The PRA scraps 37 Reporting Templates

Introduction

The Prudential Regulation Authority announced plans to delete 37 reporting templates from 1 January 2026, potentially saving UK banks £26 million annually. For compliance officers managing reporting workflows, this raises an immediate question: will removing templates actually simplify your work or create new gaps in your reporting infrastructure?

The answer depends on how your bank currently uses these templates and whether you've built internal processes around data that regulators no longer need. Whilst cutting redundant forms sounds straightforward, the reality involves reviewing data lineage, updating validation rules and ensuring you haven't built critical internal reporting on top of regulatory templates that are about to disappear.

This article examines what the PRA is removing, why these templates were selected and what banks should do between now and January to prepare for the changes.

The First Phase of Future Banking Data

The PRA's consultation represents the opening move in its Future Banking Data programme, designed to make UK regulation more proportionate following Brexit. The 37 templates targeted for deletion are predominantly EU-inherited forms that either duplicate existing data collections or no longer serve supervisory purposes.

The deleted templates include 34 FINREP forms, 2 COREP templates and 1 PRA resolution template (PRA 109 for operational continuity). These were part of a regulatory framework built for 28 EU member states, many of which don't align with the PRA's current risk management approach.

The consultation runs until 22 October 2025, giving banks three months to respond before implementation on 1 January 2026. The PRA has made clear this is just the beginning. More deletions and streamlining efforts will follow as the Future Banking Data programme continues.

What makes this significant is the PRA's commitment to maintaining supervisory effectiveness whilst reducing burden. The regulator isn't lowering standards; it's removing forms that provide no additional insight beyond what other templates already capture.

What's Being Removed and Why

The 37 templates fall into three categories: redundant, duplicative or no longer relevant.

Redundant templates collect information the PRA can obtain from other sources. For example, several FINREP templates gather balance sheet data already captured in regulatory returns with greater granularity. Deleting these doesn't create information gaps because the underlying data remains available elsewhere.

Duplicative templates overlap with other reporting requirements. Some COREP templates split information across multiple forms when a single consolidated template would suffice. The PRA identified cases where banks submit similar data in two or three different formats, each with slightly different breakdowns that don't materially improve supervisory insight.

Obsolete templates were designed for specific regulatory concerns that have either been resolved or superseded by new frameworks. The PRA 109 operational continuity template, for instance, was introduced for resolution planning purposes but has been replaced by more comprehensive operational resilience requirements under other regulations.

The selection process involved reviewing each template against current supervisory needs. If the PRA couldn't identify a clear use case for the data, or if the information duplicated other collections, the template was marked for deletion.

Consider a mid-sized UK bank currently submitting FINREP template F04.01 on geographical breakdown of assets. This data often mirrors information already provided in credit risk templates with finer granularity. The bank invests time mapping data to F04.01's specific format, reconciling it against other submissions and explaining variances to auditors. If F04.01 is deleted, that effort disappears without reducing the PRA's visibility into geographical concentration risk.

Implications for Banks

The £26 million annual saving comes from reduced administrative, technical and data-gathering costs across the industry. For individual banks, the benefit depends on current reporting complexity.

Large institutions with sophisticated reporting infrastructure may see modest direct savings but gain significant strategic value. Teams currently dedicated to reconciling redundant templates can refocus on higher-value activities like enhancing data quality or building predictive analytics capabilities. The opportunity cost of maintaining legacy EU templates has been substantial.

Mid-sized banks often feel the burden most acutely. A tier-two bank might employ several full-time staff managing FINREP and COREP submissions, with additional technology costs for systems that transform internal data into regulatory formats. Removing 37 templates could free up meaningful resources.

Smaller banks may see limited immediate impact if they already use simplified reporting regimes, but the direction of travel matters. As the PRA continues streamlining, proportionality principles should reduce burden on smaller institutions that don't pose systemic risks.

The hidden implication involves internal reporting dependencies. Many banks built risk management dashboards, board reporting packs or audit trails that reference regulatory templates as their source of truth. If your monthly credit risk report to the board pulls data from a COREP template that's about to be deleted, you need to identify the underlying data source and update your internal processes.

A practical example: a UK bank uses FINREP F01.01 (balance sheet templates) to feed its monthly asset quality review presented to the risk committee. The template's specific categorisation of exposures has become embedded in how the risk team thinks about portfolio composition. When F01.01 disappears, the data still exists in other forms, but the team needs to rebuild their analysis around different categorisations. This isn't difficult, but it requires advance planning.

Regulatory and Strategic Context

The PRA's move reflects broader themes in post-Brexit UK financial regulation: proportionality, competitiveness and data-driven supervision.

Proportionality means regulatory requirements should match the risks institutions actually pose. EU frameworks were designed to work across diverse banking markets from Malta to Germany. UK-specific requirements can be more targeted.

Competitiveness has become a stated regulatory objective. Reducing compliance costs without compromising safety strengthens UK banks' position relative to international competitors. The £26 million annual saving across the industry represents capital that can be deployed more productively.

Data-driven supervision underpins the entire Future Banking Data programme. The PRA wants better data, not more data. Modern supervisory approaches use granular, high-quality information for targeted interventions rather than collecting comprehensive templates that mostly go unused.

This philosophy aligns with international trends. The Basel Committee's principles for effective risk data aggregation and reporting emphasise accuracy, completeness and timeliness over volume. Regulators increasingly prefer transaction-level data they can analyse flexibly rather than pre-formatted reports that may not answer emerging questions.

The PRA's approach also builds on lessons from its insurance sector reforms, where similar template deletions preceded broader data modernisation efforts. Banks should expect the regulatory reporting landscape to continue evolving, with more emphasis on standardised data formats, APIs for regulatory submissions and real-time data access.

For banks investing in regulatory reporting infrastructure, this creates both opportunity and risk. Legacy systems built around specific template structures become less valuable as those templates disappear. Modern, flexible platforms that separate data management from report generation adapt more easily to regulatory changes.

Next Steps for Banks

Banks should take three immediate actions before the 22 October consultation deadline.

First, conduct an impact assessment. Review which of the 37 templates your bank currently submits and map the data flows feeding those templates. Identify whether any internal processes depend on these templates as their primary data source. Document where the underlying data will come from once the templates are deleted.

Second, engage with the consultation. If your bank has concerns about specific deletions, the consultation provides an opportunity to raise them. The PRA has shown willingness to adjust timelines or retain templates where banks demonstrate genuine supervisory value. Even if you support the deletions, providing feedback on implementation timelines helps the regulator understand operational constraints.

Third, plan your transition. If you're using automation or regulatory reporting platforms, check whether they're already configured to handle the deletions. Some vendors may need to update their systems. If you're managing templates manually, this is an opportunity to reconsider your approach. Investing in scalable reporting infrastructure now positions you better for future regulatory changes.

A worked example: a regional bank reviews the list and finds it submits 12 of the 37 templates. Eight of these feed into internal risk reports. The bank's project plan includes:

• Mapping alternative data sources for each of the eight templates (September-October)
• Updating internal reporting tools to use the new sources (November)
• Running parallel submissions for one quarter to ensure continuity (Q4 2025)
• Decommissioning old templates after confirming data quality (January 2026)

This approach ensures business continuity whilst capturing the efficiency benefits.

Banks should also consider whether this is the right moment to modernise their reporting infrastructure more broadly. If you're already updating systems to accommodate template deletions, extending the project to improve automation, data quality or processing speed may be more cost-effective than handling changes piecemeal as further reforms arrive.

Conclusion

Key takeaways:

• The PRA's deletion of 37 reporting templates saves UK banks £26 million annually whilst maintaining supervisory effectiveness
• Templates being removed are redundant, duplicative or obsolete, with the underlying data available through other regulatory returns
• Banks must review internal processes to ensure no critical reporting depends on templates that are about to disappear
• This is the first phase of broader regulatory data reform under the Future Banking Data programme
• The consultation closes 22 October 2025, with changes effective 1 January 2026

How Suade helps: Suade's platform is built for regulatory change. When templates are deleted, modified or introduced, our system adapts in days rather than months. Banks using Suade for regulatory reporting can deploy new templates in one day, with a single data model supporting all global regulatory requirements. Our clients map their data once and use it across any jurisdiction, automatically handling changes like the PRA's template deletions without manual rework.

See how Suade can transform your regulatory reporting. Book a demo to learn how banks are reducing manual effort by 70% and generating reports 80% faster whilst staying ahead of regulatory change.