Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor.
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. It is also a pleasure to lead a debate on plans that have been talked about for many years and that seem, finally, to be coming to fruition. I should declare at the outset that I am a council member of Innovate Cambridge.
In this debate, I will first outline my experiences of the growth corridor project over the decade I have been in this place, to illustrate the stop-start nature of the previous Government’s approach. I will then make some broader points, particularly from a Cambridge perspective—I am sure that others will wish to make points from other perspectives—and conclude by seeking assurances from the Minister that the next decade will be very different from the last, and that we will actually make this happen.
Before that, I would like to thank many of the people who contacted me to raise points in advance of the debate or whose advice I have sought. They include Cameron Holloway, the leader of Cambridge city council; Dan Thorpe of Cambridge Ahead; Peter Freeman of the Cambridge Growth Company; the University of Cambridge; Andy Williams and the Oxford-Cambridge Supercluster Board; the ever watchful Harriet Jones of Universities UK; Marshall in Cambridge; England’s Economic Heartland; Luton airport; and those who speak on behalf of motorsport and Formula 1—to name but some. There is a lot of interest in this issue and in this debate, and I welcome that.
Let me start with a bit of history. When I was first elected, back in 2015, the idea of recognising that the area between Cambridge and Oxford could become something rather special had been talked about before, but I have to admit that in Cambridge—the same may well have been true in Oxford—support was somewhat lukewarm. The focus was on links to London and the wider world. Yes, there was a hankering after the old Oxford-Cambridge railway line, and yes, people bemoaned how long it took by road, but the real driving force when I came into Parliament was coming from Milton Keynes, where people could understandably see real advantages. Over time, though, I and many others have become completely converted to the position not only that this is an idea whose time has come, but that we need to get on with it and make it happen.
It is so frustrating to me to look back at all the false starts and missed opportunities of the last, lost decade. At first, the Conservative Government talked of a new road, calling it a super-highway. A huge amount of time, money and discussion went into a project that was rightly described at the time by the then chief executive of the sub-regional transport body England’s Economic Heartland as a 20th-century solution to a 21st-century problem. In my view he was right, and, as a shadow Transport Minister, I secured a promise from the Labour Front-Bench team at the time that we would scrap it. We did not win the election, but we had won the argument—alongside, I have to say, some very effective campaigners—and the plan for the road was dropped.
In the meantime, plans for the rail link ebbed and flowed, with a distinct lack of clarity about what it was for. Was it a link between the two cities? Or was it a way of getting people in and out of those cities, opening up desperately needed housing and avoiding situations such as Cambourne near Cambridge, where major developments were allowed to go ahead without proper transport links—a legacy that is still argued over today? Was it a freight line? Was it going to be electrified? Over the years, at the annual conferences regularly devoted to the subject, local government leaders came together with other interested parties and were, frankly, pretty amazed to hear that large numbers of civil servants were allocated to the project, beavering away, yet it seemed that little tangible output was coming through. I remember complaining bitterly about this one year. I felt rather badly about the senior civil servant I was tearing a strip off, but it just felt so frustrating.
The following year, I found myself at the same conference extracting a promise from the then chief executive of East West Rail. He promised me that not a litre of diesel fuel would be purchased, although I did wonder whether that might have been because the rail line was never going to get built. Ironically, of course, the technology has completely changed and moved on in the years that have passed, so the choice is now much less binary than it was then. We could spend a long time this afternoon discussing the rail line—I know that some have a view on it—which remains controversial in the areas where, of course, any new rail line is disruptive.
Richard Fuller
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. He is right to talk about the torrid history of East West Rail, but he misses some crucial points. First, the railway loses taxpayers an enormous amount of money. Secondly, East West Rail chose a long, hilly, environmentally damaging route that it did not need to choose. Thirdly, the railway brings with it the fundamental question of how it will be propelled. The hon. Member talked about the problems of a 20th-century technology; railways are a 19th-century technology. Does he accept that the Oxfordshire part of the railway has been built on the assumption it would be diesel, and now we are looking to retrofit that with a 21st-century technology? This is still a terrible mess, is it not?
Daniel Zeichner
I was expecting an intervention from the hon. Gentleman because we have discussed this issue before. I absolutely disagree with him, not on some of the points of detail, but on the benefits that railways bring. This is absolutely the right approach, although we can argue about the details. There are people in this room who are more expert than I am on the battery technologies that are now available, which I think will be the solution.
Partly due to the hon. Gentleman’s hard work, this whole project came close to being scrapped a few years ago. I remember well that the then Transport Secretary, Grant Shapps, in a famous intervention—possibly by Zoom—gave a thumbs down to the project, which was widely taken to be the end of it at the time. I now have to praise a leading Conservative politician, the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), who got the argument about how important this was, not just for the arc but for the wider economy. I remember having a number of coded exchanges with him across the Chamber, and being greatly reassured.
So the project survived, much to the disappointment of the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). I was delighted to join the Minister for Rail, Lord Hendy, in Cambridge a couple of weeks ago to unveil the latest stage in the process. It feels that we are getting past the debate about whether it is going to happen and moving on to how we make it happen. To go from concept to action will, of course, take some years yet, but we are building a piece of transport infrastructure that will be transformational.
There is so much more to the corridor debate than the rail line. The housing opportunities are significant and the knowledge clusters that are likely to emerge are exciting. There were times when the previous Government seemed enthusiastic. I remember MPs along what was then described as the arc being invited to attend a drop-in at the Minister’s office. I turned up, expecting a healthy queue of people, only to find a slightly bemused Minister, who shall remain nameless, looking amazed that anyone showed up, doing his constituency correspondence. We had a perfectly civilised conversation and I queried who they were thinking of appointing as the recently announced business tsar. It was clear that insufficient preparatory work had been done, because he gently asked if I knew anyone who might interested. I came away fairly convinced that there was a lack of grip associated with the project.
Others were more organised. When the project was under threat, the University of Cambridge put on its best Rolls-Royce operation and got involved, with some excellent work from the then pro-vice-chancellor, Andy Neely. That was instrumental in keeping the project alive at a key moment. With others, it then helped to bring together universities along the corridor to pool their efforts. Much more could be said on that, and there are many other players to be acknowledged, but I hope, Sir Jeremy, you get my drift: this has been long in gestation.
Daniel Zeichner
Absolutely, although I am puzzled as to the relationship between Ox-Cam and Northern Ireland.
Jim Shannon
The relationship is that I want to thank the hon. Gentleman for coming to Portavogie in my constituency when he was the fisheries Minister. He left a great impression on the people and was greatly loved. I came here to support him in what he is trying to achieve: a better economy, better jobs and better research. What do we need for all those things? It is housing. Does he agree that there must be housing to meet the demands of the economy and for jobs?
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I was worried when the hon. Gentleman was not on my list.
Daniel Zeichner
I am very grateful; the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) never disappoints. He is absolutely right that housing is important everywhere and is a key part of this project.
I was thrilled with the appointment of Lord Vallance as the Minister and leader of this project. I think we are now finally getting into gear. Last year’s Budget identified it as a key priority for the Government, and the Chancellor’s publication of the prospectus is a statement of intent. I hope that the Minister can report on the progress that is being made.
I would like to make some brief observations from the Cambridge end of the corridor. Recent announcements about revving up the Cambridge Growth Company are very welcome, but could the Minister give an assurance that the funding announced will be made available quickly? That will mean that the very best chief executive officer can be sought with a green light that the funds are readily available, and will give investors the confidence they need. Could he also comment on his preferred approach on land value capture, including on direct Government purchase?
The Supercluster Board, which covers this whole area, includes some of the country’s leading FTSE 100 and privately owned companies, including AstraZeneca, GSK, Airbus and AVEVA, and other investors and Britain’s top universities. They have welcomed the ambition to double the economy of the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge region by 2035. Among their key asks is for what they describe as “taskforce-led governance”, modelled after the successful vaccine taskforce, which would embed a permanent partnership between Government—local and national—funding bodies, industry and academia to co-ordinate delivery. They want the taskforce to provide consistent decision making across Government that prioritises the growth corridor in national-level policy areas, and to be empowered to instruct Departments to act where existing rules prevent delivery. That is a very big ask, as I well know, but the governance issues really do matter. I well remember Sir John Armitt from the National Infrastructure Commission reflecting on how hard it is to co-ordinate when dealing with some 22 local government bodies along the corridor.
The University of Cambridge points out that together the universities of Oxford and Cambridge have produced over 400 spin-outs, which is the highest of any UK academic institution, and that in the last decade the University of Cambridge has curated no less than nine unicorn businesses. Its spin-out companies have also raised over £3 billion of investment in private venture capital.
The university also highlights the need for skills, seeking collaboration across the corridor to ensure that a pipeline of talent is available and that those living across the corridor benefit from the opportunities that it will provide. It wants to ensure that there is provision for training the highly skilled technicians who are needed to support world-leading research; they are critical to everything that the university does and vital to support emerging spin-outs. Can the Minister spell out what the Government are doing with local authorities and employers to develop a strategic skills plan to deliver infrastructure both in the corridor and the wider east, and how they will use this plan to raise outcomes and incomes for local people?
My local authority, Cambridge city council, rightly highlights the need for sustained and meaningful engagement with local residents and significant investment in social housing, including council housing. It also highlights the need for investment in skills to provide opportunity for local young people, and it supports having a wider talent pool for local businesses. It highlights the need for the corridor to be environmentally sustainable and seeks support for a doubling nature target. When the Minister was in Cambridge at the Innovate Cambridge event a few weeks ago, there was widespread welcome for his announcement of a new forest. Perhaps he could say more about that today.
The organisation Cambridge Ahead highlights the existing challenges that have to be tackled, including the way in which the infrastructure gap is constraining growth in the corridor. That includes issues around the fresh water supply, waste water treatment capacity, electricity grid capacity constraints, and intracity regional transport connectivity. It is worth asking what reassurances the Minister can provide about infrastructure-enabled capacity through to 2050 at least being in scope for the Ox-Cam project.
England’s Economic Heartland tells me that delivering an integrated transport system in the corridor should not be a choice for Government, because that is absolutely essential—and it is right. The global significance of the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor means that it should be matched with a world-class transport offer, embedding the principles of the imminent integrated national transport strategy from the outset. It makes economic sense to do so, and the corridor should be an exemplar for that strategy.
Many others along the corridor will have similar asks and stories, and I am looking forward to hearing them. The Formula 1 sector tells me that the Formula 1 ecosystem employs over 6,000 people directly in the UK, and its teams work with 3,500 British-based companies that support approximately 41,000 jobs, including 25,000 highly skilled engineers. In total, the Formula 1 industry contributes more than £12 billion annually to the UK economy, and the key point is that from 2026 onwards, nine of the 11 Formula 1 teams will have bases within the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, alongside a dense supply chain of advanced engineering firms. This cluster supports tens of thousands of local jobs and positions the region as a global centre of excellence for motorsport engineering and innovation.
Similarly, London Luton airport, which I am sure we will hear more about today, is well placed to serve the corridor and has an important role to play in Universal’s plans to build its first European theme park near Bedford. The airport’s location and growth are both potentially key factors in the company’s decision to choose a location within the Oxford-Cambridge corridor.
I am conscious that I have been speaking for a while now. There is much more to be said and I suspect that many hon. Members will take the opportunity to raise their own issues. However, I hope that the Minister gets a sense of the enthusiasm that exists along the corridor and a sense of the huge opportunity that exists, not just for the area in question but for the UK economy in general.
I leave the Minister with the question that I posed at the beginning of my remarks. Will this be the decade when we move to action and, if it is, can he set out exactly the plans to make that happen?
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for opening the debate. I remind Members that they should stand if they wish to be called. Members can see the level of interest that there is in this debate. If everyone keeps their speeches to between three and four minutes, I hope we will get everybody in, but I will not impose an actual time limit yet.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy, and I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) both for securing this debate and for laying out so well so many of the issues that relate to the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor.
I am proud to represent a dynamic centre of innovation, growth and job creation in Bicester, Kidlington and Woodstock, which is rightly at the heart of the Government’s growth ambitions and at the heart of the Oxford-Cambridge corridor. The hon. Member for Cambridge referred to the Government’s prospectus on the corridor, and I will take this early opportunity to say gently to the Minister that this area would love to be recognised as a hub in the next prospectus, given that we host leading firms, such as Oxford Ionics, YASA, Airbus, Sauber and NewPower among many others, and contribute significantly to the new creation of growth and opportunity in the region.
My part of Oxfordshire is central to this Government’s plan to drive national productivity and housing delivery. However, such growth is being undermined by fragmented decision making, lack of a cohesive plan and chronic underfunding of infrastructure. Communities such as those in my constituency are willing to support growth. Parents want houses for their children and people want good job opportunities, but they also want to see the Government play their part in delivering infrastructure first, not as an afterthought.
Too often we see major projects approved in silos, each one through a separate Department, and planning routes that do not take into account the cumulative impact of different projects on an area. This lack of cross-Government co-ordination leads to delays in projects, higher costs and—most importantly—a loss of public trust in the whole process.
I will divide such projects into two different categories. First, we have some projects in my area where there has been a lack of co-ordination on specific initiatives. For example, there is the London Road in Bicester, where East West Rail will result in the closure of a level crossing. There has been a five-year campaign by the local community to ensure that the impact of that closure locally is fully recognised and that the Government step up to play their part in maintaining connectivity.
In Woodstock, another part of my constituency, the surgery provides for only 38% of the growing population, based on the numbers set out in NHS guidance. It has been extremely hard to work with the valuation office to have it realistically assess rental values in the area, which is necessary to build the financial model that would allow for a new surgery to be developed.
In north-west Bicester, the Government want to support local plans for up to 9,000 new homes. However, those homes cannot be built because of a lack of grid capacity and supply to the area, which is halting the development of homes that have been consented, leading to real difficulties for Cherwell district council when it comes to its local housing land supply. Recently at the Botley West solar farm in the west of my constituency we have seen a very extensive process by the National Infrastructure Commission and the Planning Inspectorate, with relatively poor engagement by the developer. It has not engaged with local people in the way that would be expected in order to build the consent for such a project.
The second category relates to areas where we have multiple national projects with relatively poor co-ordination. At the end of September, I attended a meeting convened by local councillor Gareth Epps with over 30 local parish councils that are concerned about the proposals for four separate major national projects within a three-mile area. None appears in the local plan, all were to have significant impacts and each is sponsored by a different national Government Department: the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in the case of a new town, the Department for Transport for a strategic rail freight interchange, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for a major new tourist attraction, with the local district council sponsoring new warehousing.
Local people are saying, “We are open for growth, and want to see the creation of housing and job opportunities, but we need the Government to step forward and help with the co-ordination, so that this is done in a structured way.” I gently invite the Minister to respond with regard to how best the Government think this can be developed. Will the Government look at the concepts of spatial delivery boards, or similar, that can be stood up in areas where there is a significant set of proposals beyond local plans? Will the Minister say more about the Government’s plans in this area?
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to be part of this important debate.
I very much share the assessment given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner): after many years of rhetoric, we are finally starting to see delivery for the growth corridor under a Labour Government. Recent months have seen so many announcements and so much practical action, including the creation of the Oxford growth commission, under the excellent Neale Coleman, on top of local financial commitments—with money, at last, for the reopening of the Cowley branch line. I am pleased to see that East West Rail is powering ahead, and there are new towns, artificial intelligence growth zones and reservoirs as well. Now is the time to drive this forward.
I will focus my remarks on areas where we need to see even more action, particularly so that we can realise Oxford’s potential for contributing to the corridor and to economic, scientific, social and cultural growth. First, local government reorganisation has to align with the goal of inclusive growth, not push against it. It is imperative that LGR delivers a greater Oxford, rather than the growth-sapping, democracy-reducing option of a great Oxfordshire or a split of the county into two. Research from Volterra shows that by focusing growth on Oxford city, Oxfordshire-wide annual gross value added could increase by 70%.
Housing is critical, as has already been mentioned. Oxford has extreme housing need, for a range of reasons, from the under-bounded nature of our city to the anti-housing approach of neighbouring local authorities. We are the least affordable city in the whole UK, with average wages at 68% of average rent levels and average house prices 13.6 times the average wage. As was mentioned, there is an overwhelming need for social housing, as well as genuinely affordable homes, as part of the corridor.
The duty to co-operate, such as it is, will cease to apply from early next year, so it is really important that LGR leads to a greater Oxford, not an anti-growth unitary Oxfordshire, and that that is confirmed quickly so that the city can be in control of housing delivery. We also need a homelessness prevention grant that is based on genuine needs, not on inaccurate proxies such as claimant count, and there must be no dilution of the ability for high-demand areas such as Oxford to impose conditions on developers for genuinely affordable and social homes. I would be grateful if the Minister could refer to that in his response.
We also need inclusive growth. I was encouraged by the launch of Equinox by the University of Oxford. The clue is in the name: Equitable Innovation Oxford. Some amazing companies are already delivering on this locally, and the city council has been pushing the Oxford living wage.
We have heard about motorsport. BMW Cowley is a jewel in the crown of advanced manufacturing not just in Oxfordshire, but nationally. We need the changes in industrial energy to speed ahead as quickly as possible to support production, including at BMW Cowley. We also need a campaign to show the public that electric vehicles are still cheaper. We must recognise that, although our country will need luxury electric cars in the future, it will also need affordable ones, such as those produced at BMW Cowley.
We need to tackle educational inequality. Sadly, some of the schools in my area of Oxford have some of the worst results in the whole country. We are trying to deal with London-style problems with a shire’s budget. That needs to end.
Finally, we need transport infrastructure that matches the challenge. That means getting the Kennington bridge sorted out so that the Oxford flood alleviation scheme can be unblocked. [Interruption.] I am pleased to see the Minister smiling; I know that he will persuade his Department for Transport colleagues to also smile, and to give it the green light.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this important debate. Many today may claim the same, but my constituency sits right at the heart of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. We are home to Cranfield University, world renowned for cutting-edge research and technology and some of the most innovative companies in Britain, growing our economy and delivering high-value jobs for our communities. Subject to planning approval—I do not seek to influence the Minister’s decision in any way—we will soon be home to the Universal UK theme park. Universal will welcome more than 8 million visitors to our part of Bedfordshire every year, bringing in £50 billion to the UK economy.
Mid Bedfordshire is a constituency full of potential. That includes potential to contribute to the Government’s growth agenda, and potential to connect the growth corridor through East West Rail, which will run along the Marston Vale line and the midland main line, providing easy connectivity to the soon-to-be-expanded Luton airport, to London and right across the region. Our local economy already benefits from easy access to the M1, with major multinationals such as Amazon calling Mid Bedfordshire home. The Millbrook Proving Ground in my constituency is one of the largest vehicle testing centres in Europe, and we are a hotspot for defence technology, with the Lockheed Martin site at Ampthill delivering the next generation of equipment to keep Britain secure.
To fulfil our potential, we need the Government to support Mid Bedfordshire’s role in the growth corridor. Junction 13 of the M1 desperately needs to be upgraded. It is a key point of access for Cranfield University, Millbrook Proving Ground, Amazon, the future Marston Valley development and so many other local employment centres, but without an upgrade, we risk the only sustained growth in Mid Bedfordshire unfortunately being the time stuck in traffic jams. To ensure that our rural lanes are not overwhelmed by traffic as our areas grow, we need Government assistance to unlock the long-promised M1 to A6 link road. That project will alleviate the growing problem of HGVs using rural lanes as a cut-through, and support the delivery of central Bedfordshire’s local plan. At this point, I declare an interest as a councillor on Central Bedfordshire council.
My communities are desperate for new infrastructure to ensure that housing growth does not mean growing waiting lists for local services. That particularly includes a GP surgery for the new town of Wixams, for which I have campaigned since I was elected to Parliament.
Richard Fuller
On the point of cross-Bedfordshire roads, we will have potentially Tempsford new town in my constituency and an entirely new railway being drawn across the area, in addition to Universal Studios and the expansion of Luton airport. Over time, that will all create enormous internal pressure. To amplify the point about co-ordination, does my hon. Friend agree that local councils will be overwhelmed without clear support from the Government?
Blake Stephenson
That was a very helpful intervention. Local councillors in our area are crying out for Government support to deliver the growth that the Government want in our area. It would be very useful if the Minister could respond to that.
To take the most advantage from Universal, our county needs to join the majority of others in establishing a local visitor economy partnership. Without an LVEP, we risk missing out on the level of local expertise needed to direct growth and reap the rewards that the significant new tourism will attract. It cannot be right for one of the largest tourist attractions in Europe to be opened in one of the only places without a tourism strategy. We also have the opportunity to deliver another fantastic local tourist attraction—the Bedford to Milton Keynes waterway park—but we need Government investment to unlock it. I know that Members representing Milton Keynes and Bedford might comment on that.
Finally, my communities need to be assured that rail infrastructure on East West Rail and the midlands main line is fit for the needs of a growing economy—the heart of our growth corridor. That means delivering step-free access at Flitwick and Harlington stations and on the Marston Vale East West Rail line in time for Universal to open. I would welcome an opportunity to meet the Minister to discuss how we can work together on a cohesive plan that delivers for my constituents and the Government.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this important debate. I welcome the Labour Government’s commitment to the Oxford-Cambridge corridor. After years of underfunding and neglect from the previous Conservative Government in constituencies such as mine, this investment will reap significant economic benefits for my constituency and the wider region, with the proposals forecast to contribute £78 billion to our economy by 2035.
I also welcome the further £500 million investment package recently committed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to deliver growth in the Oxford to Cambridge corridor and cement its status as a global innovation hub. Working people in my constituency will benefit from access to thousands of new jobs, improved regional connectivity and more opportunities.
As has been mentioned, Luton is located at the heart of the golden triangle of London, Oxford and Cambridge. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and others have noted that the publicly owned London Luton airport is a key entity in ensuring economic growth in our region, contributing £1.8 billion to the UK economy each year and £830 million annually to Luton.
The airport also has the most densely populated catchment area of any UK airport. It serves London, the midlands and the east of England, and is one of the best connected airports by rail and road. Its prime location will help to support the delivery of other regional projects, including the East West Rail line. It is one of the most significant transport projects and of course links into the proposals for the Universal UK theme park near Bedford in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), with Luton airport acting as a key driving factor in Universal’s decision to invest in Bedfordshire.
There are also significant redevelopment and regeneration projects under way in Luton. The football club’s new stadium at Power Court, which will be based in the heart of our town centre, includes plans for a 25,000-capacity stadium, as well as an adjacent hotel, music venue and housing development. Work on the Stage development at the old Bute Street car park will also soon be under way; it will be a major mixed-use destination with nearly 300 flats alongside commercial units, a multi-purpose food and events venue and new public garden square. The delivery of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor will be key in widening the reach and impact of redevelopment projects in Luton, drawing more footfall to our town as a hub for sporting and leisure events and contributing further to economic growth there.
Crucially, Luton is a thriving and young town—in fact, the third youngest in the UK—
Rosie Wrighting
I will take that. The Bedford College Group has campuses in both of our constituencies. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is crucial in delivering the high-quality technical skills needed to deliver the growth corridor?
Rachel Hopkins
I thank my hon. Friend for making a brilliant point about the contribution that further education colleges make to the agenda for skills, apprenticeships and ultimately good jobs for our young people.
The delivery of East West Rail, improving connectivity with Oxford and Cambridge as world-class education and innovation hubs, will be vital in providing more opportunities for young people in my constituency for study, apprenticeships and jobs that previously would have been out of reach.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
We have 10 speakers to come and I have to start Front-Bench speeches at about 3.30 pm, so speeches will need to be nearer three minutes, I am afraid. I call Pippa Heylings.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my neighbour and colleague, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), for securing this important debate.
Over the last 20 years our region has experienced unprecedented change and growth. According to the latest Office for National Statistics census analysis, the population of my constituency alone has risen by 21.6% since 2011—one of the fastest increases of any area outside of London. In what used to be a semi-rural constituency, schools, GP practices, hospitals, utilities and roads built for a much smaller population are now supporting tens of thousands more people than they were designed for and delivering well beyond their capacity—and the growth is not stopping. Local projections show that South Cambridgeshire’s numbers will increase the most out of all of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, expected to rise by 22.1% by 2031 and as much as 37.2% by 2041.
Pippa Heylings
No, I will continue, if that is all right.
Across Cambridgeshire almost 50,000 additional homes are forecast by 2041. The reason for this growth is that greater Cambridge, which constitutes the constituency of the hon. Member for Cambridge and mine of South Cambridgeshire, is one of the most economically dynamic regions of the country, with an annual turnover of £30 billion, employing more than 110,000 people.
Although Cambridge is the brand, my constituency includes the largest biomedical campus in Europe. It is home to the global headquarters for AstraZeneca, the Addenbrooke’s, Rosie and Royal Papworth hospitals, and the Laboratory of Molecular Biology, whose researchers have won 12 Nobel prizes. We have the Wellcome Genome Campus, one of the world’s largest concentrations of genomics and biodata, and the Babraham Institute and Granta Park, home to the European headquarters of Illumina—I am just saying that a very small rural constituency is a great partner within the corridor. But with that, as we have heard, comes chronic underfunding, and under successive Governments growth has not kept pace with infrastructure.
Take healthcare: the A&E department of Addenbrooke’s hospital was built to serve only a quarter of the patients it now sees, and the Cambridge University hospitals trust operates with a deficit of around 162 acute beds. The new acute strategy has been developed as a design, but there has not yet been any decision on a new A&E hospital.
Transport tells the same story, as Members from across the Chamber have said. The appalling public transport options currently available and the commuting gridlock damages the quality of life of all residents. I join the east of England all-party parliamentary group and my hon. Friend the Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) in calling for the Ely and Haughley junction to be improved to manage freight, to get lorries off the road and to enable more passenger trains.
East West Rail purports to have resolved some of the transport connectivity issues across the corridor, but in my constituency it has been dogged by problems from the very start. There has been really poor community engagement, and nothing has been offered except huge infrastructure going through it. I repeat my invitation to the Rail Minister to come to my constituency to answer the questions of my constituents. The proposed Cambridge east station is in my constituency, not in Cambridge, so it would be very good to have the Minister there.
This cannot just be about house building. The Greater Cambridge shared planning service has just won an award for being one of the best planning authorities in the country, because it does strategic planning and community engagement. Let us keep water and nature—the deal breakers in this—sustainable. Would the Minister convene with Lord Vallance to deliver joined-up infrastructure, together with all the relevant authorities?
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this important debate about a place where innovation really happens, but which is also a great place to live. The whole idea of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor is fantastic, but the name is absolutely terrible: politicians love the word “growth”, but the public at large are scared by the idea of growth. They think it is going to ruin their way of life—and then “corridor”? I mean, that just sounds like a place we never want to be in. It is somewhere that gets people from A to B, but what about that bit in the middle? To me, it just conjures up the Tories running down the NHS and being stuck in a corridor in a hospital.
However, it is the right place to be focusing on. We can already see that, because the universities play such a good role and businesses invest there all the time. There are more than 8,000 high-tech firms in the wider area already. Given that it is thriving already, we might ask what the role for Government is? We do not want to mess it up at all; we want to try to improve it. I would argue that there are still bucket-loads of potential, and the three areas where the Government can add value are governance, transport and a sense of place.
Let us start with governance. For investors wanting to invest in the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, particularly those from overseas, it is really difficult to know who to pick up the phone and call. Regional devolution will help with that, particularly with the duty in the Bill for mayors to co-operate with each other. However, we need to get to a position where the whole area has mayors, and we cannot allow some councils, such as the one in my area, to block that progress. We also need to make sure that devolution means that mayors have genuine powers, because sometimes I think there can be an overemphasis on co-operation and consensus, which actually gives us stasis and stalemate.
On transport, I absolutely welcome the £2.5 billion the Government have invested in East West Rail. In recent weeks, it has felt as though we are ramping up on that. East West Rail matters to all the stations along the route and those that are nearby—I made that point to the East West Rail chair the other day. It is less than 10 minutes from Leighton Buzzard to Bletchley, and that opens up a world of opportunities for people in Bletchley as well.
Finally, on a sense of place, when I used to think about the wider east of England region and what on earth linked it, I sometimes thought it was only our fantastic local broadcaster “Look East”—
Alex Mayer
Indeed. It is so important to make sure that we have things that link us, and I think Universal will make a real difference on that. I very much urge the Minister to make sure that Paddington Bear is a key feature—what an ambassador for our region that would be! The forest is also fantastic news for us; I finish by urging my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge to agree with me that the national forest really is a tree-mendous opportunity.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing the debate.
The Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor has had something of a tortured history. For nearly two decades, various iterations of the vision have promised transformational change, only to be shelved, rebranded or, as was reported in 2022, flushed down the toilet in mime by a previous Secretary of State, who is fortunately no longer here. As we discuss the growth corridor, I hope that the knowledge and experience of constituencies such as mine and others represented in the debate, which are already living with rapid growth, can inform a better approach this time.
This really does matter in my constituency, sitting as we do immediately to the west of Cambridge. St Neots is a genuinely strategic location, at the intersection of the east coast main line that runs north to south, the planned East West Rail connection, the A1 running north and south, and the new A428 running east to west. The new towns taskforce has identified the Tempsford area just to the south for a new settlement of potentially 40,000 homes. That area sits at the confluence of multiple local authority boundaries—different authorities with different, overlapping responsibilities.
The complexity I have outlined makes integrated transport planning in particular essential from the outset. Sustainable transport connections between existing towns and villages and new railway stations at Cambourne and Tempsford on East West Rail need to be a key focus from the very beginning of planning. I hope the Minister can commit to that.
There is some understandable uneasiness about the Tempsford proposal. There are worries about local schools and GP practices being stretched, and concerns about water scarcity and flooding issues. How healthcare infrastructure grows is a particular concern, and one with which my constituents are well familiar. Northstowe in my constituency is said to be the UK’s largest new town since Milton Keynes, with 10,000 homes by 2040. Its first residents moved in eight years ago, yet there is still no permanent GP surgery. That places enormous strain on surrounding village practices.
The pattern has been clear: houses get built, but the health infrastructure lags behind. Will the Minister assure my constituents that he is actively working with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to pump-prime healthcare services for new developments, ensuring that services are built to grow sustainably alongside the new communities they serve?
I had much more to say about skills and education—which have already been talked about—and about the environment. The Fens 2100+ programme is grappling with the reality that parts of Cambridgeshire are below sea level and face increasing flood risks. That should be considered.
The growth corridor project is a genuine opportunity, but it will be realised only by genuine cross-governmental working. No single Department can deliver what is needed. We need to ensure that communities such as St Neots can actively participate in and benefit from growth, rather than simply absorbing its pressures.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. I am trying to avoid setting a formal time limit, but people will need to help me; I am afraid speeches will need to be sub-three minutes.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for securing the debate, and the East of England all-party parliamentary group for its report “Opportunity East: One Year On”, which rightly highlights our region’s huge potential.
The Oxford-Cambridge arc is already an innovation engine, home to world-class universities, leading research institutions and a dynamic private sector. Universal Studios’ proposed multibillion-pound investment in Bedfordshire offers a once-in-a-generation boost to jobs, tourism and long-term growth. East West Rail will better connect our research, technology and business clusters, thereby spreading opportunities far beyond the line itself. Yet alongside the potential, I must again record my opposition to the demolition of homes in my constituency for the East West Rail project. Residents’ concerns must be heard and decisions made with transparency and fairness.
The report is right to note deep-rooted challenges such as housing shortages, but I want to focus on one issue that particularly concerns me: water. The east of England is the UK’s driest region, receiving barely two thirds of average rainfall, and Water Resources East warns of a shortfall of 800 million litres a day by 2050.
Housing targets matter, but water and sewage capacity must be central to planning from day one. Water pollution, mentioned only once in the report, is a major concern to my constituents. I welcome the Government’s action to hold polluters, including Anglian Water, to account and to modernise infrastructure, but we need stronger protections against over-abstraction. I oppose building on the flood plain in Kempston, and I believe we must invest in rivers and waterways across Bedford, Milton Keynes and the arc so that they become the natural and economic assets they should be.
The Opportunity East report makes it clear that our region is ready to deliver green energy, growth, research, skills and new homes for the whole UK, but only if our basic infrastructure is secured, with water treated as a strategic priority. The water industry needs root-and-branch reform, and I hope the forthcoming White Paper and water reform Bill set out a credible path to deliver the improvements our region urgently needs.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for securing this important debate.
It is a joy to represent the city of Oxford, particularly the university bits that I have inherited from my neighbour, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). I am glad she got to keep her own college, though; that just felt right. As such, I am able to wax lyrical about our university—a powerhouse of innovation at the centre of a hub of science and technology businesses, with the highest concentration of science research centres in western Europe. Irene Tracey, its new vice-chancellor, is a personal example of Oxfordshire’s potential. Born in Oxford and educated at a local comprehensive in Kidlington, she is herself a powerhouse in the life sciences, and she has a vision for the university as a global leader of innovation, while recognising its rootedness in our community.
Oxfordshire, as a county, is one of the most productive regions in the UK. In 2025, the global innovation index ranked Oxfordshire fifth globally for the most innovation-intensive clusters relative to population density. In order to build on that, like so many others, we need the infrastructure and, in particular, connectivity. Oxfordshire county council’s OxRAIL 2040 plan sets out an ambitious but realistic programme of investment to support sustainable growth and link homes with key employment sites across the county. It started with the Cowley branch line, which was a huge achievement, and I was delighted that it was realised. However, that must be only the start, because what we need to do is connect people with jobs and with homes, and create communities as we go.
It is for those reasons that I am sorry to say that I profoundly disagree with the right hon. Member for Oxford East and her assessment of what is right for local government reorganisation, because to divorce Oxford University and the city from the rest of the area fails to understand the interconnectivity of our county. I will give one example. Under the current Greater Oxford plan, it cuts off Abingdon from Culham. At one point, Abingdon had the highest number of PhDs per square kilometre in Europe because of the Culham Science centre, yet the two would be artificially cut off even though they are absolutely adjacent. It makes no sense.
The better, more practical approach, with fewer barriers, is to focus on the county as a whole and make sure that, when we look at where we put jobs and drive innovation, we create communities across the whole county. Otherwise, we will find ourselves in the same position again, looking at a constrained city centre and a constrained greater Oxford, wanting to expand ever more. I hope that the Government look coolly at the numbers. I am sure they will be convinced that the “One Oxfordshire” vision for the whole county, with the city and the university at its centre, is the right way to go.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. The Chancellor said that the Ox-Cam growth corridor has £78 billion of potential for our economy, but only if we get housing and infrastructure right. However, I would argue that it is much more than just housing and infrastructure that is needed to get the connected core of Ox-Cam absolutely right.
The south-east midlands local industrial strategy recognised that without the core of Northampton, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Luton working together, we cannot drive the growth that the Government need now. The south midlands region is the home of advanced logistics, manufacturing, the automotive—as has been mentioned—agritech, food and drink and growing digital, creative and tourism industries. To deliver the growth that we want to see through the Ox-Cam growth corridor, we have to get a functioning central spine in the area right.
There are already great building blocks that we can build on here. The south midlands authorities have worked together to create a shared economic strategy. They were moving towards devolution, but unfortunately some local gerrymandering and faffing about meant that we did not get the devolution deal. There is now an opportunity to look at how we move forward to deliver something that works for the region.
There is already transport connectivity through England’s economic heartland and people are getting back to work through the Department for Work and Pensions’ south midlands programme for Connect to Work. There is regional infrastructure connectivity. The south midlands distribution network operator ran out of my constituency, and the DNO is critical for regional energy planning. There are businesses working together for the South Midlands Business Board, led by the fantastic Jason Longhurst.
There is connected work in education. As well as the Arc Universities Group in Northampton, we now have a group including the University of Northampton, led by Anne-Marie Kilday; Northampton college, led by Jason Lancaster; and Moulton college, led by Oliver Symons. They are working together to create a skills strategy that delivers the Government industrial strategy at a local level for the benefit of the south midlands corridor.
We used to have the pan-regional partnerships. Although I disagree with the Government closing those down en masse, I can understand the reasons—many were bloated, but ours was efficiently run and worked well for the region. Whether it is the taskforce that was recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), or other ways of doing it, I think a designated economic area that starts to put those building blocks in place for the south midlands region as we work towards devolution in the future is how we give the region proper teeth, ensure investment is focused across the region and join up all the things that already exist to create a great, vibrant central spine for the growth corridor.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for securing today’s important debate. I want to make three brief points in the time that is available to me. First, I will provide some support for the wider principle of investment in rail infrastructure, based on my experience of the benefits of the Elizabeth line in Berkshire. Secondly, I will talk about the potential enhanced benefits for a wider geographical area just beyond the current concept. Thirdly, I will make an appeal to the Minister on exactly that point.
It is fair to say that the benefits we have noticed across Berkshire and the other 80-mile stretch covered by the Elizabeth line provide a compelling argument for investment in rail infrastructure. It had £18 billion of capital investment, and after three years, according to the best study on it, generated £42 billion of economic growth—that is in housing, business development and greater connectivity. That can clearly be seen in the Reading area.
My constituency, which includes the town centre of Reading, has benefited enormously. We have had a number of business relocate to what were unutilised sites near our station. We have had over £1 billion of investment in the Station Hill redevelopment, which was opened this summer by the leader of our local council. Companies such as Ericsson have moved from out-of-town industrial estates where there are huge problems with traffic and transport into an area of better rail connectivity.
A number of Members have mentioned the problem of congestion on country lanes and other related issues. It is worth remembering that one train on the Elizabeth line can transport 800 people. That is the scale of what we are talking about—and something similar is being envisaged for the growth corridor. It allows large numbers of workers to move between different employment centres—whether that is a university or an industrial complex—and from an employer’s point of view, it provides an appealing pool of skilled workers. Ericsson specifically told me they moved to Reading and away from a site in Surrey because of the greater connectivity and the greater pool of skilled workers to work in telecoms. That is a very important point.
I strongly support this debate, and I think it is absolutely wonderful to have so many hon. Members here. The one thing I regret is that we are not sat in the order of stations that would benefit, which would have been quite nice—I obviously would have to be at one end, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge would be at the other.
I will briefly talk about the area south of Oxford and towards Reading. The train from Reading to Oxford takes 25 minutes. A number of my constituents work at Oxford University, Harwell, Culham and various other centres of employment along that route, and equally vice-versa. As the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) described, there is a travel corridor south of Oxford. Opening up the wider line and promoting it would have huge benefits for the wider Thames valley region, and possibly for other routes heading north towards Warwickshire. There is a wider shoulder of the main central core of this project that could benefit significantly, including as far away as Reading. It would be wonderful for that to be emphasised.
I appreciate that I am out of time, so my brief request to the Minister is that when officials consider this, they talk to some of the business groups within the Thames valley and think about the wider benefits. Obviously, the core of the line will benefit most, but there is clearly an argument for areas towards the edges to also benefit from the wider connectivity and the shift towards regenerating areas around stations, where there is often a lot of brownfield land and lots of scope for new industrial and business employment. I ask for that to be at the heart of the Government’s thinking.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this debate. The limited time means that I will not focus too heavily on the importance of the region, which has been covered by my colleagues, but as the first MP proud to have been born and grown up in the new town of Milton Keynes I want to remind everyone that it is the largest and most economically significant city in the corridor.
Our economy is roughly the same size as Oxford and Cambridge combined. In fact, Milton Keynes is now the seventh largest city economy in England outside London, and we are on track to continue climbing that league table. One in three jobs in Milton Keynes is already in the technology sector, generating £3.4 billion a year. We are now home to national security engineering at His Majesty’s Government Communications Centre, global firms such as Santander UK and Red Bull Racing and hundreds of cutting-edge small and medium enterprises. Over 12,000 businesses call our city home.
I set that out because, from time to time, it has been frustrating that the conversation about the corridor has been dominated by either end, with not enough focus on the middle. I can quietly live with Milton Keynes being dropped from the name—the National Infrastructure Commission first described the corridor as the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford arc in 2016—although I do feel it is a little odd to remove the largest economy from the title. It is a bit like renaming J. K. Rowling’s books “Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley”. I will allow my hon. Friends to decide which is which.
It is not just about branding; even since the relaunch of the project, there are concrete examples of how that policy skew has played out in practice. Take the Chancellor’s announcement in Oxford last year on the new plans for the growth corridor: the press release that followed mentioned Cambridge 39 times, Oxford 25 times and Milton Keynes just four times. Two of those references were about how the Government would make it quicker for people to get from Milton Keynes to Oxford or Cambridge, despite the fact that far more people commute into my city than out of it every day.
The recently released investment prospectus for the corridor barely mentioned any projects outside Oxford and Cambridge. My council submitted several high-impact Milton Keynes projects for inclusion—all of them were cut from the final draft. In the run-up to the Budget, the only corridor-related investments were for Oxford and Cambridge. Let me be clear: investment in those cities is welcome and necessary. They are world-class centres of research, talent and innovation. However, that skew is frustrating.
The easiest way to correct that skew is through devolution. We had an oven-ready devolution deal across Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes—a deal that would have supercharged growth across our region and allowed us to get the many national infrastructure projects already planned delivered quickly. Will the Department work with us to get the BLMK devolution deal across the line as quickly as possible?
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
I have drawn the short straw here. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this debate. I felt compelled to join the debate this afternoon because I wanted to underscore the point, which has been made by others, that if we want to make the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor a success, we cannot ignore the roles of the towns and cities that lie between them. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) articulately explained the vitality of the MK economy. All I will add to what he said is that I am particularly proud that Pulsar, Envisics and Starship Technologies call Bletchley home.
I particularly welcome East West Rail, as Bletchley and Winslow will host East West Rail stations. I cannot wait for passenger services to start, hopefully as soon as possible. I intend to use the Bletchley investment taskforce that I set up in the spring to catalyse more investment, businesses, jobs and apprenticeships in our town, so that we can realise the full promise of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor.
I have little time remaining, but as the only Buckinghamshire MP able to participate in the debate, I want to shed light on Silverstone’s contribution to the east-west corridor, as articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge. My constituency is home to a high-performance technology cluster in Silverstone Park, which already has 60 advanced companies, including Mercedes, Aston Martin and Andretti. If we can get the proposed Silverstone incubator village over the line, we can further demonstrate the region’s expertise in net zero propulsion, aerodynamics, meteorology and lightweight materials.
I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North about the importance of coherent, strategic and joined-up leadership across the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. I know that hon. Members from across the Bedford, Luton and Milton Keynes region would value more conversations about that.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I am grateful to all the hon. Members who spoke for their co-operation. We now come to the Front-Bench spokespeople. I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as an East Cambridgeshire district councillor. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this important debate and on his excellent speech. I thank all hon. Members for their strong contributions to the debate.
It is good to see cross-party recognition that the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor will play a critical role in the years ahead in growing the UK economy. To achieve that growth sustainably, we need it to go hand in hand with investment in housing and vital infrastructure. First and foremost, we need a land-use framework in place. The consultation closed in April, but there has still not been a Government response. We cannot plan for housing and the infrastructure needed without that framework, because it is that framework that will ensure we have allocated enough land to nature and to all our needs. Will the Minister tell us when the land-use framework will be published?
The Liberal Democrats believe that growth without corresponding investment in local infrastructure risks leaving communities behind.
Charlie Maynard
East West Rail is a huge project and will bring a lot of benefits, but my hon. Friend’s constituency of Ely and East Cambridgeshire is at the far end in Cambridgeshire and my constituency of Witney is at the far end in the west. Does she agree that such projects need to be spread county-wide? We desperately need transport infrastructure, such as rebuilding the railway line that links Oxford, Eynsham, Witney and Carterton, to support the 18,000 houses that are coming our way.
Charlotte Cane
I agree that we need to have the wider transport network, and I will touch on that later in my remarks.
Local communities must have a genuine voice in infrastructure decisions that affect them. As we have heard, big projects like East West Rail benefit them in some way, but what would really help communities like Bicester, Cottenham and Milton is investment in proper local bus routes and road upgrades, which would provide an obvious benefit and improvement in people’s everyday lives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) said, connecting people to each other and to work, education and leisure is vital.
At the same time as we are going for growth between Oxford and Cambridge, there needs to be investment to ensure that we have good water supplies; waste water and sewage are managed so our rivers are clean; people can get to see a GP; electricity grid capacity is increased; and people can easily access more active travel and public transport options. My hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) was right to highlight the need for GPs, schools and shops to grow as our communities grow.
The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for the rail project along the A40 corridor to Witney and Carterton, for electrification from Didcot to Oxford and along the whole of East West Rail, and for the redevelopment of Oxford station to be finally completed, along with other important rail improvements. We know that rail is the key to growth, and that it can bring opportunities if we invest in it properly.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for supporting my calls for the Ely junction upgrade but, in this speech, I am going to make a different request for rail investment. I would like East West Rail to extend at least to Newmarket, allowing for more frequent, reliable trains through Dullingham into Cambridge and beyond.
I welcome plans for a Cambridge east station, and ask that the current Waterbeach station is kept open. Between the new station in north Waterbeach, the current Waterbeach station, Cambridge North, Cambridge, the soon to be completed Cambridge south and the proposed Cambridge east, we have the makings of a metro-style transport network that could help reduce congestion and improve air quality in Cambridge.
When undertaking such significant rail projects, it is vital that we ensure that they actually deliver tangible benefits for the communities they serve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) told us, the London Road level crossing in Bicester is due to be closed by East West Rail. While the project will indeed have wide benefits, we should do something to support the local community and ensure that that infrastructure benefits them. For example, the Government could commit to a motorised underpass to keep the town connected, and I hope the Minister will do so today.
Recent research revealed that Brexit is costing taxpayers £90 billion a year in lost tax revenue. Let us think how much of that we could invest in the ambitious businesses in the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor if we joined the single market. The hon. Member for Cambridge talked about the knowledge clusters, which would be so much stronger with Europe-wide participation.
Since being elected, I have had the pleasure of visiting many exciting and dynamic companies in Ely and East Cambridgeshire, including Xampla, Pragmatic, Hologic UK, the Royal Society of Chemistry and Cambridge Future Tech, all of which want to see the full potential of the Oxford-Cambridge corridor unlocked for new investors and for businesses to join that thriving ecosystem. I am proud to be an MP for such a dynamic, innovative and flourishing region. I am fascinated every time I visit one of those local businesses, and I am struck by their ambition not just for themselves but for our region and our country. They need the Government to follow through on their ambition, and work with them and local communities to deliver a sustainable Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this important debate on the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, an area of enormous potential, world-class institutions and a genuine capacity to drive innovation and national prosperity. He is a dedicated campaigner and champion for his constituency—he has been for a number of years—and that emanated from his speech this afternoon.
I would like to mention a few speeches from Members on both sides of the House who have spoken passionately on behalf of their constituencies. The first is my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), who gave us a wonderful tour of his constituency. I know that the Minister will take away, through officials, his plea for junction 13 of the M1 to be upgraded. We know that north Bedfordshire, like many areas in the community in which he serves, has had a huge expansion.
Whatever the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) had for breakfast, I would like some too, because we had a very rapid constituency tour, quite rightly explaining to us why her constituency is special. She was right about the infrastructure needs, and particularly the nature and environmental concerns. Her party and mine have been very concerned about some of the retrograde steps that the Government have taken in terms of planning and infrastructure regarding nature and the environment.
The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) quite rightly gave her view, as she is perfectly entitled to do, on local government reform. In this Chamber we actually heard a disagreement between two Members; I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire has strong concerns about LGR when it comes to a Milton Keynes–Bedfordshire–Luton mayor. That is something that we, again, are concerned about, where local authorities are being forced to reorganise come what may. Projects such as the one we are talking about today suffer as a result and come secondary to a needless reorganisation.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane), managed to bring up Brexit in this debate, which I was slightly surprised by. I am never astounded by the tenacity of the Liberal Democrats, even if it does make me wonder why “Democrats” is in their party’s name.
The Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, sometimes called the Oxford-Cambridge arc, is not a new idea, as the hon. Member for Cambridge said. Its origins go back to the early 2000s when three regional development agencies came together with an ambition
“to create one of the most successful knowledge-based economies in Europe.”
That ambition was renewed in 2016 when the National Infrastructure Commission was tasked to consider how best to maximise the potential of what is indisputably one of the most exciting, knowledge-intensive economic clusters anywhere in the world. The facts speak for themselves. Within the arc, there are at least 10 major higher education institutions, including Cranfield University, with its world-leading strengths in aerospace and automotive engineering; the Open University; and of course the globally renowned universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Those are institutions that any country would be proud to host, yet this Government’s economic policies are stifling their progress, and the progress of the corridor project.
That is the crux of the problem: the Chancellor wrote, in her foreword to the Government’s policy paper on the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, that
“Economic growth is the number one mission of this government and remains at the heart of all we do.”
If this is what it looks like when growth is at the heart of what the Government do, I dread to imagine what they would do if they decided it was not a priority. That statement is not the experience of the institutions, businesses and local communities that work tirelessly to ensure that the corridor remains a leading hub of innovation, productivity and opportunity.
We know that the Chancellor believes that the corridor could add up to £78 billion to the UK economy and we agree, but that number becomes a reality only if the Government provide the environment, the confidence and the long-term stability that private investors need. Instead, they have hiked taxes, raised business rates and plunged the markets into uncertainty. The Government’s own announcements, dropped somewhat sporadically and often without clarity, speak to their confusion. In October, Ministers published a press release promising jobs, homes and better transport links across the corridor. We heard about water infrastructure investment, a proposed new town at Tempsford, £400 million of initial funding to kick-start development in Cambridge and £15 million for the University of Cambridge innovation hub.
All of those things sound encouraging, but this Government have become experts in making announcements while failing to deliver the underlying conditions that make delivery possible. They talk of homes but their housing targets will not be achieved. They talk of infrastructure but cannot secure long-term investment. They talk of growth but have presided over an economy with its growth revised downwards again and again, meaning that long-term problems will be incurred in the progress of this much-needed project. Before the 2024 election, the Chancellor told British people that she would raise taxes by £7 billion. Instead, at last year’s autumn Budget she raised them by £40 billion and at this year’s autumn Budget by another £26.6 billion.
Economic forecasters have not been fooled. Since the Chancellor took office, the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Bank of England, the International Monetary Fund and the CBI have all downgraded the UK’s growth prospects. The OBR’s growth forecast for 2026 fell from 1.9% to 1.4%; inflation, which stood at just 2.2% on election day, has risen to 3.8%; the unemployment rate has hit 5%; and the deficit is set to double by ’28-29. The UK now has the fastest rising tax burden in the G7. That does not encourage growth, business investment or the stability that businesses and organisations need to get this project off the ground.
In her 2025 Budget, the Chancellor invoked the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor as an example of a long-term national priority, but what message does it send to the businesses, universities and investors of the corridor when the Government cannot even be transparent about their own growth projections? In this debate, speaker after speaker has rightly emphasised the immense economic, scientific and social value of this region, but potential alone is not enough. Potential needs partnership, consistent leadership and a Government who understand the scale of the opportunity, but everything emanating from the Government has made the aspirations for the corridor more difficult. That is why this debate matters.
This corridor is not just about the south-east or the east of England; it is important to the whole country. It is a showcase for the very best of British innovation, where research excellence meets commercial opportunity, where new technologies are born and where global investment sees a home. The Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. With the right leadership it could drive economic growth, technological advancement and prosperity for decades to come.
Can the Minister tell us how the Government intend to give the corridor the long-term stability, investment confidence and strategic backing it urgently needs to realise its economic potential? Will he commit to setting out a clear, accountable plan for how the Government will support the institutions, businesses and communities of the growth corridor, so that they can contribute fully to the UK’s future growth, rather than being held back by uncertainty and delay?
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this debate. I thank him for his enthusiasm: despite the shadow Minister’s attempt to cast doom and gloom on the situation, there is a huge amount to be positive about in the Ox-Cam corridor. Not only is my hon. Friend a powerful advocate for the interests of his city, but he has long recognised the huge potential in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor and the high-potential growth sectors within it, as evidenced by his opening remarks. It is therefore fitting that it is he who has given hon. Members the opportunity to discuss this vital matter.
I also thank the many other hon. Members who have spoken. I am really pleased that it has been such a well-attended debate. I have heard lots of bids for recognition of any kind, including from my hon. Friends the Members for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) and for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis), and support for funding. Support is undoubtedly required when it comes to things like planning capacity and capability, an issue raised by the hon. Members for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). There were also requests, as I expected, for various grant funding pots across Government. I cannot respond to each request directly, but I assure hon. Members that I will make sure that my ministerial colleagues in the relevant Departments are made aware of them.
In the time available, I will respond to as many as possible of the thematic and broad issues that have been raised. I will start by outlining why the Government are so focused on supercharging growth in the Ox-Cam corridor as part of our ambitious plan for change. As we have heard today, the Oxford-Cambridge region is already an economic powerhouse. It is home to world-leading universities, to globally renowned science and technology firms and to some of the most dynamic innovation clusters in Europe. For a region of 3.5 million people, it punches well above its weight by contributing £143 billion annually to the UK economy.
As this debate has evidenced, the corridor is not just a stretch of land between two cities with world-class universities; its strength lies in the combined economic power of the entire region. With its highly productive and thriving tech sector, Milton Keynes, which my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North rightly raised, is a magnet for innovation and investment. Silverstone contributes advanced manufacturing capabilities. Luton brings global connectivity through its international airport and its strong Eurospace and engineering cluster. Culham is now a thriving centre for research, innovation and a world-recognised fusion technology cluster. I could go on—there are many other examples of places that are doing fantastic things. Together, these and other places within the corridor form an interconnected economy that is driving growth, attracting talent and delivering benefits for those places and for the UK as a whole.
However—and there is strong consensus across the Chamber on this point—we have not yet realised the region’s full potential. It has the potential to become one of the most innovative and economically dynamic areas in the entire world, but as things stand, numerous constraints, from inadequate transport connections to a lack of affordable housing, are preventing it from realising its true potential. That is why the Government are determined to do what is necessary and apply clarity and consistency to drive sustainable economic growth in the region, to the benefit of local communities and national prosperity.
As has been said, there are numerous constraints preventing the corridor from realising its potential. We have had a couple of examples today, and I could add to them. It currently takes two and a half hours to travel by train from Oxford to Cambridge; there is no way to commute by rail directly to Cambridge from places such as Bedford and Milton Keynes; and the lack of affordable housing across the region is a major barrier to securing the world-class talent on which world-class companies depend.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge rightly argued, it is now imperative that, after several false starts, we do what is necessary to drive the growth that we need in the region. That is why the Chancellor made it clear in January that the Ox-Cam corridor would be an economic priority for the Government; it is why she appointed Lord Vallance as the ministerial champion for the region.
If we are to drive the growth we need in the region, we must improve its infrastructure. As hon. Members will know, we have reaffirmed our commitment to deliver East West Rail in full. That will provide a direct rail line between Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge, reconnecting businesses and communities and increasing opportunities for people who live and work in the corridor.
More recently, at the end of October, we committed £120 million to reopen the Cowley branch line in Oxford. That unlocked significant private investment from the Ellison Institute of Technology, which has committed more than £10 billion in science and technology as it expands its Oxford site over the next decade. All of that is on top of our existing projects to improve wider transport infrastructure across the region, such as the upgrade to the A428, which is central to boosting connectivity between Cambridge and Milton Keynes. We are also supporting greater international links for the corridor through our championing of the expansion of Luton airport.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge set out, we need to develop a clear plan for infrastructure in its widest sense. We are therefore working actively across Whitehall and with local partners to consider the region’s needs in areas such as energy and water provision.
Layla Moran
I absolutely agree that the Cowley branch line is amazing, but I underline the point that the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) made about the Kennington bridge problem: there is a £70 million hole there. That matters, because the Oxford flood alleviation scheme will protect the Thames valley floodplain, the largest unprotected floodplain in Europe. If the problem is not addressed, the scheme will get held up, which in turn will stifle growth across the region. It is really important—small, but important.
Matthew Pennycook
I have already had a conversation with my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) about the importance of Kennington bridge to supporting growth and the transformation of Oxford’s west end, and I recognise the significant interdependencies with the Oxford flood alleviation scheme. The hon. Lady should be in no doubt, and my right hon. Friend is in no doubt, that I have made the point to Ministers in the DFT, as my right hon. Friend has done directly. We recognise the importance of the project.
Another key priority for the corridor is affordable housing, which obviously falls within the responsibilities of my Department. We need to deliver ambitious housing with a strong sense of place, creating sustainable communities with a high quality of life. That is why we are taking a strong place-based focus through the work of my Department in Cambridge and Oxford in particular.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge mentioned, we have established the Cambridge Growth Company, which is chaired by Peter Freeman, whom I met again this morning, to drive forward plans for nationally significant growth in greater Cambridge. We are committing up to £400 million to this work to deliver more homes, commercial space and jobs, and have recently announced our intention to consult next year on a centrally led development corporation for the area. As my hon. Friend also mentioned, appointing a high-calibre chief executive to that work will be vital. I can assure him that the search for an exceptional candidate will begin shortly.
I appointed regeneration expert Neale Coleman CBE to lead work on the Oxford growth commission, which is supporting a programme of work to unlock stalled development sites and deliver much-needed housing, including social housing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East will be aware that 60% of our £39 billion social and affordable homes programme is targeted at social rented homes. We encourage providers in Oxford and across the corridor to put in ambitious bids when the programme opens in February.
The corridor could also benefit from our wider work on the new towns programme, with three of the 12 areas highlighted by the new towns taskforce—Tempsford, Milton Keynes and Heyford Park in Oxfordshire—identified as potential sites for development. Looking at the opportunities at the sites will be a key priority for my Department in the coming months. As hon. Members are aware, we have already commenced a strategic environmental assessment to explore the programme as a whole and the most appropriate sites to take forward.
We are also putting innovation first by combining public and private investment to unlock growth and support essential infrastructure. That is why we established the UK’s first AI growth zone in Culham, and why we have been able to support the reopening of the railway at Cowley to fully connect Oxford’s innovation districts. As I think the shadow Minister mentioned, that has enabled us to invest £15 million for the Cambridge innovation hub, creating a world-class space for science and entrepreneurship.
The corridor is already a huge focus for international investment. Lord Stockwood is the Minister who leads on investment in the ministerial delivery group, and his door is always open for any investors who want to look at opportunities in the corridor. I am sure that hon. Members will be aware of Universal’s plans to open a world-class theme park and resort in Bedfordshire, which we believe will generate a £50 billion boost for the economy and create approximately 28,000 jobs. That is an example of the Government’s growth mission in practice and of our realising the opportunities for growth, despite the shadow Minister’s pessimism on that front.
We want to go further, however, and to be ambitious in our support for more investment across the region. I was really pleased that the Chancellor launched our new investment prospectus for the corridor at the regional investment summit in October. It showcased a range of significant opportunities across the region and will be key to our ongoing work to attract inward investment and drive job creation across the corridor.
Before I wind up, I want to stress the importance of the environment. As we drive forward our ambitions for the region, it is essential to address environmental constraints and promote sustainable growth. Water scarcity is a key risk to growth in the region. The Government are determined to ensure that we get the infrastructure in place so that businesses and communities can grow and thrive. As I hope hon. Members are aware, we have fast-tracked plans for two new reservoirs in Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire as part of a £104 billion private sector funding package. We are also implementing innovative approaches to water efficiency in Cambridge.
Pippa Heylings
I applaud the Government for confirming and recommitting to those new reservoirs. Will the Minister confirm that the Government understand that the new fens reservoir is enough only for the existing ambitions within the emerging local plan, not for the additional thousands of homes that are being considered by the new development corporation? We need to get the water scarcity group working together now to think about other options. Otherwise, water is a deal breaker.
Matthew Pennycook
I assure the hon. Lady that I understand the potential constraint that water may provide. The Cambridge Growth Company, working with local partners in Greater Cambridge, is looking at solutions that can be taken forward. As I say, water efficiency, as well as investment, is needed for infrastructure of the kind that she mentions.
We are recognising the importance of the natural environment by confirming that a new national forest will be established in the corridor to support nature recovery, create green jobs and ensure access to nature for local communities. That is currently in the planning phase, but further details will be released next year.
Lord Vallance cannot respond as the ministerial champion for the corridor, but I stress that this is an example of what mission-led Government means in practice. We have a cross-Whitehall ministerial delivery group that brings together all interested Departments and ministerial champions to ensure that our approach across the region is consistent, joined up and ambitious.
The hon. Members for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) and for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), among others, asked how we are to bring together and co-ordinate infrastructure and investment. There are nationally significant projects, such as East West Rail, but key in my mind on the planning side are the spatial development strategies that will be enabled through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill on a sub-regional level—high-level infrastructure frameworks for investment and housing growth that can pull together and co-ordinate cross-boundary in the way we need, supplementing national interventions.
I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge once again for securing the debate and for all the points that he made. I am more than happy to take up land value capture, skills and issues of interest to him. Given the number of meeting requests that I have had, it is probably time for another. Lord Vallance held some engagement sessions for hon. Members earlier this year; I am happy to facilitate, with him, the scheduling of another drop-in session so that hon. Members get the chance to raise specific issues.
The Government are going further and faster to deliver growth. The Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor is not a distant aspiration; it is happening now. It will happen in this decade, to address the point my hon. Friend made in opening the debate. We are building the homes and the infrastructure, delivering the opportunities that the region’s communities deserve and ensuring the corridor becomes a world-class innovation supercluster, driving prosperity for generations to come.
Daniel Zeichner
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his continuing support and interest, and I thank all colleagues for their contributions today. I think that there was sufficient interest to suggest that we reconvene once a year to have this discussion. We also heard a number of bids for the centre of the corridor. As we approach the quantum future, it may be possible to have more than one centre at once—who knows?
The key theme that has come through is the need for co-ordination and the fact that infrastructure has to come first. I am delighted that Peter Freeman of the Cambridge Growth Company has stressed that that will be his approach. That leads me to my conclusion, which is that it is important to maintain public support for this project. That will only happen if people can see that there is something in it for them. Better transport and environmental gain are key to that.
Thank you, Sir Jeremy, for chairing the debate in such a splendid way. I look forward to further engagement with colleagues.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor.