie Jacobs (UK Statistics Authority)
• Geraint Jowers (HM Revenue & Customs)
• Andrew McHugh (Independent Member)
• Alexander Singleton (Independent Member)
• Philip Wales (Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency)

1. Minute and matters arising from the previous meeting

1. Members were welcomed to the meeting and apologies were received from Emma Gordon, Sarah Henry, Andrew McHugh and Alex Singleton.
2. The minutes from the meeting on 23 June 2025 were agreed, and actions were reviewed.
3. The panel requested an update on the appointment of a RAP deputy chair. The Chair informed RAP that two candidates had expressed interest and discussions were planned to appoint a deputy chair.
4. The Chair noted the Acting National Statistician’s absence from the meeting and invited them to the December RAP to give their update.

Action:

The Authority to arrange meetings between the RAP Chair and deputy chair applicants and finalise appointment before the next RAP meeting.

Action:

The Authority to invite the Acting National Statistician to the December RAP meeting.

2. Review of Accreditation Criteria – Updated plan

1. Nicola Shearman introduced a paper providing RAP with an update on the UK Statistics Authority’s (the Authority’s) plans to review the Digital Economy Act 2017 (DEA) Research Code of Practice (the Code) and Accreditation Criteria (the Criteria) for processors, researchers and peer reviewers, and projects.
2. RAP members were invited to consider and comment on the Authority’s updated plan:
   1. the Authority has distributed an informal engagement exercise to understand key stakeholder’s views on the different areas of the Criteria and evaluate the full extent of challenges faced. Results and feedback will be analysed and shared with RAP via correspondence;
   2. the Authority plan to collaborate with UK Research and Innovation to host a focus group to discuss proposed amendments to the Criteria prior to a formal consultation towards the end of 2025;
   3. after receiving RAP approval, the final options for the Criteria review will be presented to the Authority’s Executive Committee to obtain permission to proceed with a formal consultation; and
   4. a statutory consultation process is planned for spring 2026, with the aim of finalising and presenting the revised criteria to RAP by late spring or early summer. Final approval will rest with the Authority Board.
3. RAP members were supportive of the updated plan provided by the Authority, and asked the following:
   1. if the revised Criteria form part of the statutory Code of Practice or are separate, and whether they need to be laid before Parliament; and
   2. if the Authority plan to consult with the Department for Science, Information, and Technology as well as other Government Departments during the formal consultation process.

Action:

The Authority to proceed with their updated plans for a review of the Digital Economy Act 2017 (DEA) Accreditation Criteria (the Criteria) for processors, researchers and projects and provide findings from the information gathering exercise to RAP via correspondence and then a further update at the December RAP meeting.

Action:

Ensure the Authority consult the Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology during the formal consultation process.

3. ADR UK Task and Finish Group Update

1. Daniel Beck introduced a paper providing RAP with an update on the work of Administrative Data Research UK’s (ADR UK’s) Task and Finish Group.
2. RAP members were invited to review the new DEA Application form, with the aim of approving its progression to the pilot phase. Here, the panel:
   1. discussed the need to limit the number of annexes that could be added to the research application form;
   2. enquired about which TREs would participate in the pilot;
   3. suggested the proposed three-month pilot timeline may need to be adjusted;
   4. noted that it would be easier to review the form once they begin receiving applications submitted using it;
   5. recommended monitoring the word counts used in forms during the pilot to assess whether the suggested limits are appropriate, emphasising the importance of avoiding situations where researchers feel compelled to fill the word count unnecessarily;
   6. acknowledged the significant value of this work and noted its potential to be aligned with similar initiatives across the wider research community, such as in the health sector; and
   7. asked about whether the application form’s requirements for information on external data should distinguish between individual-level microdata and aggregate data. The panel suggested that, as more researchers seek to contextualise their work with aggregate datasets, the form might not need as much detail for low-risk, aggregated data as it does for microdata.
3. The Secretariat confirmed that all TREs involved in the Task and Finish Group recognise the value of this initiative and have committed to participating in the pilot. The Task and Finish Group will continue to engage with the TREs, maintaining this platform for ongoing communication and collaboration.

Action:

The Secretariat to review word counts on the standardised form to assess whether the suggested limits are appropriate.

Action:

The Authority to engage with HDR UK to understand the progress from their work which could be built upon through the work of the Administrative Data Research UK’s Task and Finish Group.

Action:

The Authority to circulate Word version of the DEA Application form and ADR UK flow diagrams to panel members.

Action:

The Authority to create best practice examples of the completed project application form and share alongside application guidance.

4. Research Accreditation Panel Annual Terms of Reference Review

1. Daniel Beck presented a paper providing RAP with an annual updated Terms of Reference for approval. RAP were invited to review the updated terms of reference and suggest amendments as appropriate.
2. RAP considered the Terms of Reference and provided the following feedback:
   1. it is a new requirement for RAP members to sign a confidentiality undertaking to not disclose project application information or RAP strategic discussions to unauthorised third parties. This only needs to be signed by each member once at the start of their tenure, but agreed it would be circulated annually as a reminder of the commitment made;
   2. the panel agreed that it should be acceptable for members to advise the secretariat, wherever possible, if they are unable to review a project. All members are given this opportunity when a project is allocated to them; and
   3. RAP member tenure will be a maximum of 8 years and would start again now for all members.
3. RAP considered the meeting attendance requirements and discussed the following:
   1. the panel requested that the Terms of Reference be updated to include wording that recognises exceptional circumstances where members may be unable to attend the required three out of four meetings; and
   2. it was suggested that the Terms of Reference should also clarify that meaningful contribution to the panel, such as reviewing meeting papers and submitting comments in advance, can be considered as fulfilling participation requirements in cases of unavoidable absence.
4. The panel were largely supportive of the Secretariat’s proposed updates to the Terms of Reference which sets out expectations for RAP members. An amended version of the Terms of Reference edited in line with the panel’s comments will be presented at a future RAP meeting.

Action:

Update the Terms of Reference to recognise exceptional circumstances for meeting absences and allow submitting comments in advance to count towards participation requirements.

Action:

The Authority to distribute confidentiality agreement for all RAP members to sign.

5. Governance on the Notification of Significant Changes or Major Incidents by Accredited Processing Environments

1. Colin Farrell introduced a paper providing RAP with a proposal to formalise how accredited data processors report incidents and major changes under Chapter 5 of Part 5 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 to the Authority’s assessment teams, improving how this information is communicated to RAP.
2. RAP members were invited to approve the proposal that the new procedure and forms should be adopted from 01 December 2025. The process includes new templates for regular audit submissions and for reporting incidents as they occur. The Panel gave the following feedback:
   1. the panel suggested using separate templates for positive changes and incidents;
   2. the panel asked about reporting timelines for major incidents. Colin replied TREs should report as soon as is practical, stating he preferred flexibility over fixed deadlines, but would consider a time-bound requirement if needed;
   3. the panel highlighted the need for clearer definitions in the templates to distinguish between minor and significant changes, to prevent unnecessary reporting. The panel agreed that clearer guidance is needed to avoid over-reporting and reduce administrative burden; and
   4. the panel suggested extending the notification process to accredited researchers, and not just processors. This will be considered further by the Secretariat.
3. RAP were supportive of the new process and agreed it would help ensure more consistent and transparent reporting going forward.

Action:

The secretariat to consider if the notification process for significant changes or major incidents by accredited processing environments could be extended to accredited researchers, in addition to processors.

6. DEA Processor Accreditation: Health Informatics Centre, University of Dundee Initial Accreditation

1. Johanna Salvage and Jo-Anna Hagen introduced a paper providing RAP with the outcomes of the assessment under the DEA requirements for a decision on the initial accreditation of Health Informatics Centre (HIC) for the provision and preparation of data under Chapter 5 of Part 5 of the DEA.
2. RAP members were invited to review the assessment report for HIC, consider and comment on the assessment outcomes and recommendation and decide on the accreditation status of HIC under the terms of the DEA.
3. RAP were supportive of the findings and recommendation provided by the DEA assessors, and agreed to the initial accreditation of HIC for the preparation and provision of data under Chapter 5 of Part 5 of the DEA, subject to the implementation of geolocation monitoring controls.
4. The processor is notified of the RAP meeting outcome at the earliest opportunity.

7. DEA Processor Accreditation: SAIL Databank Full Re-Accreditation Review, Preparation and Provision of Data

1. Johanna Salvage and Jo-Anna Hagen introduced a paper providing RAP with the outcomes of the assessment under the DEA requirements for a decision on the accreditation of SAIL Databank (SAIL).
2. RAP members were invited to review the assessment report for SAIL, consider and comment on the assessment outcomes and recommendation and decide on the accreditation status of SAIL under the terms of the DEA.
3. RAP were supportive of the findings and recommendation provided by the DEA assessors and agreed to continue the accreditation of SAIL for the preparation and provision of data under Chapter 5 of Part 5 of the DEA, based on the evidence provided in the accreditation report.
4. The processor is notified of the RAP meeting outcome at the earliest opportunity.

8. DEA Processor Accreditation: Office for National Statistics Secure Research Service: Annual Review, Preparation and Provision of Data

1. Colin Farrell and Jo-Anna Hagen introduced a paper providing RAP with the outcomes of the assessment under the DEA requirements for a decision on the accreditation of the Office for National Statistics Secure Research Service (ONS SRS).
2. RAP members were invited to review the assessment report for ONS SRS, consider and comment on the assessment outcomes and recommendation and decide on the accreditation status of ONS SRS under the terms of the DEA.
3. RAP were supportive of the findings and recommendation provided by the DEA assessors and agreed to continue the accreditation of ONS SRS for the preparation and provision of data under Chapter 5 of Part 5 of the DEA, based on the evidence provided in the accreditation report.
4. The processor is notified of the RAP meeting outcome at the earliest opportunity

9. The Integrated Data Service Next Steps – Oral update

1. Barnaby Watts provided an update on the future of the Integrated Data Service (IDS). The panel heard that IDS will refocus its resources to support ONS’s core statistical outputs, that existing accredited projects will continue, and that unsolicited external applications for new research projects will no longer be accepted.
2. RAP discussed the update and considered the following points in discussion:
   1. if IDS data could be transferred to the Secure Research Service (SRS) for continued use;
   2. IDS’s accreditation status, noting a potential shift from data provision to data preparation;
   3. access for government analysts and academic researchers to IDS, especially regarding long-term access and census microdata; and
   4. the possibility of alignment of IDS’s work with the National Data Library.
3. The panel stated that ongoing updates on IDS’s future, particularly around data access and continuity, should be provided at future meetings.

10. DEA Processor Accreditation: Integrated Data Service Annual Review, Preparation and Provision of Data

1. Colin Farrell and Jo-Anna Hagen introduced a paper providing RAP with the outcomes of the assessment under the DEA requirements for a decision on the accreditation of the Integrated Data Service (IDS).
2. RAP members were invited to review the assessment report for IDS, consider and comment on the assessment outcomes and recommendation and decide on the accreditation status of IDS under the terms of the DEA.
3. RAP members sought assurance that IDS’s changing role wouldn’t affect its accreditation. The Secretariat explained that while IDS is currently focusing on internal ONS projects, it wishes to retain accreditation to support ongoing external collaborations and to remain flexible for future needs. The Secretariat confirmed accreditation would continue for now, with processes in place to review if IDS’s function changes.
4. RAP were supportive of the findings and recommendation provided by the DEA assessors and agreed to continue the accreditation of IDS for the preparation and provision of data under Chapter 5 of Part 5 of the DEA, based on the evidence provided in the accreditation report.
5. The processor is notified of the RAP meeting outcome at the earliest opportunity.

11. Any other business

1. The Chair reminded all panel members of the importance of completing the Research Accreditation Criteria and Code of Practice Review initial consultation questionnaire by 10th October. The Chair emphasised that timely and comprehensive feedback from the panel is essential to ensure the revised criteria reflect the needs and perspectives of all stakeholders.
2. The Chair informed the panel that the Department of Health and Social Care would like to bring a paper to RAP on Secure Data Environment (SDE) accreditation at a future meeting.
3. The Chair took the opportunity to thank Stephanie Jacobs for her significant contributions to the panel before she goes on maternity leave.
4. The next RAP meeting is scheduled for 8 December 2025.