How a 245-year-old City firm stays ahead: Wedlake Bell’s Camilla Wallace on external capital, culture and what juniors want today

Today on the podcast I'm joined by Camilla Wallace, the senior partner of Wed Lake Bell, the 245-year-old city firm that prides itself on being in her own words, 1780, but contemporary. Millie has spent nearly two decades at the firm and is now leading it through a period of strong growth that seemed revenue jumped by 60% in four years. We get into why she is wary of external capital, how the senior partner role works inside a modern law firm, and why mental health has become one of the biggest issues on her desk. And because Millie is also one of London's top private client lawyers, I had to ask her about reports of a millionaire ex-DIS from the UK, what's really driving wealthy people to leave, and how she thinks policy makers should respond. Thank you so much to Lagora for sponsoring this episode. Lagora is the category-defining AI platform, empowering lawyers at top firms and in-house teams to achieve more with greater precision and confidence. It solves concrete tasks like document extraction, revealing it gets the firm playbook, and suggesting well-crafted markup directly in Microsoft Word. Already trusted by 250 leading firms and organisations across more than 20 markets, Lagora is setting the standard for how great legal work gets done. You can find out more at lagora.com. Welcome to the podcast, Millie. Thank you very much for coming on. Good to be here. Now, could you tell us a little bit about yourself, please? The quick background, then, Millie. Seeing your partner, Wenleit Bell, have been doing it for nearly two years now. I've been at the firm for 18 years, and I've been in practice for over 20. And I am, I suppose, a tax and a state planning lawyer. So in a nutshell, that is what I do. So it's a private client as your specialism, isn't it? Private clients, my specialism, exactly. Is that what you started off in the back in Microsoft? Yeah, so I did the traditional rotation, although I trained at an American firm, where instead of doing four seats as a trainee, we did six. So I had lucky enough to have a stint in Brussels, doing competition law. But when I got to the end of that, I qualified into private client, and then worked for MacFarlane's for three years, and I've been here for 18 years. There you go. Okay, so as you said, then, so you've been seeing your partner since the start of last year, I think, is when your term started, didn't it, a wedlock bell? Yeah, I'm always interested to hear from leaders like yourself, Emily, so tell me, how do you sort of define wedlock bells position in the London market these days? So we have been on quite the journey in terms of size. When I first joined, I think our partnership was less than 20 people. And we are now hovering over the 80 mark, and nearly at around 400 lawyers. So we have had a gradual growth, and we've been expanding. And we feel that we're really well placed, but we're still in this mid-tier market. We're covering off the sort of four main full-service strands of real estate, business, private client and disputes. Although only have one office here where I'm sitting near some pools, we do have clients from all over the world, so we have that influence and that global reach, but we don't have any foreign offices. Yeah, because I was doing a little bit of checking, then. I mean, the last three or four years, revenue growth has been super strong, but wedlock bell. Yeah, yeah, and I think it's partly organic, so quite partly from client demand, client's getting busier, client's being aware of us being more full, you know, what we can offer them. And then we've been quite strategic in terms of bolting on bits of business that we felt that we were lightweight in. So a few years ago, we merged with Moonbeaver, and so we've got a really robust restructuring proposition, insolvency proposition tier one, and sadly in time, so economic depression, but that can put you in a really good position. And we also have a tier one art and luxury assets team that they are the leaders in the country, and that has helped in terms of generating more revenue for us and being able to service our clients more effectively. So those are the kind of key growth areas for you, they're at the moment, the ones you've just described. They're talking in recent times, but we're always looking where, I mean, we are incredibly lucky. We have Martin Arnold as our managing partner, and he does not sit still. He will spot an opportunity for growth, or something to be tapped into. And yeah, it does its due diligence, and usually it's a success. So when you do your research on where Bill fell, you realise that it's been around for a very long time. I think 1780 is the year, and I was doing a little bit of digging. It looks like that's almost or is it the oldest law firm in London? I don't know, Farrah. I'm not sure. There are a few firms out there that are older, but we are, yes, one of the longest established. So tell me, with that kind of heritage then, how do you balance that against these days? It's very important, isn't it, to be perceived in the market as very sort of forward thinking and innovative. How do you balance those two? So we, yeah, we always say 1780, but contemporary. So we're quite innovative. We were one of the first firms to go almost paid for free. We were one of the first law firms to go almost completely open plan. We partners don't have their own offices. For years now, the senior partners had the same size desk as a trainee. So we've always been on the front foot in terms of change, and that is incredibly important, because if you just sit still, you can't cope. You can't cope with the extra compliance. You can't cope with the competition who are using AI. So we tend to push forward with innovation committees, looking at software, looking at digital solutions, and we just have to give that impression to our clients that we, oh, yes, 1780, lots of heritage, but no, we're modern and we're contemporary and we move for the times, and that's how we've survived. So how do you think then about technology and AI? Obviously, a massive topic in the industry at the moment. Every other day, it seems like a new legal tech company has started up and raised a big funding round. You hear about law firms signing on as customers to all of these products very frequently now. How do you think about that? Cautiously optimistic in terms of how it can help our service clients, but you really need quite a lot of safeguards. So we have built our own sort of AI within the system that if we put information in there, it's completely ring-fenced, and that can help at the start of a transaction, maybe a real estate transaction or a business sale. There is an awful lot of information that you need to get through, and you can put that into the system and get a summary, but you need to check everything. One of my residential property lawyers used AI to do some legal research, and you've heard this before, it makes up case names, and when you go back to the AI tool and say, that case doesn't exist, it's made up. Oh, yeah, try this one. No, that's made up too. So what we say to our junior colleagues, if you are saving time in research or due diligence, you need to have it double checked, you need to look through it, but there's a place for AI, and we've been using it for a very long time in some guys or another for automatically generating drafts and things. Are you using legal specific tools or more of the general purpose tools like a chat TBT and a co-pilot? They're legal specific, because they're bespoke to us. Yeah, it's built by our team with the help of Microsoft, and it's all. Okay, yeah, but not quite at the stage yet where you're using like a Harvey or a Legora or something like that. We are not. No, some firms are, I know. Yeah. So talk to me about the growth plans a little bit, if you can, Millie. So you mentioned that a couple of mergers in the last few years that the firm has been through. What are your plans on that front? How about things like international growth? As you said, you do only have the single office still in London, don't you? Yeah, so in terms of. I guess in terms of mergers, we've got no no plans really at all, although we're always opportunistic and I would say not. Never say never, but we are a single London-based law firm with a single office, and that's generally our mantra. If there was commercial sense, then we might look to expand our horizons, and certainly there is a lot of opportunity outside the UK at the moment. So it's. Yeah. Under consideration, as you would with any revenue opportunity. Yeah, I mean, so some of the, I would say slightly bigger firms to where like Bell, but in that sort of upper mid-market, you might say, they're very keen. You can tell they're making moves especially to expand in Europe. There was a sense that they're all pushing towards these big revenue targets. It's normally around the billion euro mark, isn't it? And then who knows what the next step is for some of these firms? Maybe it's a kind of transatlantic kind of play. But are you thinking that grand? Are you keeping it a little bit more constrained at the way? Well, we get a lot of our work because of our positioning within the legal market. Being that mid-tier firm, I don't know. and I think we would have an identity crisis if we suddenly merged with an American firm or became the London office of a European franchise. So no, that's not happening. But we'll keep an eye on opportunities on a very case-by-case basis. But, and also, I would guess, outside investment, just in case you ask any sort of third party injection of capital, we've seen a few, sadly a few firms go down that private equity route and it hasn't really worked out that well for them. We won't be doing that and we won't be listing, neither. We are custodians of this very old business, the AT partners or so, and we want to look after it. - So it feels like you feel quite strongly about that sort of external capital trend. - Yeah, I think at the moment, we're not, it hasn't worked out that well for some of our peers. - I mean, do you think that will change though? - Because obviously, the direction of travel at the moment is, well, we're seeing it, again, this year, there's been a number of, at the lower end of the market. Admittedly, a number of investments being made into law firms and there's a lot of talk now that it's slowly working its way up the hierarchy and some of the large firms will start thinking about it, whether it's for very specific kind of strategic purposes, maybe it's to launch a new practice or to expand into a new territory or something like that. So for you, you're very, it's off the table. - I would say that the moment you have outside capital and you have that pseudo-shareholder relationship, you've got a conflict with your duties and your obligations. What are you trying to do? Are you trying to generate profit to return it to your investor? Were you trying to service your client? And yes, as partners, we own the business and we'd like some profit. Thank you very much. But we must think of the clients. And I think that's where some private equity businesses have had challenges. You see that with fiduciary businesses that are bought by private equity funds and the client suffers. So that type of change in business strategy doesn't serve your client very well and we are a client service business. So it would be a big change. - Let's say some of your competitors, so your direct competitors decided to take that investment and you saw through that, that they were starting to expand maybe win work from the likes of yourself and others. Would that potentially change your mind? Because obviously, the legal market itself, the business of law side is super competitive, isn't it? So you don't want to get left behind. - Yeah, it's exactly. So that's why I would say never say never, Martin never stands still. If commercially, it looks like it could be a success and we didn't have to compromise our relationship with our clients, then win win and win. But at the moment, we're not seeing massive success stories out there and we're seeing client service fail and so on. - Are you having any inquiries from investors? - I'm not personally, no, but Martin might be. I am not, no. - Okay, okay, good stuff. Now, you are obviously senior partner at the firm, then Millie. So talk to me about how you define the senior partner role for a modern law firm. - So I'll do it by reference to what we have here, which is quite traditional. We have a senior partner and a managing partner. And the managing partner has no clients. In fact, maybe the firm is his biggest client and he does the nuts and the bolts and the operational under the bonnet, making sure that everything is stacking up. And at the end of the day, we're producing profit. I sit alongside him and I still have my clients, which is fantastic. So my role is very different to his. The senior partner role at this firm has three main functions. The first is the functional role. So I chair partners meetings, I chair equity meetings, I chair board meetings, these three types of meetings to make sure that the partners have a voice. And it's a very functional role that I perform in that sense. I then have an ambassadorial role. So that is my external role talking to you today, talking to other members of the press, getting out and about going to meetings, lobbying, all that kind of thing. That is my sort of diplomatic hat. And I am representing the firm. And then the third role that I have is internal and it's pastoral. And I have taken on 80 partners also as my new clients when I stepped into this role. And it's my job to make sure that they are happy and healthy and they have the resource that they need to service their clients so the firm is productive and profitable. And so I have then focused quite a bit and we can talk about it as we segue in or mental health with the legal industry because of that pastoral element to the role of senior partner. - So I suppose then it is the sort of traditional distinction between the chair and the CEO is how you sit. - Yeah, exactly, right. And what works well in our case is that we've got a CEO in Martin, who is a litigator, really commercial. And then we've got this chair in me that is highly empathetic interpersonal skills, private client lawyer, diplomat. So we together work incredibly well for the firm. And I don't know whether other firms have that split and what would happen if they had two litigators at the top and what if they disagreed. And I think some firms you do have stories where senior management don't get on, which is extraordinary because they're positions where you're voted on. And they usually contested. I had to go through contested vote with hustings and quite sort of pressurized environment of having to answer questions in person. It was a bit like a political vote and election on TV, you know? - Oh great, I love that. I love to be inside the room on those. Those are great. - Yeah. - And look, tell me then, today, what do you feel the sort of biggest challenges in leading a modern law firm? - Yeah, so the tech is a huge challenge. And in fact, we had an email only earlier this morning from IT to say that they had managed to prevent a fishing attack coming in, but it was quite sophisticated one. So we then had another sort of refresher on how not to full foul of fishing. But we are constantly bombarded by cyber attacks to get our data to hold us to ransom. So that aspect of technology is a real challenge and keeping up with technology and the changes AI in particular is pretty challenging. But on the flip side, you've got that and then you've got the human challenges. And I think, actually, Sir Charlie Mayfield's report published and I've much discussed today. - That in itself shows us that the human aspect of how we work is incredibly important. And I think the report said that there's 85 billion of cost, employer cost in people being off-sick. And so it is up to us as employers to really focus on mental health, on physical illness and make sure that we're being supportive. And I completely agree. I've had meetings, small and formal roundtables with Sir Charlie and Dame Carol Black, who I think invented the sick note. And in fact, we had a little vote on one of our sessions and we all agreed that her lovely sick note and she agreed to had to go because it had spun out of control. So we know that in quite a lot of cases when you're off work and off-sick, actually being at work would be a solution would be a good distraction for you. But you just need your employer to be more accommodating and more empathetic and support you whilst you're at work, whilst you're getting back to being fighting, fighting, firing and all cylinders. So I think there's a mixture of challenges at the moment with AI and technology threatening, threatening junior lawyers' jobs quite frankly and how are they going to work and how do you progress? - So you touched on some mental health issues there and I know one of the things you're quite passionate about, aren't you, is that? And you've even started a group, I think it's called Law Well, where you bring people together within the legal industry to sort of talk about these types of things. So within the legal industry specifically then, what's your take on the current sort of state of play when it comes to mental health? Because obviously, certainly in the last five, six years, it's become a very, very important topic, hasn't it? - Yeah, and I think, we live in a little bit of a bubble here at Wedlake Bell because we have a fantastic culture, it's one of the things that we're well known for. But when you broaden it out and you look at the legal industry, it's not that great at all. And I'm also a champion for Law Care, which is the largest mental health priority than the legal industry. And they released their report this year, Life in the Law 2025. And there's some really worrying statistics in that report. And I think, and I've got them just here, and it's at nearly 60% of people working in the legal industry reported poor mental wellbeing. 32% of those interviews said that they would leave the sector entirely, that's a third, and that is extraordinarily high. And there are other stats there, which perhaps we would need to interrogate a bit more, but sort of 79% of people saying that they weren't beyond their contracted hours. And 56% said they would leave within five years. That's still incredibly high. Over half the people working in the legal industry, the moment will leave within five years. And so we definitely need to take some action on all of this. And I was motivated for personal reasons, in that I'd seen a lot of mental health issues. Across my family, we have addiction. Unfortunately, last year, a cousin took his life, and I had burnout when I was 25. So through all of that, when I became senior partner and they asked what she wanted to focus on, I was doing an interview very much like this. And it was the week that Vanessa Ford Inquist had come back and published their report, and she was 47, with two young children, the same age as my children, and she had been working incredibly hard without any breaks, and suffered an acute mental health crisis and took her life. And that resonated with me, I work very hard. And I felt that we really, as a firm, needed to help others do what we do here at Wedlake Bell, but we can improve as well. And that's why I set up Law Well, which is predominantly private capital firms, because we have more in common with each other. And we just look at what we can introduce to safeguard mental health and wellbeing within our firms. I focused it on the senior level to begin with, but it's trickled down, and everyone needs support, whether you're sort of supporting the business in a non-fearning capacity or you're the senior partner. - So what sort of examples of initiatives have you rolled out then? - So a couple of things that we've introduced, one is called an anonymous learning reviews, and this is to do with psychological safety, and being able to fail at work, and learn from it without being judged. And so all of us make mistakes, right? We're human, it doesn't matter who you are, you will make a mistake. And it's really how you respond to that mistake, and how you deal with it that can't. And so what we see within the legal industry, is that those who are suffering from mental health issues, make more mistakes, and then they don't speak about it, they don't speak up. And they cover it up, and they keep digging, and the mistake gets bigger. But if you can have a means of anonymously reporting back to the wider group, this mistake was made, it was identified, and this is what we did. It enables people to realise that everyone's making mistakes, there is a solution, and it creates more transparency, and mitigates mistakes going forward. So those insurance premiums, the broker likes this initiative very much. It's like the black box inquiry after a flight. You know, when that hideous plane accident happens, the black box comes out, it's interrogated, everyone learns from it, no finger pointing, and you move forward learning from what's just happened, and that's what we've instigated in all the teams. - So what are your younger, more junior lawyers telling you that they want from their careers than these days? - Yes, it's quite challenging, 'cause I grew up in the era where you just literally said, what do you want, 24 hours of my day, you've got it, you know? And we have to recognise that that's not healthy, and we're not going to get the talented junior lawyers if we behave that way. So I would say that they're driven by purpose and autonomy, and people talk about work-life balance, but we have quite a good work-life balance at Wendell Bayl, but they want to have the confidence that what they're doing means something, that it is a purpose-driven business, and they want a little bit of autonomy, which I totally understand, you know? So that feeds into flexible working, having some time at home, being trusted, and just getting the job done without too much micro-management. So we offer that, right? So they only need to be in three days a week, and we offer a whole load of extra curricular activities and we can spend 30 minutes on a podcast, as I talk you through the choir, the football, the rounders, the sports day, you know? We do a load of extra curricular, which really helps our lawyers bond socially, as well as professionally. So when you are working in cross-practice teams, you already know each other. So we're a small enough firm for all of that to have full effect. But that point about purpose and autonomy, that's kind of a new thing, because when I was training, I was just fed work, and it was kind of, I'm working to make money. It's slightly different now. - And then do you think that kind of mindset, that culture shift has had any impact in terms of, you know, the firms or your lawyers productivity? - I think if they are autonomous, and they do feel that they've got a sense of purpose, they'll be more loyal, and then they'll be more productive. But if you're working within a toxic environment, then your heart's not in a, and quite frankly, you're not going to be working in a productive way. So yes, this is a virtuous circle. If you get it right, you will make more money. - And do you think the pandemic has played a part? - It certainly had an effect, actually. We did juniors who were training during the pandemic, suffered hugely. When you were a junior lawyer, you need to see how the partners talked to their clients, how they hold a meeting. You need to hear it. We often learned by IOS Moses, you're just listening to a senior member of the team on the telephone, and they had none of that. And I feel really sorry for them, and it was the same for the students at university. Their whole experience was not what they'd thought it would be, and I think the junior lawyers are catching up now, but there was a huge gap in their confidence, and you could see it in meetings that they hadn't really been to very many meetings, so they did work in a different way. But I'd say the pandemic's yesterday's used now. We don't focus on it. - Now, one of the things I wanted to touch on with you, Camila, is because you are a private client specialist, you will be very close to this, because lots of your clients are ultra-high-net-worth individuals. Now, it's very topical, isn't it, at the moment? It's been very topical for the past 18 months, I would say, but you see, seemingly, most weeks reports about a sort of millionaire exodus from the UK. So, our wealthiest, most productive people, leaving in droves. Do those reports match what you're seeing? - Yes. They do, and the thing is, it's not just the non-doms that are leaving. And I wish the government would understand that talent, home grain, domestic, British citizens are also leaving too. So, non-doms came, they had a special tax regime that has changed, and a lot of them returned to their home jurisdiction, or went off to one of the favourites and, you know, divine, ultra-portuguesely, wherever. But what we're seeing now is British entrepreneurs and talented British financiers, or lawyers, or accountants, or family office personnel, relocating so that they don't have to pay as much tax. So, yeah. But, while we saw, didn't we, a couple of weeks back, it was, you know, Revolut's Nick Storonsky. He's decided to move to Dubai. I think it was Dan Needle, the, you know, Clifford Chance's former head of tax, who's now sort of the most famous lawyer in the UK, I think. He did, he ran some numbers, and he said, you know, the treasury might expect to miss out on around three billion pounds worth of capital gains tax if Revolut decided to, you know, to IPO, because he's moved to Dubai. So, you know, this, this is real. I suppose one of the arguments people make is that, you know, specifically in relation to non-doms, is that while they were living here, they weren't actually contributing that much to the economy through their kind of tax revenues and the like, I am not close to that. So, what is the reality there? - So, I think that it's a little unfair, because actually what we saw, was whole ecosystems that built up around them in terms of where were they eating, where were they drinking, did they have a private car, did they go to the corner shop, where did they buy their food, did they have nannies, did they have housekeepers, did they buy art locally, there's a whole, did they shop and buy expensive things and all of that trickle down, all those activities employed people in the UK and generate more tax, so it's not just looking at how much tax were they paying personally, it's how much tax does one single wealthy person generate by their activities as well, so it's incredibly difficult to put a number on it but we have seen parts of London changes as everyone has moved to Milan, you know. Yeah, Milan seems like a hot spot and, you know, you mentioned there the kind of private equity folks but they hyped the carried interest tax rate, didn't they last or earlier this year it came into effect. Have you seen, as you said, has that triggered a sort of exodus of talent to Milan because you read a lot about that? Yeah, that's absolutely and I think Milan has actually got some issues in terms of its infrastructure because it can't quite cope, there's limited amount of housing in Milan that that type of person wants and also the feedback I've had is that some are enjoying it but they're missing London. They've moved from somewhere that is one of the best cities in the world to a much smaller city in Europe and it has a very different feel to it and if they could be enticed back and they were promised with some stability then they might come back. So maybe taking your sort of lawyer hat off for a moment, does it worry you the extent of this exodus from the UK? Yeah, I think it does. I think the UK is a fantastic country, I think London is phenomenal. We have so much to offer but when you overlay that with uncertainty and financial instability then people will not come to live here and they will not invest here and that's incredibly sad and on the back of Brexit, love it or lose it, we've got some issues. And what have you made of all of the various leaks and rumors ahead of the budget at the end of the month? I suppose talking about how it might impact lawyers in particular, you know, the potential to impose employers' nest insurance on LLP member drawings. What's your take on that? Do you think that's going to be a smart move? How do you think law firms and partners will respond if that were to happen? Yes, I think it's a little unfair since we don't get any of the perks of being employed, we're self-employed. We will not enjoy that. It will hit us where it hurts. Is it a good idea? I don't know, let's have a little think about those big firms. When it goes mid-tier as we talked, but those much larger partnerships, the international partnerships who are based here in London, maybe they won't want to have such a large presence in London and they will leave. Big American LLPs. And then you're seeing another excuse for revenue to go out the door as they relocate. But I think she might do it. Yesterday was the hint, wasn't it, that there might be this manifesto break. So I was really lucky and had a private audience with Alan Milburn recently with some clients. He had a wonderful turn of phrase. I think it was actually used to describe China's strategy in the far east in terms of strategic acquisitions. But it's this string of pearls, right? So he was explaining the Rachel Reeves has got two options. She can do a string of pearls, lots of little things, which on their own don't amount to much. But then, of course, the nettles is hugely valuable or just a simple manifesto break. What we've heard this week is a hint that she's going to prioritize national interest over political expediency and therefore we might have this manifesto break on income tax. But at the same time, she's still saying that the broadest shoulders are going to bear the tax. It's going to be a fair budget. She wants to be a labor chancellor and business will have to pay more in taxes. So I am not holding my breath for that and I see raised for LLPs not coming in. I think she's spoken to us in a really unorthodox, unusual way before a budget to manage expectations on, yes, the manifesto break. So that was a little hint to her to her labor MPs that she's going to do something drastic. But also to remind us non-workers and it does offend me that mine 14-hour days are not counted as working hard. But we will have a higher tax bill at the end of the day. So yeah, she'll be up there with Dennis Healey who I think was the last labor chancellor to raise taxes in 1975 which was before I was born. And I did actually read, I read on the FT this morning that so Alan Melbourne does the string of pearls and energy which I'm being a private client lawyer and love. But they were talking about Torsten Bell's Swedish smorgasbord. I don't know if you'd read that where there's a whole load of things on the table. I really hope if they do go that approach as well as a manifesto break that they do their homework because of wealth tax and an exit tax these these are the taxes that people are worried about. They don't work. They honestly don't work and wealth taxes are just in I think Spain, Norway and Switzerland. And they've been elsewhere. I think 12 countries have tried them in the past but they're very difficult to administer and you've got to value people's assets and how do you value private businesses? How do you value art? How do you value intellectual property? So I would hope they see sense and those kinds of taxes which people are worried about. And a colleague of mine said to me this morning she put the phone down and she said he's got a one-way ticket to Dubai on the 24th of November. This is an ultra-high net worth sensible gentleman who had said non-dom changes I can cope with. I'm going to stay. I love the UK and exit tax. No. That is grossly unfair. If I decide to leave in the future you're going to tax me on exit. I've got a one-way ticket to Dubai on the 24th of November. In the interests of actually raising some meaningful revenue but keeping our sort of wealthy people on side then what's the your advice to the Chancellor Millie? Millie's Chancellor for the day. I think she's got scope to break with Manifesto and on the basis of defence and health the state of the nation quite frankly she can do that. I think that's possibly coming down the pipe and that's what she's been telling us this week. If I had my way I would just and she's not going to do this but since you asked I would have a flat rate of 20% tax across the board. Across the board so I would have that at 20 percent. I'd have corporation tax at 20 percent. Inheritance tax at 20 percent, capital gains tax at 20 percent and income tax at 20 percent. I would be out of a job because quite a lot of my job involves choosing different tax rates but imagine if you had the flat rate 20 percent regime how many people would come here and spend money here and invest here and how many happy British citizens who've been living here all their lives would you have. I mean we know that when tax rates are lower you actually collect more tax. So that's my pitch. I like that one. It's very sort of very left field. I haven't heard it before. It feels to me like it's far too radical for any of our current politicians but anyway hopefully we'll see. Maybe they do roll this out in the end of the month. Let's see. Anyway, thanks so much for coming on the podcast Miley. I really enjoyed it. Great. Thank you so much Oliver.