Treatment of credit institutions from the UK in terms of limits to large exposures

Is it possible to consider the prudential, supervisory, and regulatory requirements applied to credit institutions located in the UK as at least equivalent to those applied in EU for the purpose of Article 391 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013?

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2021/1753, dated October 1, 2021, affirms the findings of assessments conducted thus far. According to this decision, the European Commission has determined that the regulatory, supervisory, and prudential arrangements in place in the following countries: Argentina, Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, China, Faroe Islands, Greenland, Guernsey, Hong Kong, India, Isle of Man, Japan, Jersey, Mexico, Monaco, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, Turkey, and the USA, comply with a comprehensive set of operational, organizational, and supervisory standards that mirror the fundamental aspects of the European Union's prudential, supervisory, and regulatory frameworks for credit institutions. Consequently, the decision deems the prudential, supervisory, and regulatory requirements applied to credit institutions located in these countries as being at least equivalent to those applied within the European Union. This equivalence is established for the purposes of various articles, including Articles 107(4), 114(7), 115(4), 116(5), 142(2), and Article 391 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013. However, UK is not included in the country list. What's the correct treatment of credit institutions from the UK in terms of limits to exposure? Is it possible to consider the prudential, supervisory, and regulatory requirements applied to credit institutions located in the UK as at least equivalent to those applied in the Union for the purpose of Article 391 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013?