The chair of the UK’s competition regulator has been removed from his role by the government, amid its push for growth.

Marcus Bokkerink, the head of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), has been removed from his post by the business secretary.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves met with regulators last week to impress upon them the centrality of economic growth to their activities.

Money blog: Trump’s cryptocurrency crashes as critics call it worthless

The CMA oversees deal-making and briefly paused the high-profile merger of Microsoft and gaming giant Activision-Blizzard.

Mr Bokkerink, a former senior partner at one of the world’s biggest consulting firms, was appointed in 2022 by then business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng. He could have served a five-year term.

A government source told Sky News: “This is a signal that we’re serious about changing the culture of regulation in order to get growth. The government wants to show it is serious about investment.”

The removal of the CMA chief comes as Ms Reeves and business secretary Jonathan Reynolds, who took the decision, arrived in Davos to court overseas investors at the annual World Economic Forum.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

It is no surprise to see a government that claims to be committed to making economic growth a priority giving the green light to expansion of Gatwick Airport and Luton Airport.

Nor, for that matter, would it be a surprise for a third runway at Heathrow Airport to be given the go-ahead by Sir Keir Starmer‘s government – particularly as Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, told the London Evening Standard in July last year that she had “nothing against expanding airport capacity… I want Heathrow to be that European hub for travel”.

Put in purely economic terms, airport expansion is a no-brainer.

Money blog: Trump’s cryptocurrency crashes as critics call it worthless

The economic case

The independent commission led by Sir Howard Davies, the former chairman of NatWest, and published as long ago as July 2015, concluded that “expanded airport capacity is crucial for the UK’s long-term prosperity”.

Gatwick, according to a report prepared for the airport by the independent economic consultancy Oxera, generated £5.5bn for the economy in 2023 and supported more than 76,000 jobs.

The airport’s owner estimates that expanding it to take annual capacity to 75 million by the mid-2030s, up from the £46.5m it hit in 2019, would create around 14,000 jobs and generate an extra £1bn a year in economic benefits.

Those numbers are difficult to verify – but it can be stated with confidence that anything which provides access to new markets for both consumers and businesses will be positive for growth.

Expanding the smaller Luton Airport would, similarly, be positive for growth.

Read more:
Water boss blames 15 years of keeping bills low for industry woes
Wage growth and jobless rate rising, official figures show

The airport in 2019 – these pre-pandemic numbers are probably the most reliable given the upheaval of the last few years – is estimated to have supported 16,500 jobs in the local area and contributed £1.1bn to GDP. Expansion on the airport’s estimates creates up to 6,100 jobs and contributes an extra £900m to GDP.

Trumping them both, of course, is Heathrow.

The Davies Commission said that building a third runway to the northwest of the airport would provide for around 40 new destinations from Heathrow and would create more than 70,000 new jobs by 2050, adding some £147bn to GDP.

It stated: “Heathrow is best-placed to provide the type of capacity which is most urgently required: long-haul destinations to new markets. It provides the greatest benefits for business passengers, freight operators and the broader economy.”

It is worth noting that among the members of the commission was Sir John Armitt, the respected former chairman of the Olympic Delivery Authority, who is now chair of the National Infrastructure Commission.

His term of office was extended by Ms Reeves in October last year in order for him to oversee the 10-year strategy ordered by the chancellor and the establishment of the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority.

He will be an influential voice in this debate.

However, while the economic case for airport expansion is unimpeachable, the bigger question, perhaps, is whether it is achievable.

Political considerations

Getting approval for the expansion of both Luton and Gatwick will be a major test of the new government’s commitment to overhauling planning regulations where they are an impediment to growth.

And here there are – for supporters of expansion – ominous signs.

A decision on whether or not to expand Luton was postponed for the third time just before Christmas so that Heidi Alexander, who had just succeeded the disgraced Louise Haigh as transport secretary, could be given time to assess the application.

Climate concerns

Tied into the planning hurdles are the inevitable environmental objections.

The Climate Change Committee, the government’s independent advisory body, has already said emissions savings would have to be made elsewhere in the economy were there to be a big expansion in airport passenger numbers.

The aviation industry will doubtless argue that it has already committed to becoming net zero by the middle of the century – but the environmental lobby has a long track record of successfully campaigning against airport expansion.

On top of that are the political obstacles.

Ms Reeves – and Ms Alexander, should she back expansion of Gatwick and Luton – will face implacable opposition from within their own cabinet, not least from Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change secretary.

Backing Heathrow expansion would be more controversial still.

Sadiq Khan, the London mayor, is strongly opposed to this and so are other senior Labour figures, among them Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester.

He argues that a third runway at Heathrow would run counter to levelling-up proposals – although it is worth noting here that some of the UK’s biggest regional airports, such as Newcastle, support a third runway on the basis that it would boost international connectivity to their region.

That means leadership will ultimately have to come from Sir Keir Starmer who, it is worth noting, voted against a third runway at Heathrow in 2018.

Government unlikely to ever get credit

Supporting airport expansion is often difficult for governments – quite apart from the environmental objections and the inevitable planning hurdles – because it takes so long to add capacity and ministers are therefore unlikely to receive credit for it during their political lifetime.

For example, the two main airport expansion projects currently under way in Europe, the new Luis de Camoes airport in Lisbon and the new Solidarity superhub in Warsaw, are unlikely to be completed until the mid-2030s.

But the latter, in particular, highlights how other European governments have no hesitation in seeing airport expansion as a major generator of growth.

It is not alone. Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport, an increasingly important competitor to Heathrow, is currently investing some €6bn in upgrades with the aim of expanding both passenger and flight numbers. Budapest, an airport once owned by BAA, the former parent of Heathrow and Gatwick, is looking to build a third terminal that would generate an extra three million passengers by the end of the decade.

These examples highlight how other European governments are less squeamish about putting airport expansion over environmental considerations in the name of pursuing economic growth.

You can be sure that the international investors who own Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton will be looking to the UK to do likewise.

There has been a surge in the pace of wage growth but a rise in the jobless rate following a big drop in the number of payrolled employees, according to the latest official figures.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported that both basic pay excluding bonuses, and average weekly earnings, rose at an annual rate of 5.6% in the three months to November.

That was up from a rate of 5.2% reported the previous month.

The ONS said the unemployment rate rose to 4.4% from 4.3%.

Money latest: Pound gets boost after Trump omission

The employment figures were the first to take in possible early reaction to the budget, and may suggest some employers were eager to retain key staff through strong pay awards while others sought to cut costs amid the tough outlook and ahead of looming tax rises.

HMRC payroll data and ONS survey data both pointed to lower employment.

The number of payrolled employees was estimated to have fallen by 47,000 during the 12 months to December to 30.3 million – the biggest drop since November 2020 – according to the taxman’s figures.

That was up on the 32,000 figure recorded the previous month.

The data was seen as supporting recent private sector survey findings of a firing spree ahead of Christmas due to the impact of the budget.

The report was released against a backdrop of recent financial market turmoil, partly linked to concerns over the state of the UK economy following the 30 October budget but mainly the potential impact of a fresh Donald Trump presidency.

Sterling has lost 12 cents versus the dollar since September while government borrowing costs have risen generally, placing a big strain on Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ spending rules and bringing her stewardship of the economy under greater focus.

Last Friday, following data showing weak retail sales during the crucial Christmas month, sterling fell again but on the back of growing expectations that the mounting evidence of a flatlining economy would give the Bank of England more room to cut interest rates.

Some market commentators, and even the Bank’s newest rate-setter, believe borrowing costs will be cut four times this year though the market has currently only fully priced in two reductions.

Investors currently see an 84% probability of a Bank rate cut at the next meeting on 6 February, from 4.75% to 4.5%.

The last set of inflation figures, which showed a surprise easing in the headline figure, will have given the Bank some encouragement but economists see a rate back above 3% by April given expected increases in many costs, including energy and water bills, from that month.

While the budget tax measures on business sparked warnings of rising prices to offset billions of extra costs, it could also be the case that threatened hits to wages and jobs will help Bank policymakers make the argument for rate cuts.

Yael Selfin, chief economist at KPMG UK, said of the outlook: “We expect pay growth to trend downwards over the coming year, with the backdrop of slowing labour market activity.

“Forward looking indicators suggest a significant weakening in hiring intentions due to the upcoming tax rises in April. We expect this to act as a headwind for labour market activity in the near term, likely translating into a small pick up in headline unemployment over the coming months. Nonetheless, once the impact of the budget passes together with the expected improvement in economic activity, conditions should stabilise in the labour market.

“Wage growth is expected to return closer to levels consistent with the inflation target this year, despite the recent increase. The rise in business costs due to the Budget measures should have a cooling effect on labour market activity and make higher wage settlements less likely. As a result, it is anticipated the Bank of England will opt for an interest rate cut next month, and two further rates cuts in 2025.”