The specific powers, responsibilities, that we were allocated in 1981 highlight the approval of any candidate for the editorship. So we have had one instance since I've been a director, in the case of the Times, where the editor was leaving to go to New York and a new editor was appointed. The proposal for his appointment was put to us. We interviewed him, we spent a couple of hours satisfying ourselves that he was indeed the person who should take on the responsibility of editing the Times. So that was one very specific occasion.
By the same token, if ever there was a proposal to dismiss an editor, that would have to be put to the national directors for their approval, or if they chose, they would say, "No, we don't think that those are reasonable grounds to dismiss them."
Beyond that specific occasion, we've had a number of meetings, formal and informal, with the editors. We attend quarterly board meetings of Times newspapers Holdings Limited and we are constantly having to ask ourselves: have the editors got (a) the budget to do the job that they need, and (b) the culture of freedom that gives them the right to edit the newspapers in the way they want?
I think the best test of all has been the coverage of the phone hacking scandal, and here I'm not just giving my own view but the views of a lot of people who we have asked. Do they think that the coverage in the Times and the Sunday Times of the phone hacking scandal has been comprehensive and objective and fearless? And people like Anthony Lester have, on the record, said they think it has been.