The current pensions transfer system isn’t working, is too expensive, and requires providers working together to speed up the process, Smart Pension CEO, Jamie Fiveash, has stated, suggesting that the cost of a pension transfer needs to be cut to less than £10.

Speaking at the Pensions UK Annual Conference, Fiveash pointed out that it currently costs £60-£90 to transfer a pension pot, which “is way too high”, arguing instead that the cost of a transfer needs to be less than £10.

“If we want to save the small pot issue, we've got to be able to move pots quicker to each to each other,” Fiveash said, continuing: “I do think it's on us as providers, especially as the market begins to consolidate.

"We need to work together to develop a better transfer system to move money quicker around the market and more safely as well.

"The focus on speed, cost, and ensuring it is in the best interest of members is what we have got to balance out. But the current [transfer system] isn't working, in my view, is too expensive, and also not always working in the best interests of the customer either."

Fiveash referenced Australia’s approach to pension transfers – “because we typically see that they are ahead of us” – which introduced a ‘SuperStream’ [an electronic gateway that streamlines the way employers make Super contributions for their employees] to “transform” their industry in terms of speed of transfers.

However, “I’m not sure that we will get something similar”, he warned.

In September, Pensions UK's Small Pots Feasibility Review found that the government’s plan to implement a multiple default consolidator model to tackle the issue of small pots was feasible, and that a united, industry-delivered model would be cost-effective solution for implementing the Small Pots Data Platform by 2030.

The review suggested that the proposed model would allow schemes and future consolidators to interact directly through agreed data and messaging standards.

In addition to this, it suggested that expected costs will remain proportionate, with ongoing industry expenditure estimated to be significantly lower than centralised alternatives, which would impose additional and duplicative costs.

However, the review suggested that a second phase of work will be required to refine technical standards, governance arrangements, consumer protections, and implementation phasing, aligned with the passage of secondary legislation.

---