Don't worry, Madam. I deal a lot with parliamentarians around the world, so it's no problem.
You are absolutely right, we cannot look at things in isolation. This is why you will hear me talk about governance as number one. I don't talk about parliamentary strengthening in a vacuum; I put it within the context of governance.
The judicial system also needs people to oversee it, and depending on what system you live in, sometimes the judges are finally appointed or approved with parliamentary consent. When we are in the field, we advocate that the different sources of power, or the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature, are not necessarily to be in confrontation all the time, that there are reasons for and benefits in working together.
The private sector would probably love to see not only a strong judicial system but also predictability in the legislation that comes out. Investment in the mining or oil sectors is a 30- to 35-year proposal. So five years after you've made a huge investment, which is usually very high at the front end, you don't want to find yourself being expropriated. I don't want to mention countries, but recently a Spanish company was expropriated somewhere.
I think this is the kind of situation we are in favour of: improving the overall governance in emerging economies as the best guarantee for investment. For example, KPMG has recently done a study on the ability of countries to change. They took 60 countries—these are emerging economies—and of the 60 countries, the number one country is Chile. Why Chile? Because they have a strong judicial system, a strong parliamentary system, and a good executive. They've reduced corruption to a minimum.
These are good examples to follow, and I think as Jim was saying, it's not what to tell them, but maybe share what works in other countries so that they don't have to reinvent the wheel.