Alcohol and Cancer

09:30:00

I beg to move, That this House has considered alcohol and cancer. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting us the opportunity to debate alcohol and cancer. This issue affects all of us; it affects our constituents, our families and friends, and our local health services. I thank the Alcohol Health Alliance and the World Cancer Research Fund for providing me with detailed figures and materials that helped me to prepare for this debate. As parliamentarians, we often need to know a little about a lot, but I confess that even I was shocked at how little I knew of some of the latest alcohol harms and cancer risks when I started to investigate this issue. I find it astounding that although alcohol has been designated a group 1 carcinogen since 1988—the same grouping as both tobacco and asbestos—almost 40 years later, this is the first debate in this place on alcohol and cancer. That speaks candidly to the lack of awareness that perhaps many of us have about alcohol. Were we better informed, perhaps we would pursue more changes to the drinking culture in our workplace. I therefore sincerely hope that we can do this issue justice and raise awareness—both among Members of the House and members of the public who might be watching at home—about the harm that alcohol causes, including cancer. Given the poor record of numerous Governments on tackling alcohol harms over the past 20 years, that is perhaps the least we can do. It is hard to argue against public health experts who say that we are amid “an alcohol harm crisis.” The figures are frightening, and they have been rising at an explosive rate since the pandemic. For any other health condition, a 42% increase in deaths over a five-year period would be treated as a health emergency, but for alcohol it feels like just another day in the office. Those statistics are only for alcohol-specific deaths, and the numbers spike even higher once alcohol-related deaths are factored in. I will return to that later in my speech, but I would first like to set the scene on alcohol and cancer. The reality is that alcohol is toxic to our bodies. Risks are present even at low consumption levels, and they increase the more someone consumes. That has led the World Health Organisation to declare in recent years that there is “no safe level” when drinking alcohol. Evidence now links alcohol to at least seven types of cancer, including breast and bowel, which are two of the most common cancers in the UK, and oesophageal, which is one of the hardest to treat. The other cancers that alcohol can cause include mouth, throat, liver and stomach. In addition, a new study released in May by the International Agency for Research on Cancer presented evidence linking alcohol to an eighth cancer: pancreatic cancer. I am afraid that it gets worse. In the UK, 17,000 cancers a year are attributable to alcohol, which is close to one in 20. When it comes to breast cancer, which is the UK’s most common cancer, research figures from Cancer Research UK attribute as many as one in 10 cases to alcohol. We are already at a diagnosis rate of around 46 new alcohol-related cancers a day, and experts have warned that if the nation’s alcohol consumption does not start to return to pre-pandemic levels, we could see an additional 18,875 cancer cases by 2035. With 46 alcohol-related cancers already being diagnosed every single day, that would add up to the equivalent of an alcohol-related cancer diagnosis for every Member of this House in just two weeks, which I find simply staggering. I know those are big numbers, but they are not faceless figures. Each is someone’s mother, father, spouse, sister, brother, colleague or friend. The harm is disproportionate, and it is concentrated in our most deprived communities. Lancaster and Wyre is ranked worse than the national average in four of the six key alcohol harm categories, including hospital admissions, cancer cases and alcohol-related deaths. Government after Government have not got a grip on alcohol harm, and our constituents continue to pay the price. My interest in this subject started just over 12 months ago when local stats on alcohol-related deaths were released. I was shocked to see my area at the top of the English league table. I thank the Alcohol Health Alliance for supplying me with so much information, including my constituency figures, in the lead-up to this debate, though it makes stark reading. We are a year into this Government and, if nothing changes and we do nothing in this Parliament, my local figures suggest that I will have to explain to my constituents why we did nothing to stop another 195 alcohol-related cancer cases, as well as 225 alcohol-specific deaths and 9,400 hospital admissions in my constituency alone. Doing nothing is not good enough. Figures in the north-west are not much better, with alcohol estimated to cost my region almost £4 billion a year. That pattern is repeated across neighbouring regions, including the north-east and the west midlands. Time and again, our most deprived communities suffer the most harm from alcohol, despite often drinking less than their more affluent counterparts. Alcohol harm and health inequalities walk hand in hand: alcohol-related deaths, alcohol-related cancers and alcohol-related hospital admissions. Those are people’s lives. They are being chewed up and spat out by an alcohol industry whose main concern is delivering the highest profits to its shareholders and board members, at the expense of our national health.

I congratulate the hon. Member on the timeliness of her debate. Does she agree that we need more research on the health costs endured by society and the NHS due to this problem? That has to be offset against the tax revenues that accrue from alcohol overconsumption. Those things have to be analysed and researched to address a worsening problem, to which she is right to draw attention.

The hon. Gentleman is right that we should look at the cost to our communities. This debate is specifically about alcohol and cancer, but other costs beyond its scope include the impact on the criminal justice system, productivity in the workplace and violence, particularly against women and girls. Alcohol carries many costs to our communities, but I would like this debate to be tight in addressing the impact on cancer and cancer deaths. I might sound dramatic, but I looked at a recent job advert posted by the global alcohol giant Diageo. It was bold enough to state publicly: “Our industry is facing unprecedented challenges from the WHO and its NGO network globally and regionally.” In response, Diageo is planning “a global approach to member states’ engagement, to increase support for our industry at the UN/WHO fora.” Although that is not surprising, I do not think it should be tolerated. It is for Governments to dictate our public health policies and to protect citizens’ health, as that is not in the commercial interests of multibillion-pound alcohol producers, which have no vested interest in protecting the nation’s health. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the NHS is often left to pick up the pieces of alcohol-related cancers, with preventable cancers costing the NHS £3.7 billion in 2023. In addition, findings published today by the Royal College of Physicians from a snapshot member survey report that 25% of respondents said that at least half of their average caseload is made up of patients whose conditions have been caused or exacerbated by alcohol dependence. A third of those surveyed report seeing alcohol dependence increase their caseloads. The Institute of Alcohol Studies reported that, in 2009-10, there were 1.4 million alcohol-related ambulance journeys—a staggering 35% of the total—and that alcohol-related A&E admissions accounted for as much as 40% of the total, approaching 70% during peak times. Alcohol is putting unsustainable pressure on our health service. The reality is that alcohol harms will increase. The number of alcohol-related cancers will in turn increase, and therefore the price tag for our NHS will go up, too. The national cancer plan, the men’s health strategy and the work to reduce violence against women and girls are opportune moments for the Government to recognise the role alcohol plays in all three areas, and I really hope that alcohol is given the required attention. We might expect almost 40 years of research to mean that the public are already very aware of the links between alcohol and cancer, but that could not be further from the truth. Recent polls commissioned by the World Cancer Research Fund for Cancer Prevention Action Week found that just 7% of UK adults know that alcohol increases the risk of cancer. That means that as many as 93% of us are essentially drinking in the dark, with little knowledge of the harms that our nation’s drug of choice is doing to our bodies. Even more worrying, one in four of those polled thought that no health risks at all were attached to drinking alcohol. We have a product that is linked to more than 200 different health conditions and injuries and is the leading cause of death, ill health and disability among 15 to 49-year-olds in the UK, but that staggering lack of awareness is leaving the public unable to make informed choices about what they are consuming. The situation is compounded by the fact that the alcohol industry is still not required to display the health risks of alcohol on product labels. It can pop a quick “Drink responsibly” line on the label, ignoring the addictive, harmful nature of its product, and walk away, washing its hands of the consequences. The industry has no interest in putting health information on product labels and, in fact, it is actively mobilising against it. I hope that the Minister, a strong Lancashire woman, will hold her nerve in the face of the alcohol industry’s activism. We have previously seen such activism from the tobacco industry and in relation to anti-obesity food labelling. For the benefit of public health, I urge my hon. Friend to hold her nerve and stand up to it. I now turn to the factors driving alcohol harms, which, if left unchecked, will continue to fuel more alcohol-related cancers, bringing misery to individuals and families caught in the crossfire. I for one am increasingly frustrated by the lack of motivation shown by one Government after another in tackling alcohol harms. Back in 2012 we had a promising national strategy, which over the course of that year was eroded and undone until very little remained. There has since been no national alcohol strategy, and the 10-year health plan’s prevention measures on alcohol fall far short of what is needed. With harm rates continuing to skyrocket, it is time to look again at what we can do to reverse that alarming trend. The UK has astoundingly few alcohol control policies to mitigate the harmful effects of high alcohol consumption. The World Health Organisation recommends policies to tackle the price, marketing and availability of alcohol, which it describes as the “best buys” for Governments to deploy to reduce alcohol harms. Looking at all three, I am afraid my analysis is that we continue to fail miserably, and I will address them in turn. In the UK, alcohol is more affordable than it has ever been. Overall, it has become 14% more affordable since 2010, but we can go back even further. Since 1987, off-licence wine and spirits have become 163% more affordable. Drinking patterns have also changed in that time. Almost 80% of alcohol is now purchased from supermarkets and off-licences for home consumption. That is driving people out of supervised and safer community drinking environments, such as pubs, bars and restaurants, and into the unseen confines of the home, where harms stay hidden. Policies such as minimum unit pricing in Scotland have been bold steps to tackle the affordability of alcohol. Public Health Scotland’s comprehensive evaluation of MUP concluded that it has resulted in alcohol-specific deaths reducing by 13.4%. Were the Government to implement MUP in England, it could be a public health legacy we could be proud of. Instead, we are watching as first Wales and then Northern Ireland are moving to implement MUP in their respective nations, leaving England as the outlier. I was baffled to hear rumours about MUP being included in the 10-year health plan and then subsequently removed. Will the Minister share her thoughts on that? Availability is the second of the WHO’s “best buy” policy areas, but I am afraid we are not doing much better on that. Without public health as a licensing objective, local authorities have their hands tied when it comes to rejecting licensing applications on public health grounds, including in respect of moves to sell alcohol in areas where there is a real and persistent public health concern, or in areas that are already saturated. Licensing laws also struggle to keep up with newer forms of consumption. Rapid home deliveries and online sales mean that those who are already struggling can have alcohol delivered to their door at any time, day or night, with almost no protections or safeguards in place. The WHO’s third “best buy” policy idea relates to marketing. I have particularly grave concerns about this, because we are lagging behind other countries when it comes to alcohol marketing restrictions. We do not have so much as a 9 pm watershed, despite alcohol being an age-restricted product. I started to prepare for this speech on my journey from Westminster back home to Lancaster last week, and it was shocking how many times I saw alcohol advertised on that one reasonably short journey. It was on billboards and bus stops, and I walked past posters on the tube platforms and in the walkways. On the final train, an advert on the screen advertised a thirst-quenching summer drink that was alcoholic. We all know the advertisements on the train Tannoy: “The café in coach C is open for alcoholic beverages”—they often come at 9 or 10 o’clock in the morning. Alcohol advertising is absolutely everywhere, and we know it works because companies spend millions of pounds on it. Advertising is doing one thing: it is driving people to drink more, more frequently, and exposing them to far more harms, including alcohol-related cancers. I suspect we will hear arguments in the debate about the nanny state and the importance of free choice, but in a world where we are surrounded by relentless messages to drink alcohol, are we really making a free and informed choice? We are bombarded by industry advertising, sports sponsorships, celebrity endorsements, influencer partnerships, brand logos and product placements in everything we see day to day. Is it surprising that consumption and the related harms are rising? The industry has been allowed to go far too far for far too long, and it is fuelling alcohol-related health risks. There is now a serious need for the Government to step in. I fear that, four years from now, colleagues and I will not be able to defend decisions on alcohol harm to the electorate if the current alcohol trends persist and nothing is done. Although I welcome the measures in the 10-year plan to address alcohol labels and improve consumer awareness, in some respects a lot of the damage has already been done by decades of inaction, misinformation and spiralling consumption. Forty years on, the public still do not know the real risks to their health or the growing evidence that links drinking alcohol to cancer. In this environment, alcohol-related cancer cases will continue to rise. It seems that the horse has bolted, and we now need robust prevention policies, alongside the promised improvements to alcohol labelling, to even begin to reverse the damage. The consumption of alcohol must be an informed choice. I acknowledge that some people are predisposed to the disease of alcoholism, and society must do more to support and better understand that, but those who decide to consume alcohol still do not have sufficient information to make that a fully informed choice. There is no safe level of drinking alcohol. As I have pointed out, alcohol is linked to at least eight cancers, and every day 46 people are diagnosed with alcohol-related cancers. My ask of the Government is no more than to give the public information about alcohol and clear labels that make the link between alcohol and cancer.

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak in the debate.

09:49:00

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) for setting the scene expertly with all the detailed information we need. Before we started, she told me that this is our first debate together in Westminster Hall for some time, and it was a real pleasure to see her in full flow again. This issue affects so many people in every constituency. The debate is an opportunity to explore the issue further and see how we, and ultimately the Minister, can inform and aid people to make good choices about nutrition and health. I am not in the business of telling people what to do. I do not think that is the way to do it; we should try to coax. If we raise awareness of the issues, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre has done incredibly well, we will have a better way of persuading people to be careful and not excessive. I welcome the Government’s excellent 10-year NHS plan, which was announced last Thursday. All of us in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should be encouraged by the Government and Minister’s commitment to it. It is estimated that nearly 40% of cancer cases in the United Kingdom are currently preventable, caused by known, modifiable risk factors such as the food we eat and what we drink. I am a diabetic, and that is because of my own circumstances—I would not recommend Chinese and two bottles of Coke five nights a week, and lots of stress. It does not work. Unfortunately, I did not have the wherewithal to understand that it was the wrong thing to do. It caught up with me when I was 17 stone and heading for type 2 diabetes, as a doctor told me. The point is that I did not know, but I should have known, because the symptoms were there. It is the same for the symptoms of cancer. There is convincing evidence that being overweight, obesity, processed meat consumption and drinking alcohol are associated with increased cancer risk. Suggestions have been made that being overweight and obesity—this is really worrying—could overtake smoking as the greatest cause of preventable cancers in women in the United Kingdom by 2043. Some of the stats are incredibly shocking. Cancer research has highlighted that there are many ways that alcohol can cause cancer, such as through damage to cells and changes to hormones. Alcohol can increase the levels of some hormones in our bodies such as oestrogen and insulin. All alcohol has an effect, even a small amount. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre is right that it is better if we do not drink it. By the way, I am not telling anybody what to do, to make that clear, but it is about advice.

My hon. Friend is talking about an educational approach and trying to advise rather than force people; does he agree that the younger we start doing that, the better? Although they are not exclusively the target audience, we need to focus on teenagers and those in their early 20s, because lifestyle choices are made when we are very young.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those are, by and large, the factors that will indicate where someone goes in adult life and further afield. It is important to do that at an early stage, whether at school or in young adulthood. Hormones are chemical messengers, and high levels of oestrogen and insulin can make cells divide more often. That increases the chance that cancer will develop. Alcohol can make it easier for cells in the mouth and throat to absorb harmful chemicals that cause damage. There are signs that alcohol can exacerbate the chances of different types of cancer such as breast cancer and bowel cancer—two of the most common types—and mouth cancer. It can also increase the chance of some types of throat cancer, including cancer of the oesophagus, or the food pipe; cancer of the larynx, or the voice box; cancer of the pharynx, or the upper throat; and liver cancer. All those are potential issues. Cancer Focus Northern Ireland has highlighted on its website the fact that the consumption of any amount of alcohol increases the risk of developing cancer, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre said. Cancer Focus Northern Ireland also says that the more alcohol a person drinks, the higher the risk of their developing cancer. Reducing consumption or, even better, avoiding alcohol completely will help to reduce the risk. Cancer Focus Northern Ireland also highlights the fact that drinking and smoking together multiplies the risk of developing certain cancers. It is essential that we get the message across that just as we need to modulate our eating habits, we need to consider alcohol not simply from an addiction point of view but knowing that the links to cancer are clear. As with all things, it is important to educate young people, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said. We need to give them the understanding that alcohol intake is linked to overall health. This is a cross-departmental undertaking, with the Department for Education having a role to play alongside the Department of Health and Social Care. Perhaps the Minister could give us some ideas about how those two Departments could work better together to ensure that young people have a healthy approach to alcohol and less of a binge mentality. British women are the biggest female binge drinkers in the world. That is what the stats say. More than a quarter of British women consume more than six drinks at least once a month, according to a 2023 report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which compared alcohol consumption across 33 countries. Although the proportion is much higher for men, at 45%, the proportion for British women is still unmatched among female populations anywhere else in Europe. So we have a big job to do in encouraging a healthy attitude to alcohol. We must ensure that the messaging shows that it is an issue of long-term health, as well as one of short-term sobriety. To conclude, people must be free to enjoy their lives and have a taste of things in moderation, but the health of the nation depends on a healthier approach to alcohol. The statistics outlined in this debate, by others before me and by those who will follow, show that this is a matter of urgency. As always, I very much look forward to the Minister outlining how the Government can—with us MPs, on behalf of our constituents—change the approach to the health of this great nation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

09:57:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, and to speak in this important debate. I congratulate my good and hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) on securing it, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. It is always a mistake to start a speech with an apology, but I have a terrible cold and I can hardly hear, so please forgive me for my diction. I have a particular interest in this subject: I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on drugs, alcohol and justice, so I was keen to support the application to the Backbench Business Committee. I would like to make a number of points to the Minister on behalf of the all-party group, but I will also reflect on the impact of alcohol in the north-east, and particularly in my Easington constituency, where alcohol is devastating lives and families. In my constituency, the rates of alcohol-related hospital admissions, deaths and traffic collisions are all worse than the national average. We often obsess over statistics, but behind them are real people, families and communities, who are suffering from largely preventable harms. That is the thing about both drug and alcohol deaths, and cancers related to drugs and alcohol: they are preventable. My argument, and that of the all-party group, is that we must take the risks of alcohol far more seriously. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre said, alcohol is the No. 1 risk factor for ill health, death and disability among those aged 15 to 49. That is incredible—we are talking about the 15-to-49 age group. There is also a clear correlation with cancers; as my hon. Friend indicated the types, I am not going to repeat them. Although alcohol has always been a part of society, the rates of higher risk drinking soared during the pandemic. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre mentioned that. Perhaps that is understandable because circumstances had changed, many more people were working from home and consumption at home increased. However, we have seen little sign of returning to pre-pandemic levels of alcohol consumption. If those trends continue, experts predict an additional 18,785 cancer cases—a very precise prediction, I know—by 2035. The predicted rise is deeply concerning, given that the NHS is already struggling to deal with the UK’s current cancer burden. The hon. Member for Strangford and I have a particular interest in the all-party parliamentary groups on cancer, particularly the one on radiotherapy. We are aware that in April this year only 70.8% of cancer patients in my constituency were treated within the 62-day target, compared with the operational standard target of 85%. Once again behind the missed targets, people in my constituency, across the north-east and across the country are waiting anxiously for diagnosis and treatment. There is a clear correlation between deprivation and alcohol consumption. The two seem to go hand in hand. Researchers connect alcohol consumption to inequalities in life expectancy. People in poorer areas tend to live shorter lives than those in more affluent areas. There is also a link with violence, especially against women and girls, with a decline in social and emotional wellbeing, and with child development. The human cost is immeasurable, but the financial cost is also huge. It is possible to calculate it. Alcohol harm costs County Durham £277 million a year—over £530 per head. Across the north-east the total cost is estimated at £1.49 billion—almost £1.5 billion per year. The figures are stark, but not inevitable; all the costs are avoidable. Research by Cancer Research UK shows that around 2,700 cancer cases in England could be avoided by 2040 if just 10% of those drinking above the recommended levels reduce their intake by one intake category by 2030. There is no doubt about it—cutting down on alcohol can reduce our risk of cancer. How do we reduce alcohol harm? The Alcohol Health Alliance and the World Cancer Research Fund have both set out clear solutions: tackling affordability, promotion and availability. Although I acknowledge and welcome the Government’s 10-year health plan, which was released last week, it announced only limited measures on alcohol. Commitments on labelling are welcome, but they do not go far enough and are not proportionate to the scale of the crisis. I respectfully urge the Minister to consider further measures in advance of the national cancer plan, which is expected to be published in the autumn, and to work with harm reduction organisations, the experts in the field, and go further. Waythrough provides treatment and support to those suffering from the excesses of alcohol. It is also involved in the APPG that I chair. The chief exec, Paul Townsley, said: “Alcohol treatment and recovery support has a transformative impact on people, families and communities—we urgently need government to commit to a national Alcohol Strategy that increases investment in treatment and recovery, evidence based prevention, and addresses the root causes of alcohol harm that devastates our communities so unequally.” A little later today the all-party parliamentary group on drugs, alcohol and justice, which I chair, will launch a new “Action on Alcohol” document, which echoes the calls that have been made here and elsewhere for an alcohol strategy. In 2018, just next door in the Jubilee Room, I attended the launch of the “Alcohol Charter”, which made the very same demand. Let us not forget that, as the hon. Member for Strangford reminded us, the last alcohol strategy was issued in 2012, and since then the alcohol death rate has spiralled, so I would be grateful if the Minister outlined any plans she has to develop a cross-departmental alcohol strategy.

In Scotland, we have minimum alcohol pricing per unit. Will the Minister and the APPG consider that when making future interventions?

A number of positive suggestions have been set out by my hon. Friends during the course of the debate and by some experts in the field, and that includes the suggestion that my hon. Friend made in her intervention. I hope the Minister is considering the benefits and potential of them all. Will the Minister meet me and treatment providers who support the all-party parliamentary group on the issue to discuss solutions? I gently remind her that she agreed back in March to meet the APPG about drugs policy, and we still have not been able to finalise the date for that meeting. In my region, the organisation Balance does exceptional work in reducing alcohol’s harm, and it is the UK’s only regional alcohol prevention programme. Alcohol abuse is a huge societal problem in the north-east, and it should be at the forefront of shaping policy to reduce alcohol harm. Balance joins many voices across the sector in calling for a new dedicated alcohol strategy that prioritises proven measures to reduce the affordability, availability and promotion of alcohol. There is a clear consensus among alcohol and cancer charities that that is urgently needed. The Government must introduce a comprehensive alcohol strategy without delay. The UK has not had a national alcohol strategy since 2012, and we must catch up with global leaders and show that the Government are serious about tackling alcohol harm. I urge the Minister to commit to a comprehensive alcohol strategy that tackles the crisis head on, protecting lives, reducing cancer risk and lifting the burden from our NHS and our communities.

I will call the Liberal Democrat spokesman at 10.28 am.

10:07:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) on securing the debate. Colleagues have rightly focused on the policy requirement of addressing alcohol harm, not just for the health of our constituents but to address the seismic burden that the effects of alcohol place on our public services, particularly the NHS. As my hon. Friend mentioned in her excellent speech, inaction is not acceptable or sustainable. This debate is especially pertinent, as we now understand that at least eight cancers can be linked to alcohol following new research from the IARC showing the link, as my hon. Friend mentioned, between alcohol and pancreatic cancer. I would like to focus on the importance of early intervention in tackling excessive alcohol consumption. The UK consistently tops the table for binge drinking, and Scotland has long had a higher rate of alcohol-related death than the rest of the UK. More than one in four alcohol-attributable deaths were due to cancer. Furthermore, public awareness of alcohol harm is low, with polling research suggesting that 50% of people are unaware that alcohol causes cancer. Sadly, 53,000 people are hospitalised in Scotland due to alcohol each year. Although we may be tempted into complacency by data that suggests that young people are drinking less than preceding generations, the stakes really are too high when we look at the figures. That is why early intervention initiatives, such as the work of Community Alcohol Partnerships, are so essential. Early intervention can prevent such health challenges from arising in later life. Their work is driving young people away from alcohol in 300 areas across the UK. My constituency is home to the View Park and Bellshill community alcohol partnership, which was recently recognised as Scottish CAP of the year. It has gained recognition for its approach to engaging young people while also partnering effectively with the police, NHS, local authority, residents groups and retailers to tackle under-age drinking head on. The impact of that work is significant, with the latest national figures from CAP showing a 63% reduction in drinking among 13 to 16-year-olds. We know the impact of under-age drinking on those under 15, and the consequences that it has. There is, however, much more to do. I was pleased to sponsor the launch in Parliament of CAP’s report on the parental supply of alcohol recently. The report highlights that too many parents still believe that giving alcohol to children at home will teach them to drink responsibly or reduce the risk of them getting alcohol elsewhere. The report shows that every year earlier that a child is given alcohol, their risk of binge drinking, alcohol harm and health-related consequences as an adult increases significantly. CAP is set to launch a new pilot programme in 2026 aimed at preventing the parental supply of alcohol in six areas. I am very pleased that my area is one of those that is being looked at. Early intervention is critical in the battle against alcohol-related cancers. I commend the CAP report to the Minister and all Members, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre for bringing forward this debate and highlighting the importance of this subject for my constituents and for people of all ages across the United Kingdom.

10:12:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) for securing this incredibly important debate. Having represented the Fleetwood part of my constituency prior to the boundary review, she will know the way the health service in that part of Lancashire has suffered from chronic underfunding throughout the 14 years of Conservative austerity and neglect. My constituency suffers from more alcohol-related hospital admissions, cancer cases and deaths than the English average. It is a symptom of a community held back by low investment, industrial decline and neglect from national Government. I know at first hand the harm that alcoholism causes in communities and families; I have lost four members of my family to alcohol-related deaths. It was therefore extremely welcome to see the Government announce the 10-year health plan, but the plan must go further on alcohol-related diseases and cancers. Although measures such as new standards for alcohol labelling and supporting the growth of low and non-alcohol sectors are welcome, we should be far more ambitious. We have not had a dedicated alcohol strategy since 2012. The Government should rectify that as part of the 10-year health plan. However, there are immediate measures that the Government can take, for example, ensuring that new alcohol labelling includes an explicit warning about the link between alcohol and cancer; strengthening marketing restrictions by classifying alcohol as an unhealthy product; and acknowledging the detrimental impact of the industry’s involvement in policy development. It is clear that our current policy is woefully inadequate. Alcohol-related deaths are at an all-time high. We cannot be satisfied with our approach until the numbers begin to fall. We cannot afford to miss opportunities. Announcements such as the 10-year health plan must include a clear strategy to reduce alcohol-related deaths in future. That means introducing measures such as those I mentioned in my speech, but it also means addressing the root causes of poverty and under-investment.

10:15:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I very much appreciate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) securing this important debate. We vets often treat liver disease and cancers, but in animals they are rarely caused by excess intake of alcohol. On the few occasions that we use alcohol in veterinary medicine, it is therapeutic. It is quite common for cats to drink antifreeze, which causes kidney damage, and one way of treating that is to hook them up to a drip with vodka, because it is the antidote to antifreeze. That has probably saved the lives of thousands of cats in the UK over the last few years. I remember that when I was a student there was a particularly vicious boar that everyone was too scared to go anywhere near, but its feet needed trimming. The only way to get anywhere near it was to give it a huge amount of beer. It would get completely drunk and pass out, and then we could safely go and trim its feet. We had to repeat that performance every six months. That is my own experience of using alcohol in veterinary medicine. The point of this debate—highlighting the link between alcohol and cancer—has been made repeatedly by other Members. Most people are aware that alcohol causes liver problems, but so many people are not aware of the proven link between alcohol intake and cancer. We have listed at least seven related cancers, including breast, bowel and liver cancer. It does not matter whether the alcohol consumed is beer, wine or spirits; the risk it poses is real and increases with consumption. The mechanisms are well understood. We know that alcohol gets metabolised into toxic chemicals. It damages DNA and has effects on other hormones in the body that increase cell division. These are well-evidenced biological processes. Indeed, the British Journal of Cancer has found that between 2% and 4% of cancer cases in the UK are attributable to alcohol, which means that thousands of lives are affected every year, many of which could be saved through better public health, education and early intervention. I pay tribute to Professor Julia Sinclair, who lives in Winchester and works at the University of Southampton. She is a professor of addiction psychiatry and focuses very much on alcohol. I have worked closely with her, even before I was elected. We have had roundtables here in Parliament, including with the British Liver Trust; its headquarters are in Winchester, so I have worked closely with it. I have also spoken on panels at the Royal College of Physicians. All those experts discussed alcohol and alcohol-related harms. There is not only a human cost but an economic cost. Alcohol-related harms cost the NHS £4.91 billion every year, and that is before we even consider the wider cost to families, employers and society. Other hon. Members pointed out that the misery and loneliness of the pandemic resulted in people increasing their alcohol intake, and that intake has not really decreased since that time. That has resulted in alcohol-related deaths increasing by 42% since 2019, which means that over 10,000 lives were lost in 2023 alone. Along with the Medical Council on Alcohol, the Liberal Democrats are calling for a comprehensive national alcohol strategy that is properly funded, cross-departmental and informed by the latest evidence and public health expertise. Part of that strategy must be rebuilding and reintegrating alcohol treatment services, ensuring that addiction support is fully joined up with mental and physical healthcare. We have heard from so many doctors who talk about people being admitted to hospital for their physical symptoms to be treated, but once they have been detoxed, essentially, they are discharged without any automatic mental health support. Of course, that means that they eventually come back in for further physical treatment. They can be treated as many times as they need to be when they get to a physical crisis-point, but we are never treating the underlying mental health issue that needs to be addressed. We need to restore the public health grant so that social services can run alcohol cessation and early intervention programmes. We also need to invest in digital tools, including a kitemark for apps that are clinically proven to help people reduce their alcohol intake and live healthier lives. We must recognise the wider context in which alcohol causes harm. Alcohol misuse does not happen in isolation; it is often closely linked to trauma, poor mental health, loneliness and disadvantage. Crucially, alcohol harm is not equally distributed. As the Medical Council on Alcohol’s research shows, rates of alcohol-related cancer, liver disease and premature death are highest in the most deprived communities. This is a matter of health inequality, and it should shame us that we have allowed those disparities to grow. I was on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee for several weeks. Fascinatingly, Professor Whitty told the Committee that the Bill was not only the single biggest piece of public health legislation in about 30 years, but probably the most impactful piece of legislation in addressing inequalities, because health inequalities between the wealthiest and most deprived postcodes are so large partly because of smoking rates—and, we also know, partly because of patterns of alcohol drinking. We must see alcohol harm and alcohol-related cancer as preventable public health issues. That means that we need the political will to expand social prescribing to reduce isolation, deliver mental health MOTs at key life stages, open mental health walk-in hubs in every community, and legislate for a cancer survival Act to ensure that patients start treatment promptly and that research is funded for cancers with the poorest outcomes. Alcohol is a legal product, but it is not harmless. People have the right to know the risks and get support when they need it. We need to stop treating alcohol-related cancer as an inconvenient truth and recognise this as a crisis of alcoholism.

10:21:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) on securing the debate, and declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician. We have a complex relationship with alcohol. On the one hand, it is a very social drug that is associated with celebration, religious observance in some cases, and small amounts of alcohol with meals. In other respects, it is an antisocial drug that is associated with violent crime, domestic abuse—particularly in cases of binge drinking—and, in some cases, addiction and dependency. Does alcohol cause or increase the risk of cancer? Yes. We know it is metabolised into acetaldehyde, which can damage our DNA and reduce our cells’ ability to repair themselves. Alcohol changes chemical signals, particularly of oestrogen and insulin, causing increased cell division, and it increases the ability of the mouth to absorb harmful chemicals. It is therefore associated with seven types of cancer: breast, bowel, mouth, larynx, pharynx, oesophagus and liver. Risk also increases with consumption: small amounts of alcohol are not as risk-provoking as very large amounts. The medical officers recommend a limit of 14 units of alcohol per week, shared over three-plus days a week, with some drink-free days. One in five people in the UK drink more than that. Risk is dose responsive. Education is important; we heard earlier that only 7% of people know that alcohol is a risk factor for cancer. I was on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee with the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers). I personally promoted the Bill very strongly, but smoking is different. It is exceptionally addictive and kills two thirds of users if used correctly, whereas alcohol does not have that level of risk for people who use small volumes of alcohol infrequently, and in most cases does not provide the level of addiction that nicotine does. Life is full of risk. Obesity, processed food, ultraviolet light and infections all cause forms of cancer. Exercise is good for us, but again, it is not without risks to our health. I am not saying that we should not reduce the use of alcohol, but we must understand the risk in relative terms, and ensure that the population are educated about it and can make informed decisions about their lives. In understanding that risk, evidence is important, so I have some questions for the Minister. What is she doing to improve the evidence that we have on the risks of drinking and the risks related to different levels of consumption? How does she intend to ensure that the public are able to make educated and informed decisions? The “Fit for the future” document published last week talks of labelling coming in on nutrition and calory content. When does she expect that labelling to appear on packets? Hon. Members have talked about the number of units of alcohol that people drink. Many people do not understand what comprises a unit of alcohol and how to measure it relative to the different types of alcoholic drink. How does the Minister intend to improve understanding of units of alcohol? I was shocked by the statistic in the “Fit for the future” document that 4% of people drink 30% of alcohol. That is a really shocking statistic, and it is worth repeating: 4% of people drink 30% of the alcohol in this country. There are, to my mind, two issues for the Minister to consider: how the Government can reduce the consumption of alcohol across the board and how they should treat heavy drinkers and dependent alcoholics. Turning to the latter first, 4% of people drink 30% of alcohol and one in five drinkers drink more than 14 units per week. The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) talked about an alcohol strategy; I would like to know whether the Minister plans to develop one. One of the disappointing things about last week’s long awaited “Fit for the future: 10 Year Health Plan for England” document was that it did not contain the cancer plan, the workforce plan, the dental contract information or the HIV plan, which are all set to be published in due course. Perhaps an alcohol strategy could join them. The previous Government rolled out alcohol care teams, which were designed to provide the patient and their family with hospital-based community support, as well as data collection and research. It was found that, for every £1 spent on alcohol care teams, £5 was saved. Those teams supported excessive drinkers and focused on those with the greatest need. Can the Minister talk about how she intends to support those with alcohol dependency and high levels of drinking? Advertising is an interesting one. The newspapers trailed a suggestion that the Government would ban alcohol advertising. That was, perhaps, an informal U-turn, as it was trailed in the papers rather than announced to the House. We know from the evidence that alcohol advertising can influence brand choice, but it does not appear to affect overall alcohol consumption. Could the Minister enlighten the House as to whether that is why she dropped that measure? We need to be careful with the hospitality sector, which we know is reeling from the changes to the minimum wage and taxes such as national insurance contributions. We do not want people to be put out of business at the scale at which that is currently happening. It is important to note that general alcohol consumption in the UK is steadily declining. Between 2019 and 2023, the alcohol sales volume in the UK declined by nearly 10%. Revenue from alcohol duty is also projected to fall by 5% this year, according to data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. That shift is particularly observable among younger adults. Since the mid-2000s, there has been a cultural shift. Gen Z, as it is known, is the most teetotal generation in recent memory, and a quarter of 16 to 24-year-olds do not drink at all. A study produced by KAM and Lucky Saint found that moderation of alcohol has also become a habit for UK adults, with three out of four adults who drink alcohol stating that they have been actively moderating their consumption across 2024. Although raising awareness of the health risks associated with heavy drinking is an important part of the strategy, we must avoid punishing responsible drinkers and damaging the hospitality industry, which is already under significant pressure. NoLos, no and low-alcohol products, can currently be sold to under-18s. The Government have talked about banning that, which seems sensible to me when it comes to low-alcohol products, but how will the Government define a no-alcohol drink and when do they intend to introduce a ban? There is some evidence that no and low-alcohol beverages displace higher-percentage alcohol drinks, and therefore reduce alcohol consumption. What are the Government planning to do to increase sales of those products? The previous Government were planning to change an EU directive preventing wine from being described as wine if it did not contain more than a certain percentage of alcohol. I believe that fell due to the general election. Do the Government intend to bring that proposal back? Personally, I also welcome policies under which the Government plan to define no and low-alcohol products clearly, so that the public can be well informed on what constitutes “low” and “no” alcohol. I had presumed, before reading this, that no alcohol meant no alcohol, but it does not; it means a very low percentage of alcohol. It is important that people are aware of that. The Government have rightly emphasised the importance of parity between mental and physical health, and socialising and being part of a community are vital components of positive mental wellbeing. Pubs and social venues play a central role in our communities. In a recent survey, 73% of respondents agreed that pubs in the area have helped to combat isolation; 72% that they have a positive impact in the communities; and 81% that they are important in bringing people together. Ultimately, with more than 80% of the population consuming alcohol within Government guidelines, our focus should be on helping the minority who drink at harmful levels, and on improving decision making and education for those who drink at lower levels. We must work with industry to avoid policies that jeopardise the survival of community spaces, or lead to higher taxes for the majority of people who drink low levels of alcohol responsibly.

10:30:00

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart, as ever. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) for securing this important debate during Alcohol Awareness Week. The Government recognise that for too long there has been an unwillingness to lead on issues such as alcohol harm. It is unacceptable that alcohol-specific deaths are at the highest rates on record, having increased dramatically during the pandemic. As my hon. Friend stated, alcohol is a type 1 carcinogen, meaning there is strong evidence that drinking alcohol can cause several types of cancer, as well as contributing to more than 200 other health conditions, including liver disease, high blood pressure, stroke and heart disease. That places an incredible and preventable pressure on our NHS: in England alone, of more than 1 million hospital admissions last year, 103,000 were due to alcohol-related cancers. Today, we have heard from many colleagues about the variety of issues that alcohol can cause. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) talked about the cost to Government and to society, which I will address later; the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) discussed information and the importance of education; my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) mentioned the real impacts on communities and families in the north-east; my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill (Frank McNally) talked about how important early intervention is; and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) raised the links to poverty and under-investment. As for the impacts, alcohol kills. Last year, in England, more than 22,600 deaths were alcohol related, with more than 8,000 entirely due to alcohol—an all-time high, with rates still increasing by 4% each year. The rate of alcohol-related deaths is 1.7 times higher in the most deprived local authorities, meaning that alcohol is a major contributor to the levels of health inequality in this country. Alcohol also kills young—in 2015, in England, an estimated 167,000 years of working life were lost due to alcohol-related deaths. That amounts to about 16% of all working years lost. The hon. Member for East Londonderry asked about the cost to Government and society. Alcohol harms us massively. The estimated annual cost of alcohol-related harms in England is £27 billion, driven by the impact of alcohol-related illnesses and injuries on NHS services and alcohol’s high contribution to levels of economic inactivity, crime and disorder. Each year, £13 billion is raised in tax revenue from alcohol. The guideline on alcohol consumption produced by the four nations’ chief medical officers advises that drinking any level of alcohol increases the risk of a range of cancers, including mouth, bowel, stomach, liver and breast cancers, and that the risk of harm increases with the frequency and quantity of alcohol consumed. In 2020, alcohol was estimated to have caused about 17,000 new cases of cancer in the UK. One study estimated that between 2015 and 2035 there would be 135,000 cancer deaths due to alcohol in England. In terms of cancer risk, drinking a bottle of wine is the equivalent of smoking five cigarettes for a man, and 10 cigarettes for a woman. We also cannot overlook the impact that being exposed to multiple risk factors has in increasing the risk of developing certain conditions. For instance, the risk of developing head and neck cancer is 3.8 times higher among those who drink and smoke than those who partake in only one of those behaviours. That is why a holistic approach is needed to our health, with people supported to address all risk factors for poor health together. We are continuing to invest in local alcohol treatment services to make sure that people have access to the treatment they need. While those services are primarily focused on supporting people to become free from alcohol dependence, they are also an important setting for providing health information for people with alcohol dependence, identifying alcohol-related health conditions and ensuring that people can access specialist assessment and care. In the 12 months to February 2025, nearly 140,000 people were treated for their alcohol needs—9,000 more than in the previous year. In the coming months, the Department of Health and Social Care will publish the first ever UK guidelines on alcohol treatment. The guidelines will include recommendations on healthcare assessments for alcohol-related conditions and will strengthen pathways between specialist alcohol and drug treatment services and the wider healthcare system. The incidence of liver cancer has increased by 50% over the past decade and is expected to rise further. A large percentage of liver cancer is caused by alcohol-related liver disease, which in its early stages has no outward symptoms. If we can find liver disease by screening at-risk populations, there is an opportunity to halt its progress and monitor for the development of cancer. To identify people at high risk of liver cancer due to liver cirrhosis or advanced fibrosis, the NHS in England has been piloting community liver health checks in 20 areas, and liver primary care case-finding pilots across 12 primary care networks. Those pilot sites have screened nearly 125,000 people, and over 9,000 of them have been enrolled in liver cancer surveillance. As the Secretary of State has made clear since we came into power, one of the three big shifts that we want to see in the NHS is a shift from treatment to prevention. The complex challenge of cancer prevention will not be solved by a single solution.

I am listening intently, but I may have missed an important point, so I wonder whether it would bear repeating. The Minister indicated that a treatment framework will be published very shortly. Will that be informed by an alcohol strategy that the Government will also produce? We have not had one since 2012.

A number of hon. Members have asked about a national alcohol strategy. We are continuing to work across Government to understand what other measures might be needed to reduce the negative impact of excessive alcohol consumption. I meet regularly with Ministers from across Government to discuss how we take that forward. The drug and alcohol area of work is led by the Home Office. There are no plans to introduce such a strategy at this stage, but I expect further information on how we will deal with alcohol prevention and cancer in the national cancer plan, which, as I was just about to state, the Government will publish later this year. This plan will build on the progress of the 10-year health plan, which was published last week, and will continue the work to shift from treatment to prevention, including for alcohol-related cancer risks. We are taking steps now. The 10-year health plan for England includes an important commitment to ensure that health warnings and nutritional information are legally required on alcohol labels. That is a crucial step in supporting people to make healthier choices when it comes to alcohol. There is international support for that approach. The World Health Organisation’s “Global alcohol action plan 2022-2030” recommends that countries should implement labelling requirements to display relevant information to support health protection. Despite the fact that alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen, alcohol labels are currently required to display far less information than those for food, soft drinks, alcohol-free products or tobacco. We know that voluntary regulation does not lead to consistently good practice in alcohol labelling, so we need to ensure that there is a legal requirement to display certain information on alcohol products. We also know that consumers want more information on alcohol labels: a 2021 survey showed that 75% wanted unit information, 61% wanted calorie information, and 53% wanted sugar content to be displayed. Those results are supported by those of the 2023 alcohol toolkit study, which found that public support for health warning labels was 61.5%, and that 78% supported nutritional information labelling. There is widespread awareness among people in the UK that smoking causes cancer. That information is important to supporting behavioural change. But public awareness that alcohol is carcinogenic is far too low. In a 2016 study of 2,100 adults, only 13% named cancer as a health risk from hazardous drinking. Another recent international study found that only 15% were aware that alcohol can cause breast cancer. We will soon share details of our consultation to determine the best ways to get the necessary information to consumers. We welcome the support and input of parliamentarians in taking that important piece of work forward, but let me be absolutely clear: we will consult on how we will implement mandatory labelling, not whether we will do so. This Government are determined to introduce mandatory labelling for alcohol. We have also discussed various other options available for controlling alcohol consumption. My hon. Friends the Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor), for Easington and for Lancaster and Wyre talked about minimum unit pricing. The Government are acutely aware of the cost of living pressures being felt by families and individuals, and the difficult economic conditions facing the country. Although interventions that affect the price of alcohol have been shown to be effective at directly reducing alcohol harms, the Government have chosen not to pursue policies that could exacerbate economic issues at this time, although we will continue to keep those options under consideration. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is the branch of Government responsible for advertising and marketing. The Advertising Standards Authority is responsible for regulating advertising through codes set by the Committee of Advertising Practice and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice. Those codes are enforced by the ASA, include specific rules about how alcohol can be advertised, and recognise the social imperative of ensuring that alcohol advertising is responsible. We will continue to work across Government to consider what other measures might be needed to reduce the negative impact that excessive alcohol consumption has on health, crime and the economy. The Government are committed to shortening the amount of time spent in ill health, and to preventing premature deaths. The commitment to labelling in the 10-year plan is a crucial first step to support people to make healthier choices about alcohol. It is the beginning, not the end. We will continue to work across Government to consider what other measures might be needed to reduce the negative impact of excessive alcohol consumption. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre also talked about public health as a licensing objective. Evidence to support its impact is, at the moment, somewhat limited, but we continue to work with the Home Office to consider how best to use licensing powers to support local leaders to address alcohol-related harms. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington for his leadership on this important issue. Officials are considering that report from the APPG on drugs, alcohol and justice. I recently met the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), who leads on alcohol and drugs policy across Government. I will soon meet Lord Timpson to discuss those areas and their impact on prisons. We are working across Government. I would be happy to meet the APPG, as I have previously agreed. Diary pressures are very high at the moment, but I am confident that we will soon find time to do that. We have also talked about preventing under-age drinking, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill. There is a commitment in the 10-year plan to make the sale of alcohol-free drinks also illegal to under-18s, ensuring that no-alcohol and low-alcohol products do not become a gateway to standard-strength alcoholic drinks. On alcohol misuse and mental health support, raised by the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), we totally agree on the importance of mental health support. The Government are committed to recruiting 8,500 new mental health workers, and have already recruited 6,700. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), cheerily reminded us that all activities are risky. She talked of improving the understanding of alcohol dependency. She focused broadly on alcohol use, but did not necessarily mention cancer. To avoid digressing from the debate, I commit to writing to her further on the areas she raised more generally on alcohol policy. I thank everyone for their contributions to this important debate. We will continue to work across Government to reduce the negative impact that excessive alcohol consumption has on health—including cancer—crime and the economy.

10:46:00

I thank all hon. Members for making time to take part in the debate. I am disappointed that there are no plans from the Government at this stage for a national alcohol strategy. I urge the Minister to take a message back to the Department that such a strategy would be an important tool for improving health outcomes and reducing cancer diagnoses. The debate has been specifically about alcohol and cancer and how to prevent that link. Many hon. Members have personal reasons for taking part. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) has been a good friend for 20 years. I know her family well and the impact on them. She is not the only person to come to the debate with a personal motivation to drive down the harm caused by alcohol in our communities. I welcome what the Minister said about labelling, which is an important first step to reducing alcohol harms. At the moment, alcohol needs to display only alcohol by volume, product volume and allergen information; even the pregnancy warning is optional for the industry to add. Anyone going into a pub or bar in this country today to buy a bottle of beer and a Fruit Shoot, will find that the latter provides more nutritional and health information than the beer, which is unsustainable. Labelling should be clear that there is a link between alcohol and cancer, because it is easy to play that down. I believe in freedom of choice—I am not trying to restrict anyone’s right to drink alcohol, but that needs to be an informed choice. We should know that there is no safe level of drinking alcohol when it comes to its potential to cause cancer. At the moment, with only 7% of our constituents knowing that fact, they are not able to make that informed choice. I hope the Government’s actions on labelling that the Minister is taking forward will see that figure of 7% massively increase, so that our constituents will make informed choices about what they put in their bodies. I again thank everyone for making the time this morning to take part in this important debate, and I thank you, Mr Stuart, for chairing it so ably. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered alcohol and cancer.

10:49:00