I HAVE been discreetly approached by one of our larger supermarket groups to help out as a consultant with the Competition Commission inquiry.

The Moaning Minnies are out in force again, bewailing the fate of all the butchers, bakers and candlestick makers threatened by our rapid expansion. I have to wonder just where they buy their groceries. All those tiny shops went bust years ago. And it is not exactly as if the customers are driven into out-of-town supermarkets with bullwhips. They simply have no choice.

But the industry has clearly misjudged the public mood. We must, at all costs, present a united front. I have advised my client accordingly. The chain, and all the other also-rans, must brief the Commission privately, frequently and vociferously, against Tesco. Everybody hates Tesco.

TUESDAY

It occurs to me that this talk of gas rationing might offer some opportunities for TransNational Gas, which I have the honour to serve as chairman. I have put it to the board that we might be able to sign up some useful contracts with those large manufacturing businesses that are most at threat. (It comes as a surprise to learn that we still have large manufacturing businesses.)

These contracts will offer emergency supplies under extreme circumstances, in exchange for fat fees up front. The contracts will have to be worded carefully, so that they come into operation only in the most unlikely of circumstances.

Our solicitors look dubious. According to some abstruse doctrine of contractual law, this is of doubtful legality, and in any case, what if we ever have to hand over the gas? It is not as if we actually have any.

I reply that we simply tip the company into receivership, blaming soaring world prices. It is almost bust, anyway.

WEDNESDAY

I am shocked, truly shocked, to learn of the Government’s cynical behaviour towards those 85,000 workers who, after following Whitehall’s guidance to the letter, find themselves without a pension. The Government is riding roughshod over the findings of the Parliamentary Ombudsman. No gentleman would contemplate walking away from a debt in such a way. There must be a generous compensation package.

Not to provide this would threaten some of the hardest-working and most valued contributors to the public wealth with incalculable financial penalites. I speak, of course, of the busy executives who ran the companies that once employed all these useless, whining pensioners.

When I look back on my career, half a dozen firms I have run are left with non-existent pension funds, and several already face legal action. The notion that all our former employees might combine and sue for their paltry pensions fair makes my blood run cold.

THURSDAY

Now, this is a bold initiative. At BP, a committee is looking at how much its non-executive directors should be paid. This follows sharp increases in pay at other big corporates.

Frankly, it is increasingly hard work. Chief executives’ salaries have risen enormously, placing correspondingly heavier burdens on remuneration committees. There are more and more share options, long-term incentive schemes, profit-related pay packages and so on to think up and administer.

It is only fair and reasonable that this increased pay for executives should be spread around elsewhere in the boardroom.

But it occurs to me. We need a more joined-up approach. We need a dedicated committee, drawn from the great and the good across industry, to take a hard look at non-executive pay. I shall make some phone calls. It will be a long and difficult project, and the fees will have to reflect that. But I know just the man to serve as chairman . . .

Times Recommends

• Lies and cover-up at MG Rover exposed by report
• High oil prices push manufacturing costs up
• Primark founder steps down as chief executive