PRA Cuts 37 Bank Reporting Templates in 2025 Overhaul
On 22 September 2025, the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) published a consultation paper (CP21/25) under its Future Banking Data (FBD) programme, proposing to delete 37 reporting templates by the end of the year. If implemented, the reforms would reduce banks’ reporting burden by an estimated £26 million annually from 31 December 2025.
This marks the first step in a broader programme to streamline data collection, cut costs, and tailor reporting requirements to UK supervisory needs. It also follows signals in the PRA’s 2025/26 fees and levies consultation, confirming that change is accelerating.
What Changed
Summary: The PRA has proposed deleting 37 reporting templates, consolidating rules, and aligning deadlines.
The PRA proposes to delete 34 FINREP templates, around a third of all FINREP forms, which it considers duplicative or no longer aligned with supervisory needs. It also plans to remove three further templates: two COREP forms linked to expired capital rules and PRA 109 on Operational Continuity in Resolution. At the same time, the PRA will consolidate FINREP requirements into a single Rulebook chapter and align remittance dates to business days. In parallel, the Bank of England is proposing to remove six resolution templates that overlap with other requirements.
Implementation is planned for 31 December 2025, ahead of Q4 reporting.
Why Is This Happening
Summary: The reforms aim to reduce costs, simplify reporting, and recalibrate rules for the UK context.
The PRA argues that while regulatory data is essential, it must also be proportionate. Removing templates of limited supervisory value reduces costs without weakening oversight. Much of the current reporting framework was inherited from the EU and designed for 28 member states, creating opportunities for UK-specific tailoring. At the same time, unclear scoping rules have led to over-reporting and waiver requests, which the PRA hopes to resolve by consolidating requirements. This consultation is also the opening phase of the broader FBD programme, with more complex reforms expected in future stages.
Why It Matters
Summary: These proposals have implications for banks, supervisors, and the wider UK financial system.
For banks, the PRA estimates annual savings of £26 million, though firms will still need to make system and process adjustments ahead of the December 2025 deadline. For supervisors, the changes mean a leaner, more focused reporting framework that reduces duplication and frees resources for high-value oversight. For the UK financial system, streamlined reporting supports the PRA’s secondary objectives of competitiveness and growth, reinforcing the UK’s appeal as a financial centre.
Risks
Summary: While costs may fall, risks include data gaps, transition challenges, and uneven benefits.
The PRA risks losing useful granularity in areas such as forborne loans and off-balance-sheet exposures. Transition costs are significant, with firms needing to reconfigure IT systems and governance frameworks quickly. There is also reliance on alternative sources, such as audited statements or Whole of Account reporting, which may not always provide the same detail. Larger banks, the main FINREP reporters, will likely benefit most, while smaller firms may gain less. Finally, because this is only the first phase, firms face uncertainty as future consultations could reshape reporting again.
Opportunities
Summary: The reforms could deliver significant cost savings, operational efficiencies, and reputational gains.
The PRA estimates savings of £26 million annually, and future phases of the FBD programme may generate more. A consolidated Rulebook should reduce grey areas and misreporting, while aligned remittance dates simplify operational processes. Beyond compliance, the UK could benefit reputationally as a jurisdiction that balances prudential standards with proportionate regulatory burdens, potentially strengthening its global position.
Implications
Summary: The impact will be felt across compliance teams, auditors, international institutions, and policymakers.
Compliance and operations teams will need to review template deletions and prepare systems changes ahead of the year-end deadline. Auditors and consultants may see increased demand as firms seek assurance that prudential coverage remains robust. International institutions operating in both the UK and EU will need to manage diverging requirements, while policymakers can present these changes as evidence of a post-Brexit regulatory environment that supports growth while maintaining prudential integrity.
Key Milestones Ahead
Summary: Industry responses and final rules will determine the next steps in this reform.
22 October 2025: Consultation closes.
Late 2025: PRA expected to publish a broader Discussion Paper on the Future Banking Data programme.
31 December 2025: Implementation date for template deletions, aligned with year-end and Q4 reporting.
Future phases: More complex reforms anticipated, involving partial deletions or reconfiguration of templates.
The consultation closes on 22 October 2025, and industry feedback may shape the final design. Later this year, the PRA will publish a broader discussion paper on the FBD programme, setting out longer-term reforms. At the same time, the Bank of England is consulting on parallel deletions in resolution reporting. Final rules are expected to take effect from 31 December 2025.
How Consultations Work
Summary: Consultations are proposals, not final rules, and feedback can materially change outcomes.
A consultation paper allows the PRA to set out proposed changes, explain its reasoning, and invite industry views. Responses are analysed and often lead to amendments before final rules are confirmed.
Examples of how past consultations have evolved:
Strong and Simple framework (CP5/22): Initially proposed a simplified prudential regime for smaller banks and building societies. After feedback, thresholds for eligibility were adjusted upward, and certain liquidity and disclosure requirements were phased in over longer periods. Industry input directly shaped the scope and rollout, ensuring that smaller firms were not subject to disproportionate transition costs.
Basel 3.1 consultation (CP16/22): The PRA’s first proposals sparked significant debate, particularly around output floors and credit risk modelling. Following consultation, the PRA extended the implementation timeline and softened calibration in several areas, acknowledging concerns about capital impact and international competitiveness. These changes demonstrated how feedback can alter both the pace and substance of reform.
Liquidity reporting reforms (CP12/23): Firms argued that proposed changes to liquidity templates were too burdensome to deliver in the original timeframe. The PRA responded by staggering implementation deadlines, allowing firms more time to adjust their systems while still meeting supervisory objectives. This phased approach was not in the initial plan but emerged as a direct result of consultation feedback.
These examples show that consultations are more than formalities. They frequently result in material adjustments to timelines, thresholds, and calibrations, reflecting the PRA’s statutory duty to consider proportionality and industry feedback.
Final Thoughts
Summary: This consultation is the first tangible step in reshaping UK banking data reporting.
By proposing to cut 37 templates, consolidate FINREP rules, and simplify deadlines, the PRA is signalling its intent to create a leaner, more proportionate reporting framework. At the same time, the consultation raises questions about data coverage, supervisory effectiveness, and the pace of change.
The outcome will depend on the responses the PRA receives before 22 October. Future phases of the FBD programme are expected to involve more complex reforms, making this consultation an important test of how far the PRA can go in balancing efficiency with oversight.
The direction of travel is clear. The PRA is moving toward streamlined reporting that reduces burden and supports competitiveness while aiming to maintain prudential standards. The consultation process will determine whether firms agree with this balance, and how the next stages of reform will unfold.
What Do You Think?
💬 Do you think the PRA is moving fast enough, or too fast? Should supervisory needs outweigh industry cost savings, or vice versa?
💬 Do you believe the PRA has struck the right balance between efficiency and oversight, or is further adjustment needed?
Share your perspective with us!
📌 For more insights subscribe to The Industry Portal newsletter and explore our explainer videos on our YouTube channel.