Caroline Norbury: Pooling Pension Power – a cultural renaissance or a creative opportunity missed?

When the Chancellor unveiled her vision for consolidating Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) assets into colossal ‘mega-funds,’ the announcement felt like a rallying cry for ambition. Here was a plan to mobilise billions for national infrastructure and innovation; a proposal bold enough to address the UK’s entrenched economic challenges. Yet, as with any grand design, the devil lies in the details – and in the stakes for communities that could either soar or stumble under its weight. 

For the cultural and creative industries, this policy has the potential to be game-changing. Our sector generates £125 billion annually for the UK economy, flourishing on the energy of place-based investments. But here’s the catch: these investments aren’t dominated by glamorous, high-yield projects. Instead, the lifeblood of the creative economy often flows through smaller, community-rooted initiatives – a local theatre restored, a creative workspace reimagined, or a nascent cultural hub brought to life. These aren’t just projects; they’re the pulse of local economies and the social fabric that binds communities together, as well as acting as incubators for people and intellectual property. 

LGPS funds could be quiet enablers of this ecosystem, helping regional projects blossom. But what happens when the locus of decision-making shifts? If pooled funds gravitate towards megaprojects promising maximum returns, what safeguards will ensure that local investments – the ones that nurture both people and places – don’t get swept aside? 

The allure of consolidation is undeniable. Larger funds that are centrally managed have the muscle to back transformative infrastructure and clean energy projects – essential endeavours for national renewal. But scale can be a double-edged sword. In its pursuit, the nuanced needs of localities must not be drowned out. The challenge lies in creating a framework that elevates national ambition without sacrificing local impact. 

A truly visionary approach would balance these priorities. Regional leaders and pension committees possess an irreplaceable understanding of their communities’ unique challenges and opportunities. Their insights must be woven into investment strategies, ensuring that bold national goals don’t eclipse grassroots innovation. Equally, embedding flexibility into pooled funds – explicitly reserving allocations for place-based investments – could safeguard the lifeline for cultural and creative industries. Imagine a framework where the economic and social potential of a creative start-up or community-led arts initiative isn’t just acknowledged but championed. 

If the Chancellor’s vision can integrate these principles, it has the power to redefine not just how Britain invests, but what it invests in. The cultural and creative industries are more than economic contributors; they are custodians of Britain’s identity, resilience, and vibrancy. To overlook their value would be to ignore the very communities these mega-funds aim to uplift. 

The stakes couldn’t be higher. Done right, this policy could mark a turning point, stitching local vitality into the fabric of national ambition. Done wrong, and we risk a future where scale comes at the cost of soul. Let’s not miss this chance to build a truly balanced and inclusive investment model – one that recognises the value of creativity as a cornerstone of Britain’s growth story.