Response to the RPIB consultation on the Design of the Future Retail Payments Infrastructure

Foreword

I would like to thank everyone who responded to the Retail Payments Infrastructure Board’s (RPIB) June 2026 consultation on the design of the UK’s Next Generation retail payments infrastructure. The consultation was an important milestone in our journey to translate the Payment Vision Delivery Committee’s (PVDC) vision for the future UK retail payments infrastructure into a reality, providing an opportunity for stakeholders to help shape the high-level design.

I was delighted not just by the number (121) but importantly by the breadth of stakeholders who responded and the careful consideration that had been given to their responses. The next-generation infrastructure is being designed for the whole ecosystem and with a very strong focus on the end user outcomes. Hearing from so many voices will help us to design something that meets the PVDC outcomes, is well used, trusted and truly valued. A strong payments ecosystem is crucial to the functioning of the economy, to growth, and to our businesses and consumers.

The rich consultation feedback, blended with that from a range of meetings and forums, will be an important factor in shaping the Blueprint. This Response Document highlights the key themes that emerged, how they are already being reflected in the high-level design; and the next steps in handing over the Blueprint to the Delivery Company. I was struck by the broad overall support on the key elements of the consultation document, with differences relating more to the next level of detail than to overall user journeys or design principles. There was also a strong emphasis on developing an infrastructure that is able to adapt to the future world, including changes in technology, changes in user demands, changes in players and changes in types of money.

The next generation infrastructure will be a crucial part of the UK retail payments ecosystem. But it is only a part of it – one critical layer. While this Response Document focuses on the core infrastructure, we received further valuable information that will be fed into other discussions. For example, insights into how to develop a smooth and safe migration plan will be essential once we have greater clarity on what we are transitioning to. And there were some really helpful thoughts and observations on how end users, including more vulnerable users, would interact with the new payment journeys. Some of this is relevant now as we ensure that the new infrastructure is there as a strong enabler, and some is more relevant to other layers which will be delivered by product schemes and/or individual institutions.

The PVDC is continuing to develop the ideas set out in its July 2026 Roles and Responsibilities in the Future Retail Payments Ecosystem paper. This considers how the various elements of the ecosystem will work together effectively. In the meantime, the various parties should focus on their existing roles, with Pay.UK focused on their vital run activities and the Delivery Company turning the Blueprint into reality. In moving towards a next generation infrastructure, it is crucial that the current system remains resilient and well supported.

Developing the next generation architecture is certainly a team sport, and I look forward to continued strong collaboration between the public and the private sectors.

Victoria Cleland

Chair, Retail Payments Infrastructure Board

1: Summary

In June 2026, the Retail Payments Infrastructure Board (RPIB) launched a consultation inviting stakeholders across the payments ecosystem and the public to help shape the design of the UK’s Next Generation retail payments infrastructure^{footnote [1]}. The consultation was an important step in the RPIB’s work of translating the Payment Vision Delivery Committee (PVDC) Strategy into a high-level design for the infrastructure.

The consultation sought views on:

1. The future payment journeys undertaken by households and businesses which the Next Generation infrastructure should support;
2. The key principles that should guide the design of the infrastructure; and
3. The ‘platform for innovation’ role which the infrastructure should play across the payments ecosystem.

The quality of the responses and engagement was consistently high. The RPIB received 121 responses to the consultation (Table A), including from:

• Payments and technology firms;
• Banks and building societies;
• Merchants;
• Trade bodies;
• Consumer and public interest organisations;
• Consultancies;
• Academia; and
• Individuals.

The RPIB would like to thank all respondents for their thoughtful and constructive feedback. The insights we have received will support the work of the RPIB and its Design Authority as we prepare to handover a Blueprint ^{footnote [2]} to the industry-run Delivery Company in Spring 2027.

In addition to receiving the consultation responses, teams from the Bank of England have also engaged widely through the RPIB's retail payments engagement forums, roundtables, and discussions with trade bodies, merchants and consumer-interest groups. Together, this engagement and the consultation responses provide a broad range of perspectives to inform the next phase of the high-level design and the preparation of the Blueprint. The Bank is eager to continue to engage with a diverse range of organisations to bring different perspectives and expertise to ensure this work can progress at pace.

This Response Document highlights the key messages arising from the consultation, and how these will inform the development of the Blueprint. As part of this response, the RPIB has identified prospective design proposals. It will continue to refine these proposals in collaboration and co-creation with the industry and other stakeholders over the coming months. This will ensure that the Blueprint has appropriately explored trade-offs and design choices.

Following the handover of the Blueprint to the Delivery Company in Spring 2027, the Delivery Company will move to lower-level design as well as the procurement and build of the new infrastructure.

Once built, the core infrastructure will form a crucial part of a payments ecosystem that includes schemes, regulations, products, standards and end user interfaces. The infrastructure will only be one component of this, and so these elements must work together to provide a secure, resilient, trusted and efficient experience for UK households and businesses.

Accordingly, the PVDC is continuing to engage the ecosystem on the issues outlined in its update on Roles and Responsibilities in the future Retail Payments Ecosystem in July this year. The update emphasised the need to develop the core infrastructure in parallel with the wider ecosystem arrangements, with strong collaboration and coordination across the public and private sectors. Some respondents also provided feedback through the RPIB consultation on the PVDC Update published earlier in the summer. The Bank, HMT, FCA and PSR will coordinate in considering this feedback.

The rest of this document is structured as follows:

• Section 2 outlines the types of entity that submitted responses and the approach taken to analysing them.
• Section 3 summarises the key messages received from respondents on the design of the future infrastructure.
• Section 4 identifies how the responses will inform the next stage of design and sets out wider issues beyond the core infrastructure for further consideration.
• Section 5 outlines the next steps in developing the high-level design of UK’s Next Generation retail payments infrastructure.

2: Consultation responses and methodology

Overview of respondents

The RPIB consultation invited feedback on 18 questions and 8 sub-questions. Of the 121 responses, 110 were from organisations and 11 were from individuals.

How we analysed the responses

The consultation sought feedback through both open and closed questions. Responses varied in length and level of detail. Bank of England staff manually reviewed the responses to identify the main themes, areas of agreement and differences in views.

All responses were managed by the Bank team, with findings presented in an aggregated form that did not identify individual respondents or disclose confidential or commercially sensitive information. The analysis considered the range and balance of views expressed, alongside the reasoning and evidence provided by respondents. The manual review was complemented by further analysis to help identify sentiment and key messages across consultation questions and respondent groups.

The RPIB discussed the key messages in its 21 October meeting, and how these should inform the development of the Blueprint.

3: Key messages

This section provides an overview of key themes that emerged from the consultation responses.

There was broad support for the overall direction of travel and the outcomes set out in the consultation – particularly the need to move at pace towards the renewal of the UK’s retail payments infrastructure. These key outcomes set out in the consultation document were:

• Greater choice of innovative and cost-effective payment options;
• Interoperability across a multi-money ecosystem;
• Protection from fraud and wider financial crime;
• Fair and transparent access that supports competition and innovation; and
• An operationally and financially resilient payments ecosystem.

Respondents saw the payment journeys, design principles and conceptual architecture as a strong basis for the development of the Blueprint. They also identified areas that need further consideration as the RPIB and the Design Authority progress the high-level design. This will be developed through collaboration and co-creation with industry groups and other key stakeholders. These included the boundary between the core infrastructure and other services, how interoperability would work in practice with new forms of digital money, fraud and consumer protection challenges, and how to minimise risks in the eventual migration to the future infrastructure.

Respondents also shared views on ecosystem-wide issues, some of which go beyond core infrastructure design. These issues included adoption of the new payment journeys, access principles for participants, commercial sustainability of the infrastructure and products, scheme design, roles and responsibilities in the ecosystem, and financial inclusion.

The design principles and conceptual architecture provide a strong basis for further design.

Respondents expressed broad support for the design principles and conceptual architecture, which were seen as a useful foundation for the next stage of the work. Respondents placed strong weight on operational resilience and cyber security, for example, in the context of AI and developments in frontier technologies.

Across respondent groups, there was a preference for a relatively thin core.^{footnote [3]} However, there was a range of views as to precisely how thin the core should be, and where certain capabilities should sit. Respondents placed varying levels of emphasis on the role shared services and common capabilities should play, and whether these should sit within the core.

The shared services which could bring ecosystem-wide benefits were identified by respondents to include: fraud prevention; data sharing; directories; and alias services.

Some respondents noted that fragmented provision of these services outside of the core could weaken resilience or interoperability. Other respondents placed greater weight on ensuring common provision did not restrict competition, add onerous costs, or create barriers to innovation.

Respondents also highlighted the need to prioritise the most important capabilities for the build, and to consider the costs and benefits of different design choices. It will be important to ensure value for money and commercial viability over the lifetime of the infrastructure. Some respondents noted that different payment journeys may require different trade-offs between factors such as speed, resilience, scalability and cost.

There was strong support for interoperability between different forms of money at par and the wider set of enablers to support broader interoperability.

Respondents supported interoperability between different forms of money at par. There was a desire for payment journeys to be simple, seamless and integrated, and to preserve end user choice. While most respondents supported settlement in central bank money, some questioned whether alternatives to central bank money could exist, including where payments are blockchain-based. Also, some respondents questioned whether all retail payments, for example certain tokenised deposits, would need to clear through the Next Generation infrastructure.

Many respondents noted that interoperability across the payments ecosystem was broader than just interoperability between different forms of money. Some described interoperability as delivering desirable end-to-end outcomes, for example, consistency of the user experience regardless of the form of money used. Respondents said that achieving such outcomes could require common technical standards, broadly equivalent protections across different forms of money, agreed protocols, richer and more structured data, fair access, and clear governance and responsibilities.

Respondents also noted that achieving interoperability requires a continual operational and governance capability that would need to be refined over time, rather than just a one-off technical connection.

Trust, fraud and consumer protection are fundamental.

Preventing fraud and financial crime were important considerations for respondents. Respondents emphasised the need for the infrastructure to support effective controls across the ecosystem.

Respondents supported richer and more structured payments data, including consistent information, payment status visibility and identifiers that could be used across participants. They also supported stronger checks on the intended payee, merchant or organisation. Where respondents specified a data standard, the clear preference was ISO 20022 based syntax, with the detail of the specific implementation to be worked through in the detailed design phase. Some respondents noted that the ability to embed authenticated payment requests and non-reusable payment credentials as part of the messages could prove valuable. For cross-border payments, respondents placed weight on the need for harmonised and richer ISO 20022 data, alongside other enabling factors such as transaction transparency and pre-payment validation.

Respondents noted the need for reliable information including payment status updates and evidence of how a payment was initiated and authorised. Payment firms also placed weight on fraud signals, traceability and workable liability arrangements.

Some respondents set out that a key role for the infrastructure should be to build trust through supporting fraud prevention, consumer protection and wider financial crime controls. Some respondents also noted that the infrastructure could leverage counterparty checks, information sharing and visibility across the network. They noted that wider arrangements outside of the core could be necessary too, for example to determine liability, reimbursement and dispute outcomes. Respondents specifically noted A2A journeys as an example of this, given views might ultimately differ on the scope, funding and liability model for consumer protection.

Some respondents noted that proving who a person is may not establish account ownership, authority to act, or intent to make a payment. Respondents saw the ability of the core infrastructure to distinguish between identity, authority and intent as particularly relevant to emerging and future journeys such as delegated, recurring, programmable and agentic payments.

There was strong support for the proposed payment journeys, alongside considering a more complete view of current and future payment needs over time.

Respondents supported using the proposed existing and future payment journeys as a baseline for the next stage of design. Respondents also stressed the importance of established business and government payment journeys, such as tax, salaries and benefit payments. The RPIB recognises the vital importance of these payment journeys as it develops the Blueprint. Respondents also highlighted the continuing role of cash, cheques and in-person support. The PVDC has been clear on the importance of ensuring the continued provision of these arrangements. Pay.UK are also continuing to work with industry representatives to collaborate on mechanisms to ensure the most efficient future model for cheques processing while the future infrastructure is being developed.

Responses placed particular weight on covering the full payment lifecycle. This included exception handling, refunds, recalls, disputes, recovery, reconciliation and certainty of fate. Several respondents wanted clear operational protocols to address situations in which a payment might fail or become interrupted. Respondents noted the importance of these services for end-to-end journeys, while noting that the full payment lifecycle will be delivered by a combination of the infrastructure and the relevant schemes and customer journeys.

The areas of focus differed by respondent group. Consumer and public-interest respondents emphasised trusted and accessible journeys, inclusion and effective protection. Merchants and payment providers focused on payment assurance, integration, refunds and disputes. While the emphasis differed, these reflected a common focus on ensuring payment journeys continue to work effectively when issues arise. Business and government respondents focussed on high value and volume processing, bulk / batch payments,^{footnote [4]} reconciliation, scheduling and advance information.

Responses were broadly supportive of A2A at point of sale journeys and noted the importance of merchant adoption and acceptance in developing a UK A2A at point of sale solution. A viable journey would need certainty of fate, speed and reliability. A strong theme was that infrastructure alone would not deliver a viable A2A at point of sale proposition. Consumer protection, refunds, disputes resolution, consistent user journeys, and sustainable commercial incentives would be critical alongside the infrastructure capabilities. Several respondents also called for clear coordination in the future between the eventual core infrastructure scheme and product level arrangements that would enable specific journeys.

The core infrastructure would need to support existing product level arrangements (such as direct debits) and new product level arrangements (such as A2A at point of sale). If existing products wish to transition their customer journeys as part of the next generation modernisation, the infrastructure will need to ensure that it can meet their refined needs. Respondents raised machine-to-machine payments, agentic payments and embedded finance. Some suggested that interoperability, programmability and exception handling could be treated as capabilities that cut across different payment journeys.

On programmable payments, respondents broadly supported a thin core providing common, interoperable capabilities, while leaving complex business logic and customer propositions to product level arrangements.

On agentic payments, respondents emphasised that payment activity should be identifiable, attributable to an accountable principal, and supported by verifiable authority. However, views differed on where safeguards should sit and the appropriate degree of autonomy.

A small number of respondents raised potential implications for people who share protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, particularly in relation to age and disability. They highlighted the importance of considering accessibility and inclusion as the design is fleshed out, including accessible authentication, assisted and delegated payment journeys, and the continuing availability of suitable non-digital alternatives. Some respondents also proposed an equality impact assessment as the design is developed further.

Respondents favoured a phased migration which recognised and managed the implications for the wider ecosystem.

Respondents provided views on the principles that should guide future transition and migration arrangements and how transitional arrangements could be factored into the early design thinking.

Respondents strongly preferred phased migration rather than a Big Bang transition. They said transition sequencing should take account of benefits, risks, complexity, costs and ecosystem readiness. They also highlighted the need to consider the wider implications of transition and minimise disruption across the ecosystem. Respondents stressed the need for early communication on scope, standards, sequencing and timelines alongside industry coordination, testing and demonstrated operational readiness.

Views differed on how migration should ultimately be sequenced, including whether it should proceed by payment journey, capability or participant group. Respondents also differed on readiness versus fixed timelines, incentives, mandates and sunset dates, and whether A2A at point of sale should be prioritised. Respondents were clear that existing systems must remain safe and resilient during migration. Bacs and Direct Debit were highlighted because existing mandates and dependencies will need to be factored into the high-level design and will require careful migration planning. Respondents cautioned against decommissioning existing infrastructure before replacement arrangements had been sufficiently proven. Taken together, the feedback suggests there are likely to be trade-offs in transition sequencing. To manage these trade-offs, there will need to be close coordination across both the participants, and the current and future accountable entities. This will help to ensure a safe and effective transition.

Many respondents supported incremental delivery, including using existing infrastructure and capabilities where appropriate. Transition will also require coordination across the wider ecosystem, including consideration of costs and value for money, sunset dates to minimise dual-running, and operational resilience. Respondents also highlighted regulatory dependencies, including the need for clarity on the legal and regulatory framework as detailed design and migration plans develop.

4: Design proposals for the core infrastructure

This section sets out our current high-level design proposals that build on the payment journeys, design principles and conceptual architecture set out in the consultation.

These proposals are informed by areas identified in responses to the consultation, discussions with the RPIB’s engagement forum participants, and wider industry and stakeholder engagement. The proposed design includes a modular architecture that can support existing and future product-level arrangements, common access and messaging foundations, reusable capabilities, and the resilience and capacity needed for demanding payment journeys.

This design thinking sets the proposed direction of travel. It will be refined and tested further as work gets underway to develop the Blueprint, particularly through collaboration and co-creation with industry and wider stakeholders.

A modular architecture for existing and future payment journeys

Respondents broadly supported a modular and extensible architecture, with the infrastructure designed around common capabilities rather than individual payment products. The payment journeys were generally seen as a useful basis for drawing out what capabilities would be required, while retaining flexibility to support new and changing journeys.

We propose a single modular architecture that provides a common platform for existing and future product-level arrangements. It would provide reusable capabilities designed to support more than one product. This would support existing payment journeys while allowing new products and forms of money to be accommodated in the future.

Common access, messaging and an orchestration layer

Respondents highlighted common messaging, interfaces and technical standards as important foundations. They also emphasised the need for consistent implementation of standards.

We propose a common access foundation that allows participants to connect to the central infrastructure securely through a range of options. This would lower barriers to entry by providing proportionate connectivity options, while maintaining common technical, security and resilience standards across all routes.

We propose that the core would use a common ISO 20022 messaging approach, with a shared set of baseline message definitions, data elements and implementation rules across payment services. Messaging for individual propositions over and above the baseline data requirements would be defined by the relevant product level arrangements, which could in turn extend this common messaging baseline where their service requires additional data. This could help to reduce duplication for participants, support interoperability across payment services and make it easier to introduce new services without requiring new messaging standards each time. We propose aligning this with CHAPS where practical, and with international standards to support cross-border interoperability. The detailed implementation of ISO 20022, including the choice of messages will be considered as part of the further design.

The proposed orchestration layer would validate, route and sequence payments across the core, including batches. This layer could support a time limited transition from legacy FPS and Bacs formats to ISO 20022, allowing migration to be phased without embedding legacy standards in the target architecture. This could support the transition arrangements mentioned above, however it will need to be considered carefully as part of the wider transition strategy. The orchestration layer could also act as an ongoing enabler of access, interoperability, resilience and infrastructure change, as well as supporting migration.

Liquidity, clearing and settlement

Respondents emphasised the importance of certainty of fate and liquidity efficiency. On settlement, individual responses differed on preferred settlement models. Some respondents supported flexibility so that product-level arrangements could use the settlement model appropriate to their needs. Respondents also supported participants being able to use their liquidity across all the product-level arrangements in which they participate, avoiding the need for dedicated product-specific liquidity.

Subject to further design work and supporting analysis, the RPIB’s view is that a given participant should be able to more efficiently share their own liquidity across the Next Generation product-level arrangements in which they participate. The core infrastructure would provide rapid acceptance or rejection and a commitment to seek settlement for accepted payments through the Bank’s RTGS service. It would coordinate clearing within the service level required by each product.

As noted above, the core will connect to the Bank’s RTGS service for settlement in central bank money, supporting confidence and financial stability by providing a safe and final means of settlement. Some respondents noted a preference to settle on a line by line or hybrid basis. The Bank considers that most product level arrangements that are currently envisaged to clear through the Next Generation infrastructure could continue to settle on a prefunded net settlement basis. From an infrastructure point of view, the key requirement we propose to take forward is that the core can coordinate onward settlement into central bank money.

This will provide a liquidity-efficient approach to settling obligations, whilst retaining protections to eliminate settlement risk. The capabilities delivered by the RTGS renewal programme mean that the system is technically able to support more frequent settlement cycles throughout the day. Furthermore, earlier this year, the Bank consulted extending RTGS operating hours. This holds open the possibility of product level arrangements choosing to settle more times per day than they currently do, or over the weekend – reducing liquidity requirements for net settlement.

Data and shared services

Respondents identified consumer protection, fraud prevention, data sharing, directories and alias services as areas that may benefit from common provision. Views differed on whether these capabilities should sit within the core or elsewhere in the ecosystem.

The provision of shared services will be a key area for further consideration during the development of the Blueprint, and the collaboration and co-creation with the industry and other key stakeholders.

Built for future workloads and resilience

Respondents emphasised secure, resilient and adaptable infrastructure, with sufficient flexibility to support future requirements. Respondents also highlighted that while resilience of the core infrastructure is an essential requirement, resilience also needs to be considered across the end-to-end ecosystem.

The core will support existing payments and future workloads. This includes the speed and volumes required for A2A point of sale payments and interoperability with regulated new forms of digital money as they may emerge. Capacity would need to be able to scale as payment volumes grow.

Security and operational resilience will be crucial to the design. Critical components will need boundaries that sustain minimum service provision during severe but plausible disruption. The core and connecting PSPs will need to consider the impact of frontier technologies in this advanced state of resilience. This might include cryptographic agility and quantum-safe algorithms.

The system would be designed to exacting levels of operational resilience. This would require technical, process and people capabilities, supported by live insight into system performance and the ability to ‘fail-over’ within and across sites when components are unavailable or need to be maintained.

Wider considerations beyond the core infrastructure

The consultation responses also raised wider considerations that cannot be addressed through the design of the core infrastructure alone. Respondents highlighted that delivering successful end-user outcomes will depend on arrangements beyond the core infrastructure. The core infrastructure is one, albeit critical, layer within the wider payments ecosystem. In line with this, respondents highlighted the importance of core and product-level scheme arrangements, consumer protection and liability, merchant acceptance, commercial sustainability, and financial inclusion.

As the consultation set out, in order to achieve the PVDC outcomes, the ecosystem will need to move to a set of arrangements that goes beyond a new core infrastructure. This includes greater clarity on the roles and responsibilities of schemes and standards across the ecosystem in order to deliver innovative and resilient and products and services. Given the role of the core infrastructure as a shared utility for the ecosystem, this is expected to be delivered by a centralised operating model, supporting consistent standards, coordination and system‑wide resilience. However, competitive products and services used by end users would continue to be provided and operated by a broader set of organisations.

The next phase of RPIB’s design work will require continued close coordination between the public and private sector to ensure the design of the core maintains pace and alignment with the wider ecosystem developments.

5: Next steps

The consultation responses and the feedback from engagement provide a strong basis for the next phase of the RPIB’s design work – the development of the Blueprint.

The RPIB has considered how to build on the existing high-quality collaboration between the public and private sector to progress the design proposals into the next stage of high-level design work. The Blueprint for the UK’s Next Generation infrastructure will be handed over to the industry-led Delivery Company in Spring 2027, so that further detailed design and delivery of the core can take place.

The RPIB and the Bank will also continue their structured engagement on these issues with experts from industry, end-user representatives, technical specialists, civil society, academics and consumer groups, in order to inform, test, challenge and refine the emerging high-level design.

Co-creation and Blueprint handover

There are four broad, iterative stages in our future work. The RPIB has consistently supported a co-creation based approach which can bring together public and private sector expertise to support design elaboration and a smooth handover to the Delivery Company. The next phase of this approach has been structured as such:

1. The Bank, working with the RPIB, the Design Authority and other industry advisory and engagement forums, will develop an initial draft of the Blueprint (also referred to in earlier documents as the ‘design documentation’). This will incorporate the high-level design proposals outlined in Section 4.
2. The co-creation phase starts in November to elaborate on the initial draft of the Blueprint, and will run until Spring 2027, when the RPIB will hand over the Blueprint to the Delivery Company. This stage will entail the Bank and industry experts working collaboratively.
3. The Delivery Company will be responsible for taking forward detailed design elaboration, procurement, build and implementation phases. This stage is industry led with the RPIB having continued engagement and assurance via agreed arrangements to ensure that the detailed design continues to meet the intent set out in the high-level design.
4. Finally, the implementation stage during which the infrastructure progresses through build, transition and migration, and becomes operational.

Co-creation objectives

Co-creation will be a continuing and evolving way of working that provides the bridge between the RPIB and the Design Authority’s development of the high-level design through to industry-led detailed design and delivery. It supports continuity and transition, and a smooth handover of design to the Delivery Company through to implementation. Co-creation is intended to:

• Support delivery of the public policy objectives, vision and intended outcomes for the future retail payments infrastructure;
• Draw effectively on public-private collaboration, using industry expertise and creativity to support an efficient, high-quality, timely and innovative design;
• Ensure appropriate consideration of public policy, commercial and operational factors as the design develops;
• Support continuity and minimise the risk of surprises as requirements and design documentation are handed over, further developed and implemented; and
• Provide industry with a meaningful opportunity to contribute to the development of the design, supporting understanding and appropriate buy-in ahead of handover.