Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.