Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor

Debate between Richard Fuller and Daniel Zeichner

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[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 (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thought the hon. Gentleman might want to intervene.

[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.