Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor

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.

I thought the hon. Gentleman might want to intervene.

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?

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.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Absolutely, although I am puzzled as to the relationship between Ox-Cam and Northern Ireland.

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?

I was worried when the hon. Gentleman was not on my list.

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.

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.

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.

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.