On 14 July 2026, the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) published a consultation paper setting out its proposal to delete the Continuity of Provision of Services Chapter in the Ring-fenced Bodies Part of the PRA Rulebook, make certain consequential changes to that Part, and amend associated material in supervisory statement (SS) 8/16.
Background
The ring-fencing regime was introduced after the financial crisis of 2008–09 to ensure that retail banking activities in large universal banks are insulated from risks elsewhere in the financial system. However, since these rules were implemented, other regimes such as Operational Continuity in Resolution (OCIR) have been developed further, which the PRA considers cover a similar policy intent in a more flexible manner.
Alongside this CP, HM Treasury is issuing a consultation on the reform package, following a commitment made At Mansion House in July 2025, as part of the Government’s Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness Strategy.
Summary
- Rule 9.1: This prevents the RFB from receiving operational services and facilities (where required on a regular basis) from outside the ring-fence, unless it is from a dedicated service company. The PRA considers that deleting rule 9.1 would provide additional flexibility for firms. Service provision across the ring-fence would still be conducted between the legally distinct entities and subject to rule 3.5 requiring that intragroup transactions and exposures have the same degree of management transactions and exposures to third parties and the Arm’s Length Transactions (Chapter 12) of the Ring-fenced Bodies Part of the PRA Handbook.
- Rule 9.2: This requires that the RFB, where it receives services and facilities in connection with accepting core deposits, must ensure that those services cannot be disrupted as a result of the acts, omissions, or financial deterioration of other group members. The PRA considers that deleting rule 9.2 would leave in place substantially similar protections and therefore raise no significant prudential concerns. The PRA explains that this is because rule 9.2 is substantially similar to rules in the Operational Continuity Part, notably rule 3.2 of the PRA Handbook, which covers instances where a firm receives critical services from another party.
- Rule 9.3: This is a carveout from rule 9.2, which allows for chains of permitted suppliers. The deletion of rule 9.3 is a consequential change following the deletion of rule 9.2.
- Proposed amendments to SS8/16: SS8/16 contains guidance about the scope and application of the shared services rules. In light of the proposed deletion of the shared services rules, the PRA considers that this guidance should also be deleted. In its place, the PRA proposes to note the other regimes that support safety and soundness in relation to the operational services that banks depend on: OCIR, Operational Resilience, and Outsourcing and Third-Party Risk.
Next steps
The PRA has requested feedback by 14 October 2026.
.