Rare Diseases Strategy

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Ben Howlett]

I am sure that the Minister heard that and will pass it on to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon.

We also saw evidence of poor communication between the organisations responsible for implementing individual commitments and other stakeholders involved in the strategy. What plans does the Minister have to better co-ordinate that communication? Many patients do not have access to the appropriate treatment or information about their condition, and the barriers to accessing information about a condition begin as soon as a diagnosis is made. Unfortunately, that leads to patient care continuing to be poorly co-ordinated.

I know that the Minister is a superb champion for those with rare diseases, and given the rare condition that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, has, I hope that he provides more information about the Government’s commitment from last week. Hopefully they can commit to the Department of Health developing a comprehensive implementation plan that describes actions for its arm’s length bodies in particular. An implementation plan would offer direction to bodies involved in rare disease patients’ care, so that they can take action to improve the services that patients need. It would help patients to understand what progress is being made and to ask the right questions when it is not. It would also help to ensure that the needs of rare disease patients and their families are considered in decisions about patient care and access to treatments taken by bodies involved in the strategy.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I welcome the recommendations in the strategy, although I am concerned that the recent announcement on capping NHS drug prices will influence implementation. Muscular Dystrophy UK has said that it would have a major impact on drugs for muscular dystrophy and other rare diseases. Newcastle is fortunate enough to be home to the John Walton Muscular Dystrophy Research Centre, but support could be improved further by providing specialist psychological support for people with muscle-wasting conditions. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such support needs to be an integrated part of service provision for muscular dystrophy and other rare diseases?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Howlett]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and pay tribute to him for his work on rare diseases over the years. One of the first events I ever went to in Parliament was on rare diseases and was hosted by him. I could not have put it better myself. I will come later to my view that the issue needs to be thought about in a more timely way, potentially in a consultation and through some sort of implementation plan, which has been missing. It will impact not just people with muscular dystrophy, for example, but all those with the different conditions that he has championed in the past.

The four medicines evaluated to date have shown tremendous benefits to patients, and are life-saving and life-extending treatments. They are some of the most powerful and effective treatments for rare diseases ever seen, and the highly specialised technology evaluation committee recommended them for funding in England, but none of those life-changing medicines would have been able to raise the lower threshold significantly, and none would have been approved under the new regime.

If implemented, the plans will significantly affect patients with rare diseases and their ability to access life-changing treatment, at a time when we should be expanding access routes rather than limiting them further. The changes contradict the positive recommendations made in the accelerated access review and will restrict any attempt through the industrial strategy to position the UK as a centre for the development of innovative medicine. England already has extremely slow and limited access to treatments for rare genetic conditions; further narrowing of access routes will shut the door to innovation for our community of patients and families. It is unacceptable to implement such drastically damaging proposals just 18 days after they were announced. I therefore join the sector in calling for a pause in implementing the proposals and for a consultation and impact assessment.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kindness in giving way once again. The John Walton Muscular Dystrophy Research Centre was named after a peer, now sadly deceased, who also founded Muscular Dystrophy UK and saw over a long lifetime the importance of the UK’s role in innovative science and research techniques, and its economic benefits to the research sector and, more widely, our international reputation. The changes proposed to NHS England will do much to undermine that.

[Ben Howlett]

I think the sector agrees on that point, from patient groups to the constituents whom the hon. Lady represents, as well as all the people with an undiagnosed condition who might access the services of that facility in future and many others throughout the country. The Government need to rethink the implementation and ultimately introduce an impact assessment on that basis.

I know that several hon. Members want to speak, so I will conclude by welcoming the commitment and dedication of this Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, in providing a solution to our long-standing problems with the implementation of the rare diseases strategy in England. Following the publication of our report, I hope that the Minister will be able to provide clarity on the questions that I have asked. The UK is doing superb work and leading internationally on rare diseases.

O’Neill Review

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is right. I had a test myself at a drop-in session in Portcullis House that showed me that I was not ill—I did not think I was ill, but they told me that I was not, which was reassuring. Again, we need to ensure that prescriptions are given when they will be effective. One other area that we do not seem to have control over at the moment is the online sale of antibiotics: whether through UK-based pharmacies or those based overseas, it is too easy to access drugs without a proper prescription.

The second key point that the O’Neill review highlights is the need for a global public awareness campaign so that people are aware of the issues. Again on Twitter yesterday, a student who had undertaken some analysis said that 80% of the people she had spoken to had no awareness of antibiotic resistance. We need a significant national and international effort to draw public attention to the problem. As people have already said, we need a reduction of usage in agriculture. That is clearly set out in the O’Neill review as one of the four main recommendations.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about the dangers of antibiotic resistance. Does he agree that as well as not prescribing antibiotics for illnesses, it is important to recognise when there are alternatives that will reduce the use of antibiotics overall? For example, there is research being done at Newcastle University into using antiseptics for urinary diseases.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Yes, what we need is a mixture of solutions. The UK by its own admission is mid-range across Europe in its use of antibiotics in agriculture. That is one thing, but we have been world leaders on this issue and for me mid-range is not where we need to be; we need to be at the forefront and world leaders in terms of best practice, whatever aspect of this issue we are dealing with.

There are four key recommendations in the O’Neill review’s 10 main recommendations. The last one is on market entry rewards to solve the problem of pharmas not investing in research and development, as well as a possible levy on drug companies that do not invest in research.

Baby Loss

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I certainly do. Baby loss awareness week has been running for 13 years, but we in this place need to ensure that it affects policy and delivers better outcomes, and that when outcomes do not change, we hold the Secretary of State and the Minister to account. I know that they have recognised the problem, but we will need to see a change in the figures by 2020.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I want to add my congratulations to the hon. Lady and also to express my intense respect and admiration for her moving and evidence-based opening to this debate. She mentioned the Butterfly Awards. Daddys with Angels, a charity that offers online help for those who have lost a baby, is campaigning for a day—15 October—to recognise baby loss, as well as raising awareness. Does she agree that that could help to make us more aware as well as helping those who have suffered to gain greater respect and understanding?

[Antoinette Sandbach]

October 15 is the international Wave of Light day, on which parents across the world will light candles in memory of their children. I believe that a lighthouse in Scotland will be lit up for the first time in many years in memory of lost children. I agree that if we talk about the issues and really drill down into the causes, we can start to change the figures in the UK. Key to that is raising the issues here in this place.

Our final ask to the Secretary of State for Health and the Minister is for a bereavement care pathway for parents. That needs to involve an integrated support service, including counselling for parents following the death of a child. I am grateful that, as a result of the work of the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss and information obtained through freedom of information requests, the Department of Health has commissioned Sands—the stillbirth and neonatal death charity—to start developing such a pathway. It is clear that it will require clinical commissioning groups, GPs, local NHS trusts and healthcare professionals to recognise the need for these services and to support such a pathway, working together with the third sector.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[George Freeman]

My hon. Friend makes a really important and specific point. He is absolutely right, and that is one reason why we are committed to our seven-day NHS. It is improving—I can share the data with him—but he makes a good point, and that is one reason why we need to continue.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

8. What assessment he has made of the effect of changes to local authority social care budgets on demand for health services.

[The Minister for Community and Social Care (Alistair Burt)]

Good morning, Mr Speaker—[Interruption]—and everyone.

There is a link between adult social care funding and demand for NHS services. More recent analysis shows no definitive relationship, but Forder’s 2009 study showed a £1 reduction in social care spend increasing NHS demand by 35p. That is why Government have driven the integration of health and social care, and given councils up to £3.5 billion of new support by 2019-20.

[Chi Onwurah]

The Royal College of Surgeons has said that

“the new council tax precept will not raise enough funds for the areas of the country”

with the greatest need. In Newcastle, it will raise £1.7 million this year, but the funding gap is £15 million. Why is the Minister’s Government making my constituents pay more for worse social care, increasing the pressure on the NHS and causing misery for millions?

Antibiotics: Research and Development

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered incentivising research and development of new antibiotics.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time in this hall, Mr Evans. I am delighted to have secured the opportunity once again to introduce a debate on the increasingly urgent issue of antibiotic resistance. I first debated this issue back in October 2014, when I discussed the wide-ranging causes of antimicrobial resistance—AMR—and our urgent need to address the problem head-on.

Today, I will focus on the most pressing elements of the issue: the need to incentivise more research and development of new antibiotics so that we have new drugs coming on stream to meet our future needs. Before I discuss the development of a new funding model for antibiotics, I will briefly explain exactly why AMR is such a pressing issue. This is far from being a problem only for the future; it came as a shock when, before my last debate, doctors in my constituency told me that patients were already experiencing the devastating effects of AMR. Across the country, we are seeing an increasing number of patients in intensive care units who have resistant infections, meaning that there is no effective treatment available. Antimicrobial-resistant infections already kill some 50,000 people every year across Europe and north America, but sadly the reality of AMR today is nothing compared with the nightmarish scenario of the future. The initial paper of Lord O’Neill’s AMR review concluded that

“a continued rise in resistance by 2050 would lead to 10 million people dying every year”.

That is more than the number of people who will die of cancer, and it is double the number of people who will die of cholera, diabetes, diarrhoea, measles, tetanus and road traffic accidents combined. Some might say that AMR is the biggest threat to mankind.

We have also been warned that the secondary health effects of AMR could result in a return to the dark ages of medicine. Our national health service and other modern health systems across the world rely heavily on antibiotics. When surgery is undertaken, for example, patients are given antibiotics to reduce the risk of infection. In a world in which antibiotics do not work, surgery will become far more dangerous. Many routine procedures, such as hip operations, will become too risky for many elderly patients, depriving them of their mobility and their active lives. Cancer treatments such as chemotherapy supress patients’ immune systems, making them more susceptible to infections. Without effective antibiotics to prevent those infections, such life-saving treatment could no longer be an option. As Jeremy Farrar, a director of the Wellcome Trust, said:

“We are sleepwalking back into a time where something as simple as a grazed knee…will start to claim lives.”

Thankfully, medical opinion is, in the vast majority of cases, that the looming global crisis can be avoided if we take action, but it must be taken sooner rather than later. It is encouraging that there have been numerous positive developments since this topic was last debated in Westminster Hall. The £20-million Fleming fund was announced in March 2015, and it will support the delivery of action plans for AMR laboratory surveillance across the world, with a particular focus on low-income countries. Just before the 2015 general election, I was delighted that the Conservative party manifesto said:

“Antibiotic resistance is a major health risk so we will continue to lead the global fight against it, taking forward the recommendations of the independent review launched by the Prime Minister”.

I promise that that will be my last reference to party politics, because this issue has the support and attention of every party in this House. AMR is such a huge issue that it transcends party politics.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate on an important subject. Before he completely passes on from party politics—I agree that this issue cuts across all party politics—does he agree that the nature of antibiotics, and the fact that we want to use them as little as possible when they are discovered or invented, drives against the free market system, in which new products and services are used as much as possible? For that reason, the Government and the public sector must take action, because to be effective, antibiotics should be used not as much as possible but as little as possible.

[Julian Sturdy]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s last comments. She is right that antibiotics must be used as a last resort, which is why, as I will say, the current funding model for antibiotic research is broken, and why we have to correct it.

[Julian Sturdy]

My hon. Friend is right. Later in my speech, I will discuss the model of how antibiotics are used across the country. It is chilling how antibiotics are used in different parts of the country. Testing to find out resistance to certain antibiotics is also important before any antibiotics needed are used. It is not just a matter of how we bring new antibiotics to market, which can take 15 years; it is also about how we protect our existing armoury of antibiotics to buy us time for those new antibiotics to reach the market.

The £1 billion Ross fund was announced by the Chancellor in the spending review of November 2015. Some £350 million will be spent fighting AMR by strengthening surveillance of drug resistance and laboratory capacity in developing countries, and by delivering the new global AMR innovation fund with China. In January 2016, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, 85 major pharmaceutical and biotech companies agreed to the declaration on combating antibiotic resistance, which demonstrates the industry’s willingness to take up the challenge. Earlier this month, the Chancellor addressed the issue once again by highlighting the importance of AMR at the International Monetary Fund in Washington DC. He confirmed what the industry has long been telling us: that the reimbursement models for antibiotics are broken. I entirely agree that a global overhaul is required, and I will focus on that issue today.

Lord O’Neill has also backed proposals to change the way we develop new antibiotics for the marketplace. We all look forward to the AMR review publishing its final set of recommendations in the months ahead, and the Minister might be able to give us a firmer timescale for that review. In my previous debate on antibiotic resistance, I raised the key issues at stake in the growing challenge of this continuing problem. We know that using antibiotics inappropriately increases resistance and the risk associated with routine treatments. In the last debate on the subject, I mentioned that in India, many prescriptions are purchased over the counter to treat a wide variety of unsuitable illnesses, often with no professional diagnosis. Such practices compound the problem. However, it is greatly encouraging that many countries around the world have now woken up to the impending disaster that we could face if we simply do nothing.

As a consequence, things are starting to move forward, which must be seen as positive. However, the central challenge of getting new antibiotics on stream remains. As the Chancellor said earlier this month and as we have heard, the current funding model is no longer fit for purpose. The O’Neill report makes it clear that it typically takes about 15 years for an antibiotic to go from the initial research stage to final delivery to the marketplace. For that to happen, a large amount of money is required up front to fund the project, at a stage when the company has absolutely no idea whether the drug will succeed. Astonishingly, only about 2% of products, or one in 50 proposed new antibiotics, successfully make it to the marketplace. In the vast majority of cases, large sums of money are invested with no financial return whatever.

Although to a certain extent that is true of the manufacture of all new drugs, the problem is far worse for antibiotics. Conditions such as cancer or diabetes often closely follow demographic trends, so new drugs are also used as the medication of choice for cancer or diabetes, as they are more effective than the older prescriptions. In the case of antibiotics, however, generic products can treat infections as well as new drugs for far less money, except where there is resistance. Furthermore, in the attempt to slow the development of resistance, new antibiotics are often held back and are prescribed only when everything else has failed. That is the right thing to do. The market for new antibiotics is therefore limited to a small section of patients, as new drugs are used only when existing drugs are no longer effective. They will be required as a first-line treatment only many years after their introduction, by which time their exclusive patents have often expired.

That may explain why so many pharmaceutical companies have, sadly, exited the market over the years. Of the 20 pharmaceutical companies that were the main suppliers of new antibiotics back in the 1990s, only four remain. Furthermore, only five new classes of antibiotics have been discovered in the last 15 years. Sadly, some companies are waiting for resistance to rise before they even explore the viability of investing in a new product, which is clearly not in the best interest of patient health and wellbeing, or of the future of health care as we know it. Under the current funding model, the profitability of any new drug depends entirely on how many units are sold. As discussed, that is not suitable for the development of new antibiotics. Incentivising the increased use of antibiotics only increases resistance in patients, which can have devastating consequences.

The O’Neill review therefore proposes the creation of a more predictable marketplace that will sustain commercial investment in antibiotic research and development. A key proposal that has the full support of many pharmaceutical companies is for profitability to be de-linked from volume of sales for new antibiotics. That would guarantee developers an acceptable return on their investment when they produce a new antibiotic that fulfils an unmet clinical need. That is especially important when volume would not be sufficient to make the product commercially viable, despite its value to the NHS. A de-linked model also has the added benefit of eliminating any incentive to oversell antibiotics needlessly as cure-all miracle drugs, which, sadly, still occurs.

Before being elected as a Member of this House, as many know, I was a farmer—a farmer who produces food, not a pharma who is part of the prescription sector—so I do not pretend to know exactly what model is right for our national health service. However, it seems to me that an insurance-based approach that shares financial risk is certainly worth the Government’s consideration. Providing developers of the most important antibiotics with a fixed fee would remove the current financial uncertainty from the marketplace. It would also limit financial uncertainty for the NHS: if there were an outbreak of an infection requiring the antibiotic, the costs would be capped at an agreeable level.

I understand that AstraZeneca and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry have been working closely with the Department of Health to develop such a model. We must continue to encourage innovation while doing what we can to remove the financial uncertainty of developing key new antibiotics. At the same time, it is essential that any new funding model provides the best possible value to the taxpayer. There should be no additional support in areas that are already adequately supported by the marketplace.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being generous in giving way a second time, and for making an excellent summary of the case. Although the state—the national health service—should share the risk, does that not mean that it should also share the benefits and returns? As the economist Mariana Mazzucato sets out in “The Entrepreneurial State”, where the state invests, particularly in services such as this one, there should perhaps be a return to us as well, so that the upside as well as the downside is shared.

[Julian Sturdy]

I do not disagree at all. There must be a return, in the first place, for the companies looking to develop drugs, or they will not come forward. Delivering new antibiotics must be viable. At the same time, it is absolutely right that if the Government, the NHS or, ultimately, the taxpayer invests in those drugs, they also must see the benefit and the return. When we talk about risk, we are talking about shared risk, and if we are talking about shared risk, we should be talking about shared return.

I hope to receive the Minister’s undertaking that he will continue to work closely with companies such as AstraZeneca and with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry to develop a model that supports innovation and removes financial uncertainty. The industry has asked for a clear timetable of action on the development of a new funding model, as it is essential that we turn our positive words into meaningful change.

However, it is worth saying that pharmaceutical companies do not have a monopoly on innovation, and they alone cannot solve the colossal problem of AMR. Within our rich medical marketplace across the country, there are a range of other organisations that are well positioned to offer invaluable assistance in this exciting area of discovery. In fact, the O’Neill review makes it clear that the research and development of antibiotics must be opened up, offering new opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises, academic research teams and not-for-profit entities to compete with established players in the market.

I am proud to say that one such charity is based in my constituency: Antibiotic Research UK, or ANTRUK, is the first charity in the world set up to tackle the challenge of the scarcity of new antibiotics to treat resistant bacterial infections. Some of the country’s leading scientific and clinical experts form part of this team, and they all share the same concern about the slow progress made in combating AMR, as well as a passion for taking practical steps to take up the challenge.

The charity has three key missions: first, to develop a new antibiotic therapy by the early 2020s; secondly, to educate both practitioners and the public alike about the threat of AMR; and thirdly, to provide support to patients with antibiotic-resistant infection. In less than two years, ANTRUK has raised over £400,000, and it is working towards a programme of developing antibiotic resistance breakers. This technique reverses the resistance and extends the life of existing antibiotics. ANTRUK believes that is the best hope of finding a way of breaking AMR in the short term. Basically, it is a way of buying us more time to develop new antibiotic drugs.

Charities such as ANTRUK are ideally placed to work with both the Government and large pharmaceutical companies in finding a solution to AMR. However, to maximise its effectiveness, ANTRUK needs our support. Despite being a new player in the industry, it is already demonstrating the innovative ways in which it can help to inform public policy on AMR, an issue touched on earlier in an intervention.

In co-operation with an analytic database company, ANTRUK has published a heat map of England that shows how the number of antibiotic prescriptions varies across the country. I am happy to show this map to interested Members. The results are absolutely fascinating. The research demonstrates that the number of antibiotic prescriptions being given is rising at an alarming rate in some of the most hard-pressed areas of England. The key findings are that there is a widening gap in antibiotic prescription. For example, doctors in London prescribe 20% less antibiotics than doctors in the north, and doctors in the most hard-pressed coastal towns in Lincolnshire, Norfolk and Essex are prescribing the most. In Clacton-on-Sea, the number of antibiotic prescriptions by doctors is almost double the national average. Furthermore, doctors prescribe almost 60% more antibiotics in December than they do in August. At first glance, that might not seem surprising, but many illnesses treated by antibiotics are not seasonal in nature. Is this another example of the potential misuse of antibiotics? On a positive note, it appears that the number of prescriptions peaked at 3.4 million in 2012 and has since dropped by more than 5%.

Such research is absolutely vital in the fight against AMR. It demonstrates how charities can complement the vital work of Government and the large pharmaceutical companies. Consequently, I would be most grateful to the Minister if he would agree to meet me and a delegation from ANTRUK to discuss how the Government can assist it with its mission to combat AMR. A key request is for a relatively small amount of funding from the £12 billion foreign aid budget to assist ANTRUK’s work, which could have a revolutionary impact across the world, particularly in developing countries.

I have already had one such meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who has responsibility for public health, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who is also my neighbour. Sadly, he could not attend today’s debate. That meeting proved to be immensely helpful, and I hope that the Minister will agree that charities, and not just the large pharmaceutical companies, have a key role to play in the fight against AMR.

Ultimately, antibiotics are often woefully undervalued, in the sense that their price often bears no resemblance to their overall value to society. Since Dame Sally Davies published her report on the threat of AMR back in 2013, there has been an unprecedented focus on the need to change how we tackle the threat of resistance. However, this concern and the widespread discussion of the topic need to be translated into action if we are to tackle the problem head-on.

Antibiotics are the fire department of our health service, and they need a better funding model. We do not pay our firefighters only when they put out a fire; nor do we think that it is a poor return on our investment when they are not in action. Instead, we ensure that we have a well-funded fire service in place at all times, to protect us in our hour of need. It is a service that we all take for granted, and exactly the same is true of our use of antibiotics.

It is probably fair to say that whoever discovers the cure for cancer will go down in history, but the pioneer who prevents a return to the dark ages of medicine through a new antibiotic discovery will probably be forgotten. Nevertheless, the clock is now ticking, and producing positive noises without taking action is simply not an option. I hope the Minister will agree to publish a clear timetable on reforming the antibiotic funding model, and I also ask him to meet me and representatives of ANTRUK, who I know have so much to offer in furthering the process of making our next great discoveries.

I hope that the Minister will work with Departments across Government to give due consideration to the idea of allowing a greater proportion of our generous foreign aid budget to be used in this vital area of study. We have the potential to be world leaders in this field. I have heard, as other Members probably have, reports that Sweden is exploring options for changing its funding model. We must not let Sweden steal a march on us.

It was British innovation that ushered in the golden era of medical discovery. Without action, we risk squandering that legacy for future generations, who may not have the benefit of antibiotics as we know them today. It is absolutely right that global action is required to solve what is ultimately a global problem, as drug-resistant bacteria do not recognise national boundaries. We have the opportunity to safeguard the future of medicine as we know it. To achieve that goal, we must both set the standard and rise to the challenge, and hopefully the rest of the world will follow us.

Junior Doctors: Industrial Action

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer]

I will join my hon. Friend. I only hope those on the Opposition Front Bench will also join him.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

The Minister has described those seeking to protect our national health service and their own work-life balance as being radicalised. Will he apologise for this insult to junior doctors and the English language and urgently seek a more consensual and inclusive resolution?

[Ben Gummer]

If the hon. Lady had been at the debate, she would know that I did not say that. It is important to understand that there is a wide gap between junior doctors and a few of the people who seek to represent them on the junior doctors committee, who have taken an increasingly militant view and whose motives, I would suggest, are not entirely in the interests of their members.