In a free society pensions would be voluntary. People would decide their level of contribution and would live with the consequences. Charities might care for those who made inadequate provision, or were unlucky with their fund.

Problems arise when state provision offers a safety net, for there will be those who use it as an excuse for profligacy. Some of those who have been prudent and have saved will be upset that the state rewards the spendthrifts who would otherwise be destitute. Yet few modern societies would be prepared to let some of their elderly citizens starve.

One approach is to require people to contribute to their own pension funds, and a minimum 12-14 percent of salary has been suggested. Choosing between competing providers, they would see their fund gradually accumulate, making them independent of the state in retirement. Indeed, if growth kept up its long-term trend, they would be quite wealthy.

The scheme uses compulsion, just as car insurance does, and allows people to choose a fund appropriate to their needs and tastes. Proponents point out that this is not surplus compulsion, in that the state scheme supported by taxes and national insurance is in no sense voluntary. The new plan allows them the choice between private alternatives to the state. A similar approach has been used in Chile.

Given the complete mess which decades of state interference have wrought upon the UK pensions industry, the day of a simple, all-embracing plan for personal provision might be drawing near.