CBI kicks off search for successor to ‘saviour' Soames
Sky News has learnt that the business lobbying group's nominations committee has engaged headhunters to assist with a hunt for its next corporate figurehead.
Mr Soames, the grandson of Sir Winston Churchill, was recruited by the CBI in late 2023 with the organisation lurching towards insolvency after an exodus of members.
Money latest: Has bond market calmed after chancellor's tears?
The group's handling of a sexual misconduct scandal saw it forced to secure emergency funding from a group of banks, even as it was frozen out of meetings with government ministers.
One prominent CBI member described Mr Soames on Thursday as the group's "saviour".
"Without his ability to bring members back, the organisation wouldn't exist today," they claimed.
Mr Soames and Rain Newton-Smith, the CBI chief executive, have partly restored its influence in Whitehall, although many doubt that it will ever be able to credibly reclaim its former status as 'the voice of British business'.
Its next chair, who is also likely to be drawn from a leading listed company boardroom, will take over from Mr Soames early next year.
Egon Zehnder International is handling the search for the CBI.
"The CBI chair's term typically runs for two years and Rupert Soames will end his term in early 2026," a CBI spokesperson said.
"In line with good governance, we have begun the search for a successor to ensure continuity and a smooth transition."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
22 minutes ago
- New York Times
Pro-Palestinian Activists Lose Appeal Against U.K. Government Ban
A pro-Palestinian protest group has been banned as a terrorist organization by the British government, putting it on the same legal footing as the Islamic State and Al Qaeda in the first use of far-reaching security laws in response to property damage. The group, Palestine Action, which has targeted Israel-linked defense companies and vandalized military planes at Britain's largest Royal Air Force base, lost a legal bid to temporarily delay the law, and it is set to go into effect at midnight local time. Palestine Action's full legal challenge against the British government is still pending, with the next hearing scheduled for July 21. The ban makes it illegal to be a member of Palestine Action, or to support it in a number of other ways, including by raising money for the group, 'glorifying' its activities, arranging meetings, sharing the group's social media material or wearing its merchandise. It is the first time the British government has used part of its 25-year-old definition of terrorism that covers 'serious damage to property' to ban a group — rather than prohibiting them because of the use or threat of violence — prompting criticism from a broad range of human rights groups and international bodies. In a statement issued on Tuesday, a group of United Nations special rapporteurs said they had contacted the British government to voice concerns that the ban would 'criminalize legitimate activities' and that 'acts of protest that damage property, but are not intended to kill or injure people, should not be treated as terrorism.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Glencore in talks with UK government over insolvent Lindsey oil refinery supply, source says
LONDON (Reuters) -Commodities trader Glencore is in talks with the British government over the status of its supply and offtake contract with the insolvent Lindsey oil refinery, according to a source familiar with the situation. The 113,000-barrel-per-day refinery was owned by Prax prior to its insolvency which was announced on Monday, alongside the insolvency of Prax's parent group, putting hundreds of jobs at risk and potentially increasing Britain's reliance on fuel imports. Glencore declined to comment. The government has ordered an investigation into Prax's directors and the circumstances surrounding the insolvency. Glencore last year won a tender to supply crude oil to the Lindsey refinery, replacing rival trader Trafigura, three sources with knowledge of the deal told Reuters at the time. Consultancy FTI, the special manager hired by the government to assist the so-called Official Receiver of the insolvent refinery, directed questions on the refinery to Britain's departments for Business and Trade as well as Energy Security and Net Zero. The Official Receiver is tasked with dealing with suppliers of the site. Neither department commented on talks with Glencore or how long the refinery would be able to operate if no deal was reached. A spokesperson for the department for Energy Security and Net Zero pointed to its statement from Monday which said that the government would ensure supplies were maintained. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Palestine Action loses appeal hours before terror ban due to start
Palestine Action has lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge to temporarily stop it being banned as a terror group, less than two hours before it was due to come into force. Earlier on Friday Huda Ammori, the group's co-founder, unsuccessfully asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from designating the group as a terrorist organisation, before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. The move is due to come into force at midnight after judge Mr Justice Chamberlain refused the bid for a temporary block. Lawyers for Ms Ammori took her case to the Court of Appeal on Friday evening, and in a decision given at around 10:30pm, refused to grant the temporary block. The Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said: 'The judge was entitled to take the view that the harm identified… would be the product of an individual's decision not to comply with the order.' She added that there was 'no real prospect of a successful appeal'. Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, made a bid to have the case certified as a 'point of general public importance' to allow a Supreme Court bid. Baroness Carr, sitting with Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis, added: 'You are not going to get to the Supreme Court before midnight.' The judge said that any application should be made before 4pm on Monday and refused a bid for a stay. In his decision refusing the temporary block, High Court Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.' Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, for Ms Ammori, told the Court of Appeal that the judge wrongly decided the balance between the interests of her client and the Home Office when deciding whether to make the temporary block. She said: 'The balance of convenience on the evidence before him, in our respectful submission, fell in favour of the claimant having regard to all of the evidence, including the chilling effect on free speech, the fact that people would be criminalised and criminalised as terrorists for engaging in protest that was not violent, for the simple fact that they were associated with Palestine Action.' She also told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain 'failed properly to consider' that banning the group 'would cause irreparable harm'. Ms Ni Ghralaigh said: 'There was significant evidence before him to demonstrate the chilling effect of the order because it was insufficiently clear.' She continued that the ban would mean 'a vast number of individuals who wished to continue protesting would fall foul of the proscription regime due to its lack of clarity'. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told appeal judges that Mr Justice Chamberlain gave a 'detailed and careful judgment' which was 'all the more impressive given the time constraints'. He added that the judge 'was entitled to reach the conclusion that he did'. The barrister said: 'The judge conducted a very careful analysis of all the matters he relied upon.' Mr Watson also said that the judge was 'alive' to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential 'chilling effect' on free speech. 'There was no error by the judge in concluding that there was a serious question to be tried while at the same time acknowledging that he couldn't, on the material in front of him, say that it had strong prospects of success,' he added.
