Latest / Beyond The Ceremony: Modern Celebrancy. Unfiltered. / Beyond The Ceremony Podcast Episode 17: Marriage Law Reform
Transcript
- 0:00 So welcome back to beyond the ceremony. And I'm very excited because today's topic is a very, very exciting one. There has been a lot of change recently, or perhaps I should say there's going to be a lot of change to come in the future in the celebrant industry. And I have got a guest with us today who knows all about it, and hopefully can answer some of our questions, so I would like to give a very warm welcome to Professor Russell Sandberg, hello, Russell. How 0:27 you doing? Very good. Thanks. It's a pleasure to be with you. 0:31 Absolute pleasure to have you on now, Russell, we are going to be talking about marriage law reform, which is a huge topic in the celebrant industry, obviously across the country as a whole, but for us specifically, it's that question, Will we ever be able to legally marry our couples? So I think that's why it's been such, you know, an exciting time. But before we get into that, Russell, can you just give me a little bit of, you know, an introduction to yourself. Just tell me a little bit about what you do and your experience in kind of marriage law reform? 1:04 Well, I'm a professor of law at Cardiff University, and basically, over the last 20 odd years, I've been looking into several things, but one of them has been the interaction between law and religion, and that really sort of captivated my interest when I started, because there are so many developments going on in the field of law and religion, things like new laws on religious discrimination, dress cases do with religious dress, that kind of thing. And one of the controversies way back was a speech by the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and he gave this speech to lawyers in London, and he talked about sharia councils, and all hell broke loose, basically in the media as a result, because he was accused of sort of bringing in, trying to bring in Islamic law. And you know, it was on front page of every new newspaper, the BBC, nude images of stone in So this led to research into Islamic tribunals, Syria councils and other religious courts. What we found Dixon and we found several things of interest. And one of the things we found, which was kind of already in the literature, but it was interesting to just need first hand evidence of it was that there was a problem with our law on marriage, because a significant number of those who we use in this rear council had a religious marriage but didn't have a legal and a lot of them didn't know this, and so it caused considerable problems if and when the relationship broke down. So that was one of our main findings about research, was that there needed to be more education about marriage law, and then that sort of triggered the thought, but actually there might need to be reform of marriage law, and that started going on in the background. We can talk about that process perhaps later on, if you want. But as a result of it going on the background, that became slightly newsworthy, so I then jumped on that bandwagon in terms of writing a book a few years ago on religion and marriage law the need for reform, which was looking at what the Law Commission was doing in this area, and trying to make the argument that there needed to be reform, and also what reform needed to look at. So that's basically what I do. I teach law. I write about law and it. I tend to write about stuff in part, where it's newsworthy and where it might be changing or has changed, to try to make sense of it. And marriage law definitely comes under that 3:59 absolutely. So then you touched on very slightly about that marriage law reform, and what's been going on in the background. So what is that? Let's cover that a little bit more. What has been going 4:08 on? Well, I mean, it's, it's popped up at several instances over the years. As to be said, because our current law marriage is found in a marriage act 1949, and that basically consolidates a law which is older still. Yeah, and the history of marriage law, actually, if you look at it, is the history of change, and the history of marriage law having to adapt to change in social circumstances in terms of how people marry and how they value marriage. But that hasn't happened, as I say, since 1949 there's been a couple of tweaks to it, and no significant changes in terms of things like civil partnerships and then same sex marriage. But the actual law on marriage hasn't been changed. And this was brought up, really, when the government was. Uh, bringing in same sex marriage and humanists. Humanists, UK, as they now are, led a campaign at that time to say, it's time to legalize, it's time to legally recognize humanist marriage. There was two things. First was there'd be a consultation, and secondly, there would be a power given to ministers to bring in humanist marriage. And one of those things has was enacted, and one of those things hasn't been enacted to visit, right? Because there was a consultation. And the consultation basically said, Yes, we need to recognize humanist marriage. But it's more complicated than that. Wider reform is probably needed. There's bigger issues with the Law Commission to look at this. The Law Commission vented a scoping paper to see what the issues were, and concluded, yes, we need to look into this. They then waited the government of a day to commission that research, because the Law Commission is a body which exists, the government to basically say, we want this area of law looked at in terms of what reform could look like. So eventually the government said, Yes, Law Commission go and look at that. And then they looked at it. And there was two consultations. As a result of that was a consultation, a final report that came out in 2022 and then there was Tumbleweed in that nothing happened. There's meant to be a response to a Law Commission final paper within six months by the government. We had it in early October of this year. Yes, exactly, just over three 6:39 years. Little bit different to six months? 6:43 Yes, absolutely. So basically, the end of this rather long and convoluted story is that the Labor Government has now committed to marriage reform, following the law Commission's recommendation and following the schema presented by from regulated buildings to move to regulated people, officiants. And the next step now is a consultation, which we're expecting 7:15 at some point in 2026 7:18 and depending on result of that consultation, there will then be legislation to make the changes at a time when there is parliamentary time. So this is very much, sort of, not a short term thing. It's very much sort of, it's moving. My word is moved slowly. So far it will move slowly. In the future, there will be occasional sort of things with sparks, and the next spark would be the consultation. 7:49 Okay, so talk to us, then Russell, about that consultation. So what is that public consultation? How does that look? What's that going to actually be? 8:00 Well, we won't know what it looks like until it's actually produced, but what we do know is that in the letter from the Ministry of Justice to the Law Commission, they've indicated some things which they will be raising. And what was interesting about the press release was the press release was very much written in economic terms, but it also explicitly mentioned humanist marriage and it didn't mention independent celebrants. No, exactly, and that understandably led to some concern, because the law commission's work basically said it's going to be up to government to decide how wide to draw the definition of celebrant here. They could, if they want to include humanists, they could if they want to include independent celebrants, will produce a schema which could include both. But it'll be up to government to make that decision. Okay? Well, government has made that decision in relation to humanists. If and when there is law reform, humanist marriage will be 9:02 legally recognized, okay, yeah. So that's already been agreed, 9:05 that's been agreed in a sense, that was agreed back in 2012 Yeah. There's also been a court case where it's been made very clear by the High Court that not recognizing humanist marriages is discriminatory in breaches human rights. Yeah. So that is not a surprise. By contrast, it appears the government has not made its mind up in relation to independent celebrants. So it appears based solely on this letter, which talks about what the consultation will likely deal with, and uses that term, 9:40 likely, likely. Yeah. It's very 9:44 loose, yeah, absolutely. It seems that one of the questions that they'll be looking at is whether or not independence elephants will be included. 9:53 Okay, yeah, so if they given a reason why they wouldn't be included, have they given a reason why they think they. Are going to just draw the line at humanist celebrants? 10:03 Well, they haven't explicitly, but implicitly. It's quite interesting that a lot of the talk in this admittedly very brief letter is about making sure that wedding ceremonies are dignified and serious. Dignified and serious. Yes. Now in previous parliamentary debates about this and some in recent months, certain figures have come out against independent celebrant weddings, against recognizing them, legally recognizing them, on grounds that they are, quote, commercial celebrants, right, and that their ceremonies are not necessarily serious and dignified, okay? So putting two and two together, and it might be I'm putting two together and making five, making four, but putting two and two together, that seems to be the concern, because it's also worth noting that the law Commission's consultation on their proposals did not prove popular among certain groups, and there are vested interests here, which would be seemingly obvious, which will oppose wedding law reform, yeah, and it might well be that sort of, there's, there may be a strategy to direct their fire at independent celebrants, right, okay, rather than the whole wedding 11:47 before, right. Okay, got you, yeah, got you. Because, actually, as well, if you think when you look at a humanist ceremony and an independent ceremony, when it comes to weddings side by side, can often be very different, like very difficult to tell the difference, because a lot of them look very, very similar. I have some absolutely fantastic humanist celebrant colleagues, and I look at their ceremonies, and they look incredible and very similar to the kind of ceremonies that I deliver. So when you look at them, actually, there's not a lot of difference for them to be able to say about the dignified, you know, reasoning and things seems, you know, a little bit yes, yeah, exactly. But then, at the same time, the one thing that I think as independent celebrants, what we are trying to put forward as our argument, is that we don't have that belief system, that belief based system with our ceremonies, which means we're then inclusive of all belief based systems. So for example, if we have, you know, one person who has got a Catholic background, and then we've got one person who has got a Hindu background, we can create a ceremony that can marry those together, and bring those together and give a nod to both of them within that same ceremony. So I think that's where the discrimination side of it is very worrying, because it then would mean that if somebody is religious, but they're not, maybe the same religion as their partner who they want to marry, they then aren't able to do the legal ceremony alongside their celebrant ceremony, whereas, if they were atheist, they could use a humanist and actually could have that ceremony. So I think that's probably the concern for us as independent celebrants, that if we aren't included, we are then alienating so many couples who actually want to do it differently and do it their way, with a nod to their own religions. 13:46 Absolutely, I think, I think there's two really important valid points there which I think are going to be central in terms of responding to the consultation when it comes and sort of one is, as you say, it's very difficult in practice to distinguish between independent humanist ceremonies. And you know, in a law reform which is designed to make the law accessible and modern and fit the needs of modern aids, that just is nonsensical and just replaces one discrimination with another. So you know, it would be a welcome move to include humanist wedding ceremonies, but you're basically just moving the line of discrimination, yeah, and leading potentially to what's happened in some jurisdictions, apparently, where you know you've got situations where independent celebrants are pretending or calling themselves humanist in order to get legal recognition, which is not the situation we want, not at all. Your second point is also incredibly important and and very definitely worth making in terms of if the RE. Reason for extending recognition to humanists is on human rights grounds, is on grounds of freedom of belief. Then freedom of belief does not stop with isms, 15:09 yes, yeah, it 15:13 should also include other beliefs, and the only people who can really cater for other beliefs are independent celebrants for reasons you've explained, yes, be that interfaith marriages, as you've explained. But also, you know, there's a whole range of other beliefs which are protected the purpose of religion or belief, which wouldn't come under humanism, and in some cases, wouldn't come under the head of sort of non religious beliefs either, yeah. And you know, in terms of, if the purpose of a law is to allow couples to get married in a place and by a person which is meaningful to them, then, you know, I don't think it the line should be drawn anywhere. Yes, agreed. I mean, I think you know you can deal with concerns through other means. If you're concerned about it being dignified or serious, then the question is, which bit of a wedding ceremony Are you concerned about that with and okay, the legalities should probably be in the context of a serious and dignified part of the ceremony. That doesn't mean that other parts of the ceremony have to be equally as serious and dignified, assuming what we even know by the word serious and dignified 16:35 subjective, isn't it? Oh, 16:37 it's the euphemism. It's absolutely a euphemism, because what they're basically saying is, you know, not like them, yeah, right, yeah, it's, it's sort of, it's, it's snobbery, it's a euphemistic way you're obviously, yeah, yeah, yeah. We don't quite understand that lot, because, you know, in terms of whatever they think might be unserious and what 17:10 they might be undignified, is the one that gets me, 17:14 there's nothing stopping any other officiant from doing that. Okay, not registry, yes, that's a very set pattern. But, I mean, you know, you look at sort of, you know, religious acts, you look at what might happen in a humanist ceremony. You know, to some people that might appear to be not serious, yeah, to some people that might appear to be undignified and sort of, yeah, it completely and utterly depends on what they mean by that. 17:50 Yeah, if it's just a sweeping term that's being used to, you know, cover independent celebrants, I think it's it's very wrong, because, exactly like you say, I think that serious and dignified bit. Yes, for my ceremonies, for example, we'll have a lot of fun with their story, and we'll have a lot of fun with their friends and family, but at no point does that ceremony become undignified. And yes, okay, serious. There will be parts of the ceremony where we do go more serious. So you know, it might be that storytelling part, where that's the fun part, and we're having fun with them, but it's it's not, it's not that it's not serious and not dignified. It's that it's their personality. It's not a one size fits all. So that's the more personal part. Then obviously, when you go into things like the vows, the ring exchange, all those kind of things, that's where, okay, they would be the more tick box serious and dignified parts, because I guess that is the more serious part of the ceremony, the more formal part, or the more traditional part, whatever you want to call it. But I think overall, when you look at these ceremonies, you can't argue that an independent celebrate, a celebrant ceremony, is any less serious or dignified than a humanist one. I just don't think you can make that, you 19:03 know, decision a religious one, right? 19:05 Yeah, or a religious way Exactly. You know, the way I 19:09 look at this, right? Is, if you look at a religious wedding, there are bits of it which are religious, yes, there are bits of it which are legal, yeah, you might just change the word religious, therefore personal, yes, absolutely describe an independent web. Very true, right? Even, you know, registrar ceremonies have elements in them which are less formal, yes, than the tick box bit. Yeah, so sort of you know at the moment, who's to say, you know, readings, songs, you know, etc, etc, etc, you know, to me, that reflects the couple's wishes, yes, and you know, I there's, there's no problem with that being. Not serious, and, you know, undignified, because to some people in the audience and some people congregation, they might think it might be undignified to, I don't know thing Monty Python's always be of a bright side of life at the end of a wedding or a funeral or something. Yeah, right. But, you know, it's sort of, yeah, it's a very, very weird argument on paper, yes, which suggests there's something else going on underneath the surface, 20:32 right? Okay, and what do you think that might be? What do you think might be going on? Well, I think 20:37 what's going on underneath the surface is that sort of possibly thrown a bone to those who oppose marriage reform because of vested interests, because of traditionalism. Yes, I think that's, that's, that's a sort of an issue. You know, we're not going to do anything that's undignified or not serious. Yes, you know, that might be there. And as I say, I think it's, it's, it's the the fear of independence, celebrant slash, the fear of how far it could go. And to my mind, that's just utterly, utterly not nonsensical, because they marry, then it should be, anything goes in terms of the ceremony, other than the 21:31 legal requirements. Yes, absolutely, yeah. And I think, like you say, if there's the part, that's the, you know, the legal part, I mean, I've had some great conversations recently with Connie and Nicky, who are based in Scotland and Ireland, and they were saying about how, you know, they will do the legal part in their ceremony. But not a lot has changed since before. They used to do the legal part. And actually, both of them still offer some ceremonies where the couple choose not to do the legal part on the same day as well. But they said the difference, you can't even notice the difference between one of their legal ceremonies and one that isn't, obviously, there will be an extra bit of, you know, the the actual legal side of it, or legal signing, or things like that. But overall, the overall theme of the ceremony, the overall feel of the ceremony, is the same. I think what I need to do, Russell is invite a load of MPs to come and watch my wedding ceremonies, and then they'll see that they are definitely dignified. 22:21 Well, I think that's actually the answer, yeah, in terms of its education of people who will be making the decisions, yeah, and okay, that will be after the consultation. So it important to feed into the consultation. And you know, however those consultation questions are worded to, you know, to see what's behind them and and, and to battle that. But, yeah, there's still an awful lot of education needed here. Yeah, so in terms of what independent celebrants are. 22:53 So what can we do then, Russell as independent celebrants, what can we do to educate? Should we be writing to MPs. Should we be sending them, you know, videos from ceremonies that we've done? What do you think we should be doing? Well, 23:07 all of that. Yeah, to be honest, I think at the moment, until we've got the consultation, the more press of us put on them, in terms of education, in terms of saying, Look, this is an important issue. Because don't forget, you know, this is all still subject to parliamentary time, yes, so if it's felt that this is sort of desirable but not essential, then you know, other things will come before it, in terms of legislation. So I think say how important it is using the language of a press release, actually, to say how important it is in terms of economic benefits, yes, but also the social benefits and in terms of removing inequalities. And yes, you know, I think sort of there will be a battle to come to show that these fears are not, 24:02 are not well founded, yeah, not warranted, absolutely. 24:05 But I think also, you know, at the moment, the most important thing would be to show the need Yes. And you know where couples are willing, they are the best evidence of that in terms of showing, you know, these are couples who are currently used independent celebrants. Why they use an independent celebrants? What disadvantage that the current system is providing for them in terms of having to also have the separate legal ceremony? Yes, right, yeah. Who calls their wedding happiest days of 24:37 it? Yeah? Yeah, yeah, exactly. They don't want the two days. So 24:41 making that, still making the basic argument for reform, I think is needed, yes, definitely. Because I don't think it can be sort of just assumed it's a done deal, just because we've got this far. 24:54 Yeah, absolutely, I agree. And I think as well, like you saying about the couple's voice, I think that's something. Thing that's so important, like, I can think off the top of my head, four or five of my couples this year that have incorporated religion within their ceremony, and one of them, it was because they were a same sex couple, and their church, they were, you know, they went to church all the time, but their local church didn't want them to marry there, so we then created a ceremony for them that was about them, but also had touches of religion in there, which was really important to them. Then I had a couple who were meant to be getting married in the church, and then at the last minute, the plans changed because of something at the church, so they weren't able to so they wanted to reflect some of that in their ceremony. And then I had one couple who actually just wanted to have their whole wedding day in one place. They didn't want to have to go to a church and get everyone on a bus and transport to a venue. They wanted to do it all in one place, but they religion was important to them. So they had one of the sisters of the bride came up and she gave a reading and things like that. And then there was one more I can think of as well recently, where her dad was religious. So we all sang a hymn in the middle of their ceremony. And that is so important to them, and they wouldn't have been able to do that. They wouldn't have been able to honor those roots, and actually, you know, do something that was so significant to them, if that was a humanist led wedding. So I think that's where it is so important our offering that we can highlight that, but perhaps in the voice of the couples, I think maybe I need to get in touch with all my couples and get get them to write something down for me a little testimonial. 26:23 Absolutely, I think that's so essential. And, you know, these are things which those people who've been making these decisions are probably utterly unaware of, yes, yes, you know. And they are strong voices, organized voices around religions, around humanism, and so, you know, I think it's going to be important to have that strong voice around independent celebrants Absolutely. 26:51 Oh, thank you so much, Russell. That is so true. And also, you are a great advocate for us as well. And I think it's nice because you understand all the really technical stuff that maybe sometimes goes over some of our heads, so that is good, too. So I just wanted to mention as well, when we were talking about the way it might work, obviously Scotland and Ireland, we touched on very briefly, so they have a slightly different system, where, yes, humanists can legally marry, but also other non religious belief groups can also legally marry. Do you think we might adopt a system similar to that, where there might be belief groups 27:22 very, very likely, actually, in terms of, because otherwise, you know, the human rights arguments will will dictate that in terms of, you can't just go humanist, because the second you Do that, other non religious police will say, Well, hang on a minute. You're now discriminating against us. Yes, so the fact that we're looking at comprehensive reform, I think, means that it's going to have to be worded slightly more generally. But if we just recognized humanist marriage, important vote, that would be. And, you know, I think that posed all sorts of issues in terms of, if that becomes your Rigid line, and sort of, you keep independence the other side of the line, then that is not as rigid a line as you'd want. Yeah. In terms of, it's not a principled line, and it's aligned with, as we've seen elsewhere, people will cross by suddenly becoming humanist overnight, yeah, or suddenly adopting a non belief system overnight, yeah? And you know that would not be ideal in terms of England and Wales, yeah, but in my 28:32 opinion, and then, do you know much about Guernsey in Jersey? Because I've heard that it's slightly different there, where celebrants can legally marry. Is that the case? Or are you not sure? 28:42 Or, yeah, from memory, I think independence elements have been included there. So I think the rules there are slightly different. And a few years ago, I don't know if there's been changes since I wrote the book in where it came out, in 2021 has written just before that, and what I did in that book was I looked at the legislation which enabled these things in our neighboring jurisdictions. And so I was able then to sort of pick and mix from it, to be able to your look. This isn't impossible in England, Wales. Look at this is how 29:18 you do it, yeah. This is, yeah. It's already been done. Just copy and paste. Yeah, come on, 29:23 England, it can be a copy and paste, stop, yeah. There's some really interesting stuff being done in all neighboring jurisdictions, and slightly differently, as you say, and lessons that can be learned about how you define these things 29:38 absolutely, and how does it work. Then in Jersey and Guernsey, 29:42 I wouldn't know off the top, no, it was something 29:45 that, no, that's okay, something that maybe we can look at, and that's again, something we could highlight to MPs. Okay, so I have had a question from a fellow celebrant who was just asking who or what organizations will have a say when the consultation paper comes out. Is that something that you might be able to help us answer? 30:02 Russell, yeah, anyone? Anyway, it's a public consultation, so, you know, anyone can answer it as an individual, anyone can answer it as a group. So it'll be completely and utterly open. It'll be on government websites. There will be a way in which you then send a response. Sometimes it's been in the boxes, yeah, sometimes there's an email address, that kind of thing, but it'll be a complete the public consultation, as far as I'm aware. And so anyone can answer it in any capacity, and explaining the capacity in which you answering it does will be important, 30:39 yeah? And I guess that's something that we can then share with, you know, previous couples and things like that, that we could share with them, and they can have their 30:46 say as well. And, you know, it's sort of 30:50 being organized in response to a consultation. Is really, really important. Yeah, it can be spotted. So the opposition to the Law Commission staff. You know, they were able to go, actually, if we look at this, there's been a concerted campaign by a certain group just to say certain things, it can be spotted, yeah, but it also impacts the actual results. So unless it's spotted and sort of explained away. It was kind of did Yes, then, then it's important. So yes, I think it's one of those things where sort of giving a template is very, very useful, but then people answering it. 31:37 Yeah, absolutely, yeah. I think more sharing the link rather than advising on how to answer it, but getting people to I think the 31:45 results, yeah, where will be necessary, 31:51 yeah? Oh, yeah. Okay, yeah. That makes sense. There might be some Yeah, absolutely. And then another question that we had, do we have a timescale for wedding law reform? Has Russell got any idea of how long this might take. Great question, 32:04 how long is a piece of string? 32:06 You know, we've been told that the consultation will be next year, that will then run, I would imagine, for a period of weeks, if not months. Yeah, there will then be a pause while that information is analyzed, and government then reflects on what to do in relation to that, and then it's a question of, if they do proceed, finding a gap in a King's speech to put in the legislation. Wow. Then it would be, then it would be a question of the legislation going through both Houses of Parliament, there will be opposition, I would imagine, particularly in the Lords, to marriage law reform. Okay, you know, from the from particular bench in the Lord Yes, where people you know, wear particular hats, you know, bishops, yeah, but there'll be opposition there. And, you know, I think the biggest threat actually, is that it runs out of time. Yes, okay, because, you know, we're looking down the barrel, if opinion polls are to be believed, you know, we're looking down the barrel out of a different government next time. And you know this will not be something I would imagine, which would be their priority? 33:41 Yes, because I think there are quite a few humanist MPs in the Labor government. Is that right? 33:47 Yeah, there's a whole organization within parliament of humanist MPs, but it's not them which would concern me, because I think they will help move it anyway. They would. They would much rather have humanist UK position is, although they welcome the news, they would rather have their reform now. Thank you very much. Be able reform to follow, of course, so at least they they still want to be a reform to follow, yes. So I think the fact that they are humanists supporting MPs in Parliament at moment is not an issue in terms of marriage or reform. I think it might be an issue in terms of the exclusion of independent celebrants, and that might be an issue. But I think more generally, you know, 34:43 let's be clear about this. 34:47 A reform government, a reform UK Government, would have no interest in marriage. 34:52 Yes, exactly. That's the problem. They wouldn't want to do the opposite 34:56 in terms of, you know, there's, there's a strong. Strong traditionalist. There's a strong certain Christian perspective there, populist Christian perspective, right wing, populist Christian perspective, whatever you call it, absolutely, which would be utterly opposed to this kind of reform. Yeah. So you know that's, one of many reasons to fear that. So I think the key thing is that, you know this needs to be done whilst labor in office. You know 35:36 absolutely that, 35:38 I think, is the riskier is, is that sort of, and even while they're in office, in terms of, you know, background noises might distract them from social policies such as this, 35:54 yes, okay, yeah. So we need to keep it, you know, top of mind, and be campaigning and and writing to our MPs and all those things. So what? What would you say then, Russell, what is your advice to us as independent celebrants? What can we do to help play our part in hopefully making a difference and and meaning that we will have the rights to be able to legally marry one day as well 36:15 start or keep building those relationships with MPs. You can only contact your MP Yep. So you can't contact other MPs, but you can make the contact with your MP, make that link so you are ready for the consultation, and based on what we think the consultation paper is going to be about, get ready to fight, okay, yeah, fight not just for the need for marriage law reform. Like I say, I don't think that fight has been, you know, it's that fight is not one into this one, yeah. But the more important fight now is that independent celebrants should be 36:51 included, included, yeah. So it's for all celebrants to be able to legally marry, not just humanists. 36:56 And, you know, use their language back at them. You're talking about an accessible marriage law. If you're talking about the ability to marry, to marry on the beach, if you're talking about a law which is equal, then replacing one set of discrimination with another set of discriminations won't work, and is is unacceptable, 37:18 right? I'm going to be coming to you, Russell. I'll have your number on speed dial when I'm right into my MP Oh, well, honestly, thank you so much. You've been fantastic, and it's been such an interesting episode. And I know something that so many celebrants have been really eager, you know, to hear your your views on it, and your take on it and everything. So thank you so much, Russell for joining me today, and let's keep everything crossed. And you know, let's not go for luck actually. Let's make it happen. We need to. We need to just go for it. And like you say, get ready to fight the fight. 37:47 Absolutely fantastic to speak to you today. Thanks. Russell. Transcribed by https://otter.ai