Yes. So there would be expenses incurred in getting the story -- travel expenses, accommodation expenses, depending on where the story is, and yes, all of that would be auditable, have an audit trail.

That's correct.

So we have definitely seen that the usage of cash payments has gone down considerably. So I think up until December -- so we run over a financial year ending 30 June, so up until December, so six months, our cash payments were less than £50,000, which was significantly less ...

In March 2010, or around that time, we automated our expense system, so we -- it used to be a paper-based system and it went online and in conjunction with that, we did do a tightening up of the editorial expense policy. That was more in relation to the fact that ...

Yes.

So the way it would typically work, obviously a story of that nature is very confidential and very sensitive, and the editor would have a conversation with the CEO in relation to that story. I then had a courtesy call from the editor to say that he required the cash ...

That it is an exception. Certainly whilst I've been CFO there's been no other cash payments in excess of £50,000. There have been a couple that sort of are in the 30 to 40,000 range and we would pick them up via finance, because obviously we ...

That's correct.

That's correct. If any payments came to light that were above that, then I would expect they would either be approved by the CEO or myself. The Pakistani cricket story would be a good example.

No, I think it's probably useful to have a bit of context on -- the Times and the Sunday Times, I think -- you know, the Times has not made any confidential cash payments since I've been there as CFO. I think the Sunday Times less than 10 in three ...

It could say "football story" or "showbiz story", something like that.

It depends on the type of cash payment. So we would expect that there is paperwork, obviously, in relation to any of the cash payments, but exactly what it is being used for depends on whether it's confidential or non-confidential. So for the non-confidential ones, we would have the ...

We had the fundamental controls in place previously, and my understanding was that the editors were aware of the majority of cash payments that were made, but we didn't physically get them to sign, so there was no evidence that they had done that review.

I think essentially there's a couple of differences. One, we now require the journalist to sign when they collect the cash. So before, we did allow administrative members of the team or runners to come and collect the cash. So the journalist actually has to collect the cash and ...

Yes, correct.

Yes.

Yes. I think you'll note in here the only exception was on News of the World where certain desk heads could approve up to £2,000 without the managing editor's approval, but yes, up to £50,000.

That's correct.

That's correct.

Yes, it is.

That's correct.

Susan Lee Panuccio.