Members
Advisers
Other attendees
Secretariat
Apologies
1. Minute and matters arising from the previous meeting
- Members were welcomed to the meeting and apologies were received from Martin Bowyer, Alastair McAlpine, and Philip Wales.
- The minutes from the meeting on 22 September 2025 were agreed, and actions were reviewed.
2. Introduction from Acting National Statistician
- Emma Rourke began by confirming her departure from the role of Acting National Statistician and expressed her gratitude to the panel for their contributions during her tenure. She confirmed that recruitment for a new permanent National Statistician is well advanced.
- Emma provided an update on governance priorities, including harmonisation and coherence across the statistical system. She also highlighted ongoing work on sex and gender and ethnicity harmonisation, as well as developments in the National Data Library and the health data research service.
- RAP asked about the future of the national statistician role and resource models. Emma explained that the ongoing refinement of the roles and responsibilities of the Permanent Secretary and National Statistician will continue with the appointment of a new National Statistician.
3. Secure Data Environment Accreditation – Overview and progress update
- Nicola Shearman and Lucy Vickers presented a paper informing RAP of progress to date and next steps on the collaboration between the UK Statistics Authority (the Authority), the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and NHS England on the accreditation of NHS-led Secure Data Environments (SDEs).
- RAP were invited to:
- comment on the proposal to use the current Digital Economy Act (DEA) 2017 accreditation framework for the accreditation of SDEs, subject to minor amendments to reflect the specific context of health data research;
- provide views on using the RAP as the oversight board for the accreditation of SDEs, including the need to increase health-specific expertise on the panel. The award of accreditation will sit with the Secretary of State (SoS) for DHSC; and
- note that the scope of accreditation will be limited to the SDEs as processing environments and excludes research projects and researchers and that the exact number of SDEs in scope is yet to be determined.
- RAP discussed the proposal and considered the following points:
- the importance of maintaining alignment with DEA standards and avoiding divergence;
- resource implications, clarity on health-specific requirements, and resourcing additional health expertise within RAP. It was confirmed that RAP members would provide advice rather than approval for SDE work, focusing on environments rather than individual projects;
- that naming conventions and the difference between SDEs and Trusted Research Environments (TREs) need to be clearly defined and consistent;
- what “oversight” means in practice, with RAP providing expert advice to the Secretary of State for Health on accreditation;
- whether requirements between SDEs and TREs would differ, noting that some environments may qualify as both. Nicola Shearman confirmed that the Authority’s preferred outcome would be a single accreditation for both DEA processing environments and SDEs, with health requirements “bolted on” where needed;
- whether DEA’s de-identification requirement will remain in SDEs. RAP agreed this should continue, though challenges were acknowledged; and
- the shift from data dissemination to data access was highlighted, noting that SDE is an ambition rather than a rule. There is a need to clarify benefits, understand existing SDEs, and design accreditation aligned with TRE standards but with health add-ons.
- The panel expressed support for the proposals and agreed this work represents a positive step forward.
Action:
RAP to discuss SDE accreditation further at a future meeting and revisit governance and oversight implications.
Action:
RAP to explore options for promoting RAP’s role and clarifying advisory responsibilities.
Action:
Definitions of SDE and TRE to be agreed and documented for consistency.
4. Withdrawal of Exploratory Projects in the Office for National Statistics Secure Research Service
- John Whittlestone introduced a paper presenting the RAP with the rationale for withdrawing the option of exploratory projects for researchers in the Office for National Statistics Secure Research Service (SRS).
- The panel agreed the current system is inefficient and discussed alternatives, such as adding caveats to full projects for viability checks or using synthetic data for feasibility testing. The panel asked about publication expectations, and it was clarified that exploratory projects do not allow publication.
- RAP agreed that project feasibility often depends on dataset size. It was suggested that SRS could provide quick, non-disclosive summary tables showing overall counts when researchers are concerned about small sample sizes. This would help compensate for missing frequency details in the metadata or data dictionary and allow researchers to assess feasibility without breaching disclosure rules.
- The panel acknowledged that low demand suggests exploratory projects are unnecessary, though questions remain about whether there was any exploratory work that could potentially be left without a viable means of accessing data.
Action:
John Whittlestone to investigate the suggestion made regarding providing non-disclosive summary tables to assess project feasibility.
Action:
SRS to engage with the chair on the future of their exploratory project offering.
5. Review of Accreditation Criteria – Updated Plan
- Wilfred Thorne introduced a paper providing RAP with an update on the Authority’s progress reviewing 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.
- RAP members were invited to consider and comment on the Authority’s updated plan:
- the Authority collaborated with UK Research and Innovation to hold a researcher focus group on 26 November;
- the Authority will host another focus group on 12 January 2026 with other stakeholders to finish the information gathering stage of the review;
- full analysis of the findings from these information gathering activities will be shared with RAP in March;
- after RAP approval, the final options for the review will be presented to the Authority’s Executive Committee to obtain permission to proceed with a formal consultation; and
- a statutory consultation process is planned for 2026. Final approval will rest with the Authority Board.
- RAP members were supportive of the updated plan provided by the Authority and had no further comments on the plan at this stage.
- The Chair referenced a recent Economic and Social Research Council report which highlighted researcher concerns about the data pipeline. He stressed the need to make the researcher journey smoother and noted that while TRE accreditation focuses on security and capability, there is no regular feedback on researcher experience.
- The Chair called for clearer governance and harmonisation across agencies which are working to improve the data pipeline. The panel discussed whether accreditation should include user feedback, and RAP agreed to explore this further at the upcoming workshop.
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 second focus group, and a suggested new criteria wording, at the March RAP meeting.
Action:
The Authority to develop a proposal for incorporating researcher feedback into the TRE accreditation process. This should include options for gathering user experience data (e.g., surveys) and be discussed at a future meeting.
Action:
RAP Secretariat to clarify governance responsibilities for addressing data pipeline issues with relevant partners.
6. ADR UK Task and Finish Group Update
- Daniel Beck introduced a paper providing RAP with an update on the work of Administrative Data Research UK and the Authority’s joint Task and Finish Group, including the progress of the standardised, TRE-agnostic research project application form which is now in the pilot phase, due to end in March.
- The evaluation of the pilot will be presented at the March workshop. The Chair recognised the importance of this collaboration with ADR UK and the importance of that ongoing partnership.
Action:
The evaluation of the pilot to be completed and presented at a future RAP meeting by RAP Secretariat.
7. RAP Annual Self-Review of Effectiveness
- Amy Curtis introduced a paper providing RAP with findings from the annual self-review of effectiveness questionnaire. RAP members were invited to review the findings and provide recommendations in addition to those provided via the questionnaire to improve the effectiveness of RAP.
- RAP were informed of:
- the total number of RAP members who responded to the questionnaire;
- suggested where improvements could be made; and
- recommended topics which could be discussed at the March 2026 workshop.
Action:
RAP to consider gaps in membership at a future RAP meeting.
8. End of Year Research Accreditation Metrics Overview
- Amy Curtis presented a paper providing RAP with a range of key end of year metrics, showing the performance of the research accreditation service in 2025, including some key successes from throughout the year. RAP were invited to review the end of year metrics and provide any recommendations for presenting further information which may be helpful for future end of year metrics overviews.
- The Panel suggested including all accredited processors in future reporting, even if they do currently not submit projects to RAP.
Action:
RAP Secretariat to consider different metrics next December to include all accredited processors.
9. DEA Processor Accreditation: Electronic Data Research and Innovation Service (eDRIS)
- 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 Electronic Data Research and Innovation Service (eDRIS). RAP members were invited to review the assessment report for eDRIS, consider and comment on the assessment outcomes and recommendation and decide on the accreditation status of eDRIS under the terms of the DEA.
- RAP were supportive of the findings and recommendation provided by the DEA assessors and agreed to continue the accreditation of eDRIS for the provision of data under Chapter 5 of Part 5 of the DEA, based on the evidence provided in the accreditation report. eDRIS will be notified of the outcome at the earliest opportunity.
Action:
The DEA Processor Accreditation team will inform eDRIS of the accreditation outcome.
10. DEA Processor Accreditation: National Records of Scotland (NRS) Annual Review
- 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 National Records of Scotland (NRS) for the preparation of data under Chapter 5 of Part 5 of the DEA. RAP members were invited to review the assessment report for NRS, consider and comment on the assessment outcomes and recommendation and decide on the accreditation status of NRS under the terms of the DEA.
- RAP were supportive of the findings and recommendation provided by the DEA assessors, and agreed to the accreditation of NRS for the preparation of data under Chapter 5 of Part 5 of the DEA. NRS will be notified of the outcome at the earliest opportunity.
Action:
The DEA Processor Accreditation team will inform NRS of the accreditation outcome.
11. DEA Processor Accreditation: Edinburgh Parallel Computing Centre (EPCC) Full Review
- 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 Edinburgh Parallel Computing Centre (EPCC). RAP members were invited to review the assessment report for EPCC, consider and comment on the assessment outcomes and recommendation and decide on the accreditation status of EPCC under the terms of the DEA.
- RAP were supportive of the findings and recommendation provided by the DEA assessors and agreed to continue the accreditation of EPCC for the preparation of data under Chapter 5 of Part 5 of the DEA, based on the evidence provided in the accreditation report. EPCC will be notified of the outcome at the earliest opportunity.
Action:
The DEA Processor Accreditation team will inform EPCC of the accreditation outcome.
12. DEA Processor Accreditation: Digital Health and Care Wales (DHCW) Annual Review
- 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 Digital Health and Care Wales (DHCW). RAP members were invited to review the assessment report for DHCW, consider and comment on the assessment outcomes and recommendation and decide on the accreditation status of DHCW under the terms of the DEA.
- RAP were supportive of the findings and recommendation provided by the DEA assessors and agreed to continue the accreditation of DHCW for the preparation of data under Chapter 5 of Part 5 of the DEA, based on the evidence provided in the accreditation report. DHCW will be notified of the outcome at the earliest opportunity.
Action:
The DEA Processor Accreditation team will inform DHCW of the accreditation outcome.
13. Any other business
- The Chair confirmed the appointment of Emma Gordon and Andrew Garrett as RAP deputy chairs.
- The Chair drew the panels attention to an information paper, provided in the paper pack, outlining differences between SRSA and DEA.
- The next RAP meeting is scheduled for 23 March 2026, which will be followed by the annual RAP Strategic Workshop. These will be held in London and panel members were encouraged to attend in person where possible.