Speeches by Hinds.

“First, my sympathies to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent’s family in that terrible case. I do agree, and those are points I will come on to. Identifying vulnerable users is vital; some will already be known to the communications providers, but the list of vulnerable customers is further expanded by data-sharing agreeme…”

“The hon. Lady is, of course, right. My constituency is not quite as rural as hers, but it is true that, while it sounds great when people talk about reaching 95%, 97% or 98% of households, hon. Members in this Chamber represent the 2%, the 3%, and the 5%, and we absolutely need a robust, reliable solution for them as w…”

“I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that we need to find robust solutions.”

“I have heard that suggestion; it is interesting and something to be explored, but I do not think it is a substitute, particularly for elderly and infirm people who need that contact at home. My focus today, however, is not only on the elderly, infirm and the vulnerable; it is on anyone, because anyone can be vulnerable…”

“This may be the last thing in the debate, but it is important to say that in many of our constituencies, there are places where people cannot make a voice call on a mobile telephone indoors. That is what an elderly person would be trying to do. It is not about a data transaction; it is about being able to make a phone …”

“I hope you will keep this Committee updated as those conversations progress. Thank you.”

“I said that was my last question—I forgot I had one more. What is the future of Channel 4 FactCheck? In the fact-checking space, it is one of the few proper brands that pre-existed fact checking, which can itself be occasionally questionable. How are you going to bolster that sub-brand if that is part of your strategy?”

“My last question is on a slightly different theme. I pay tribute to what Channel 4 does on social mobility, which I think is a great example, but when you say you are going to employ more working-class people, how can you do that unless you mean you are going to have more manual labour jobs?”

“You surprise me, Alex.”

“I wanted to ask you the same question that I asked the BBC when we had them two or three weeks ago. Is it really a stable equilibrium to have in tele a situation where every what we used to call broadcaster tries to have its own owned distribution channel, unlike in music, where there is not a Sony, a BMG or this, that…”

“YouTube is only one third party. You also have all manner of social media platforms. I am particularly interested in factual content and news content. There is this issue about brand flattening, where people say, “Well, I saw it on my phone,” not, “I saw it on Channel 4 on my phone.” If you do see that as an issue, how…”

“You mentioned earlier, I think, 14% growth in the year on total streaming minutes. Did you hold constant on your owned platforms, and the increment is all third parties? What is the mix? What would the number be if you just talked about owned platforms?”

“From the point of view of your P&L, what matters is the amount of revenue per half-hour presumably, not per ad?”

“And the same number of ads or the same number of minutes per half hour?”

“You say that is within 10% to 20%, so for a like-for-like, let’s say, half-hour, full-programme stream—”

“Okay, and who else has that kind of arrangement?”

“Is it done on a revenue share basis, then, with YouTube?”

“Forgive me, I am asking about not the distinction between digital and linear but the distinction between one type of digital and third-party digital.”

“Can we come back to distribution of your content through different channels? Talk me through the economics, relatively, of something being streamed on an owned platform versus a third party, most obviously YouTube?”

“Has anybody answered your call?”