Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)

My Lords, there were comments last week about Canterbury Cathedral posting graffiti in the great cathedral as part of an exhibition to attract young people. Many people saw as it as an act of great vandalism. I rather saw it as quite avant-garde, experimental and exciting, but that is an aside. I hope that by securing the music and dance scheme, we ensure that we do not commit an act of vandalism against one of the great music traditions in this country, which is, of course, English choral music. I can use the opportunity of this very brief speech to praise the Church of England for its support of English music. We have more than 2,000 choristers and more than 207 cathedral choirs. When I was in the other place, I was lucky enough to represent a constituency that had chalk streams in it, a unique geographical feature of England and northern France, and we fought hard to preserve them. We must not inadvertently lose one of the most important music traditions in this country. In many respects, this debate is a metaphor for all Governments’ approaches to the arts. Nobody is suggesting that the music and dance scheme is under fundamental threat. It is part of the Government’s national music plan. It is ably supported by £34 million of funding. The message that goes out today from this debate, as it should for the arts in general, is: please may we have long-term funding rather than just one-year grants, which are impossible to manage? Three-year grants are not too much of an ask. Please, can we stop nickel-and-diming the arts budget? It is a pinprick on the Government’s budget. The budget for the music and dance scheme is a pinprick on their budget but the rewards are almost limitless.