Mr Sobel highlighted the joy in Yorkshire when Channel 4 announced Leeds as its new home, expressing concern about potential privatisation. He noted that since 2009, £843 million has been invested in production in the north of England and stressed the importance of public service broadcasting model for independent producers. He also pointed out the corporation's resilience during the pandemic while other media organisations faced drastic measures.

Alison Thewliss highlighted Channel 4's impact on Scottish productions, noting £200 million spent since 2007 and the channel's commitment to increase spend in Scotland. She praised its efforts to bring under-represented talent into the industry and mentioned the importance of independent production companies supported by Channel 4 through various funds. Thewliss cited Blazing Griffin as an example, a company with 60 full-time employees that benefits from the terms of trade allowing ownership of intellectual property. She warned against privatisation, which could destroy a successful industry and its international trade contributions.

Andrew Mitchell stated that the proposals for Channel 4 privatisation are Government proposals and many Conservatives, like other MPs, are questioning them. He urged not to characterise this debate as a 'Tories versus Channel 4' debate. He emphasized the importance of independent media in safeguarding human rights and civil liberties. Channel 4, he argued, is unique due to its minority tastes catering, inclusivity, and trusted news coverage compared to BBC's more establishment nature. He questioned the evidence for privatisation benefits and called for an impact assessment before a decision. Mr Mitchell asked Mr Nicolson if his opposition to the privatisation of Channel 4 was based solely on ideological grounds or whether he would support it under certain conditions that could benefit public service broadcasting objectives.

Mr Carter praised Channel 4's role in fostering creativity and new talent, stressing the importance of its unique publisher-broadcaster model. He highlighted concerns about privatisation potentially damaging content diversity and investment in British film.

The UK Government's plan to privatise Channel 4 is unjustified, politically motivated, and vindictive. It undermines independent scrutiny and the success of public service delivery by a publicly owned organisation. Despite its record £74 million pre-tax surplus and contributions to regional development, the privatisation remains incomprehensible.

The Government want to ensure Channel 4 has a viable future in light of changing television landscapes and increasing competition from streaming services. He argues that while Channel 4 currently relies heavily on advertising, changes in the industry may pressure this model.

Mr Stone emphasised Channel 4's role in cultural exports and public service broadcasting. He praised its financial performance during the pandemic and stressed the importance of reinvesting profits into content production.

Jim Shannon appreciated the opportunity to discuss Channel 4's privatisation, highlighting its importance during the pandemic. He noted that 16% to 17% of viewers are aged 16 to 34 and that it has a reach of 51.1 million viewers. Shannon praised Channel 4 for its charity work but expressed concerns about programme quality and accessibility if privatised.

The privatisation of Channel 4 is an irrational obsession with no economic justification. The organisation has a record £74 million pre-tax surplus, supports jobs across the UK, and aligns with the Government's levelling-up strategy by investing in regional offices.

Mr Nicolson expressed concern about the potential privatisation of Channel 4, arguing that it would undermine its not-for-profit model and commitment to diversity in programming and staffing. He highlighted Channel 4's success in employing women, people with disabilities, and black, Asian and minority ethnic staff as well as promoting LGBT programming.

He criticised the Government's push for Channel 4 privatisation as ideologically motivated, not financially driven. He highlighted that despite challenges from streaming giants, Channel 4 continues to thrive commercially and critically. Viewing figures have increased and he accused the Minister of fabricating a crisis to justify privatisation.

Endorses the hon. Member for Wallasey's concerns about privatising Channel 4 and recalls his involvement in early broadcasting debates. Criticises previous attempts to privatise Channel 4 under various governments, emphasising that it is a matter of right or wrong rather than monetary value. Highlights the importance of preserving Channel 4 from foreign ownership, citing Canadian broadcasting history. Emphasises the value of distinctive programming and its impact on national discourse. Mr Bottomley noted that Members had read the consultation document and understood the Government's argument for change but challenged the necessity of a new owner to achieve these changes, citing examples like Royal Mail from 2013. Asked for clarification on the Treasury's role and highlighted the need for executives of Channel 4 to express their stance on ownership changes.