RPIB consultation response: what the Bank proposes for the new payments core
In short: The Bank of England’s RPIB consultation response, published on 4 November 2026, reports 121 responses on the design of the UK’s next-generation retail payments infrastructure. The Retail Payments Infrastructure Board proposes a single modular core on an ISO 20022 baseline, with settlement in central bank money, and will hand its Blueprint to the Delivery Company in spring 2027.
The Bank of England and the Retail Payments Infrastructure Board (RPIB), the senior advisory group the Bank chairs, have stated a design direction for the system that will replace the clearing and messaging layer behind Faster Payments and Bacs. In its response of 4 November 2026, the RPIB reports what 121 respondents said and how it intends to take their views into the high-level design, which it calls the Blueprint and will hand to the industry-owned Delivery Company in spring 2027. The RPIB takes no final decisions: it describes its proposals as a direction of travel, to be refined with industry over the coming months.
The RPIB consultation ran from 25 June to 11 September 2026 and asked 18 questions on payment journeys, design principles and the role of the core within a layered architecture. The Board’s task is to turn the Payments Vision Delivery Committee’s (PVDC) Strategy for Future Retail Payments Infrastructure of November 2025 into a design. Of the 121 responses, 110 came from organisations and 11 from individuals. Bank staff reviewed them by hand, supported by further analysis of sentiment, and the Board reports the findings only in aggregate. It discussed them at its meeting on 21 October 2026. For the background to the programme, see the next-generation retail payments infrastructure programme.
Key points
- The RPIB consultation response records 121 responses to 18 questions and 8 sub-questions, 110 from organisations and 11 from individuals. Source: RPIB response, section 2.
- Respondents preferred a relatively thin core, but differed on how thin, and on whether fraud, data sharing, directory and alias services belong inside it. The Board has left that question for further work. Source: RPIB response, sections 3 and 4.
- The RPIB proposes a single modular core, a common ISO 20022 messaging baseline aligned with CHAPS where practical, and shared liquidity across payment products. Source: RPIB response, section 4.
- Settlement will be in central bank money through the Bank’s RTGS service, and the Bank considers that most payment products could continue on prefunded net settlement. Source: RPIB response, section 4.
- Respondents strongly preferred a phased migration to a single switchover. Source: RPIB response, section 3.
- The Bank and industry experts will develop the Blueprint together from November 2026 until spring 2027, when it passes to the Delivery Company. Source: RPIB response, section 5.
| Area | What the RPIB consulted on | What respondents said | What the RPIB proposes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of the core | A minimum set of core functions, with other services inside or outside (Q5 to Q8) | A relatively thin core; views differed on shared services | A single modular core; shared services for further work |
| Settlement | Settlement in central bank money; frequency and model left for further work (Q12) | Views differed on the model; support for shared liquidity across products | Shared liquidity; the core coordinates onward settlement through RTGS; most products could stay on prefunded net settlement |
| Forms of money | Exchange at par with settlement in central bank money (Q11, Q13) | Strong support, with questions about blockchain payments and tokenised deposits | Interoperability with regulated new forms of digital money as they may emerge |
| Fraud and protection | Which capabilities to prioritise for the core; no new liability regime (Q18) | Richer data, payee checks, status visibility, ISO 20022 | A common ISO 20022 baseline; liability and consumer protection recorded as wider matters |
| Migration | What should guide timelines; a possible staged transition (Q2) | Strong preference for phased migration; Bacs and Direct Debit flagged | An orchestration layer that could carry legacy formats for a limited time |
The scope of the core infrastructure
Respondents preferred a relatively thin core. The Board proposes a single modular core that offers reusable capabilities to existing and future payment products, instead of one built around each product.
In the consultation, the Board set out a minimum set of core functions: clearing and settlement co-ordination, core messaging and routing, transaction processing and controls, and connectivity and access management. It asked at Q7 and Q8 which other services, such as a common alias directory or fraud data analytics, should be provided inside the core and which outside it.
Respondents named fraud prevention, data sharing, directories and alias services as services that could bring benefits across the system. Some said that fragmented provision of these services outside the core could weaken resilience or interoperability; others gave more weight to ensuring that common provision did not restrict competition, add onerous costs or create barriers to innovation. The Board defines a thin core as one that operates core messaging, clearing, shared services and settlement coordination while leaving room for private sector innovation and competition, and it will work through the provision of shared services with industry while it develops the Blueprint.
On access, the Board proposes a common access foundation with proportionate connection options under common technical, security and resilience standards. Respondents placed strong weight on operational resilience and cyber security, and the Board proposes that critical components sustain a minimum service during severe but plausible disruption, with the ability to fail over within and across sites.
The Board expects the core, as a shared utility, to be delivered through a centralised operating model, while a broader set of organisations provide competitive products and services. The PVDC is continuing to develop its July 2026 update on roles and responsibilities, in which it considers how the core and the product level arrangements (the rules and standards that make a particular payment product work) fit together.
Settlement and liquidity
Settlement in the new system will be in central bank money through the Bank’s Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) service, and the key requirement the Board proposes to take forward is that the core can coordinate onward settlement into central bank money. In the consultation, the Board confirmed settlement in central bank money and asked at Q12 about the trade-offs between settlement models, noting that the UK’s retail systems settle on a net basis while other jurisdictions use approaches in which gross settlement plays a significant role.
Respondents differed on the model they preferred: some wanted each product arrangement to be able to use the settlement model that suits it, and some preferred settlement payment by payment or on a hybrid basis. Respondents also supported letting a participant use its liquidity across every product in which it takes part, rather than holding liquidity for each one. Subject to further design work and analysis, that is now the Board’s view. It proposes that the core give rapid acceptance or rejection of a payment and a commitment to seek settlement through RTGS for accepted payments, and coordinate clearing within each product’s service level.
The Bank considers that most products could continue on a prefunded net settlement basis, which it describes as liquidity-efficient while removing settlement risk. It adds that its consultation on extending RTGS operating hours holds open the possibility of products settling more often during the day, or at weekends, which would reduce the liquidity that net settlement requires.
Interoperability between forms of money
Respondents broadly supported the consultation’s approach to interoperability, under which a payer can pay in one form of money and the payee receive another, exchanged at par and settled in central bank money. Some asked whether alternatives to central bank money could exist, including where payments are blockchain-based, and whether all retail payments, such as certain tokenised deposits, would need to clear through the new infrastructure.
Many noted that interoperability is broader than a link between forms of money. Some said that consistent outcomes for users could require common technical standards, broadly equivalent protections across forms of money, agreed protocols, richer data, fair access and clear governance, and respondents described interoperability as a continuing operational capability rather than a one-off connection. The Board says the core will support interoperability with regulated new forms of digital money as they may emerge, and the speed and volumes that account-to-account payments at the point of sale would require.
Fraud, data and consumer protection
The Board proposes a common ISO 20022 messaging baseline (ISO 20022 is the international standard for payment messages), with shared message definitions, data elements and implementation rules, which product arrangements may extend where a service needs more data. It proposes aligning the baseline with CHAPS where practical, and will settle the detailed implementation, including the choice of messages, in further design.
In the consultation, the Board asked at Q18 which consumer protection and fraud capabilities should be prioritised for the core, and stated that the core would not create a new consumer protection regime or redefine liability or reimbursement models. Respondents supported richer and more structured payment data, payment status visibility, identifiers usable across participants and stronger checks on the intended payee. Where they named a data standard, the clear preference was ISO 20022.
Some noted that proving who a person is may not establish account ownership, authority to act or intent to pay, and respondents saw the core’s ability to tell these apart as relevant to delegated, recurring, programmable and agentic payments. Some also said that arrangements outside the core could be necessary to decide liability, reimbursement and dispute outcomes, citing account-to-account payments as an example. The Board records consumer protection and liability among the wider considerations that respondents said the design of the core cannot address alone.
Payment journeys, including account-to-account at the point of sale
Respondents supported the consultation’s existing and emerging payment journeys as a baseline for design. They stressed tax, salary and benefit payments, whose importance the Board recognises, and the continuing role of cash, cheques and in-person support. They also gave weight to the full payment lifecycle, from refunds and recalls to disputes, reconciliation and certainty of fate (reliable confirmation that a payment has succeeded or failed).
On account-to-account payments at the point of sale, asked about at Q14, responses were broadly supportive, but a strong theme was that infrastructure would need consumer protection, refunds, dispute resolution, consistent user journeys and sustainable commercial incentives alongside it, as well as merchant adoption. On programmable payments, respondents broadly supported a thin core, with complex business logic left to product arrangements. On agentic payments, they wanted payment activity to be identifiable, attributable to an accountable principal and backed by verifiable authority, but differed on where safeguards should sit.
A small number raised implications under the Equality Act 2010 for age and disability, including accessible authentication and non-digital alternatives, and some proposed an equality impact assessment. The Board says the core must support existing product arrangements, such as Direct Debit, as well as new ones.
Migration from Faster Payments and Bacs
Respondents strongly preferred a phased migration to a single switchover. In the consultation, the Board set no delivery plans and did not pre-judge sequencing or timing; it asked at Q2 what should guide migration timelines, and suggested a staged transition with time-limited dual running where needed.
Respondents asked for early communication, industry coordination, testing and demonstrated readiness, cautioned against decommissioning existing systems before their replacements had been proven, and flagged Bacs and Direct Debit for careful planning. They differed on whether migration should proceed by payment journey, capability or participant group, on readiness against fixed timelines, mandates and sunset dates, and on whether account-to-account payments at the point of sale should come first. They also asked for clarity on the legal and regulatory framework.
The Board proposes an orchestration layer that validates, routes and sequences payments and could support a time-limited transition from legacy Faster Payments and Bacs formats to ISO 20022, so that migration can be phased without building old standards into the target design. It says the layer needs careful consideration within the wider transition strategy, and that close coordination between participants and the current and future accountable bodies will be needed.
What happens after the RPIB consultation response
The Bank, with the RPIB and its Design Authority, will prepare a first draft of the Blueprint built on these proposals. The Bank and industry experts will then develop it together from November 2026 until spring 2027, when the RPIB hands the Blueprint to the Delivery Company. The Delivery Company leads detailed design, procurement, build and implementation, with continued engagement and assurance from the RPIB under agreed arrangements.
In parallel, the Bank, HM Treasury, the FCA and the PSR will coordinate in considering feedback on the PVDC’s roles and responsibilities update, and Pay.UK will present its work on bulk payments to the RPIB and the Design Authority. HM Treasury consulted separately, until 6 October 2026, on the rules for payment services themselves in its Modernising Payment Services Regulation consultation.
Frequently asked questions
How many responses did the RPIB consultation receive?
The RPIB consultation response records 121 responses: 110 from organisations and 11 from individuals. Technology, data, identity and solution providers made up 22 per cent, and payments firms, schemes and infrastructure providers 21 per cent. The RPIB reports its findings in aggregate, without identifying individual respondents.
Has the RPIB decided the design of the new payments infrastructure?
No. The RPIB describes its proposals as a direction of travel. The Bank and industry experts will refine them from November 2026 until spring 2027, when the RPIB hands the Blueprint to the Delivery Company for detailed design, procurement and build.
Will the new core infrastructure change consumer protection for account-to-account payments?
In the consultation, the RPIB stated that the core would not create a new consumer protection regime or redefine liability or reimbursement models. Some respondents said arrangements outside the core could be needed to decide liability, reimbursement and disputes, citing account-to-account payments, and the RPIB records consumer protection and liability among the wider matters that the core design cannot address alone.
For advice on how the next-generation infrastructure affects a payments product, scheme or access arrangement, see our payments product and scheme governance page or contact Rob Bratby at Bratby Law.
Rob Bratby is Fractional General Counsel to UKPI. The views expressed in this post are his personal views, not those of UKPI.
This post was researched and drafted with the help of Claude, Anthropic’s AI model. Rob Bratby chose the topic and thesis, and reviewed and edited the final post. Rob takes full responsibility for its content.
